I was one of those angered by Clinton's comment. The threats to Sen. Obama's personal security are very real, and her comment, whether intentional or not, seemed to me to paint a bull's-eye on Obama's back.

This article may explain these concerns:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9102

I know this is tangential to your thoughts--which deal with slanted media coverage, not individual reactions to her comments.

I'm with you on both accounts. Conspiracy theories have been around forever, but for shows like the X-Files and 24, surely such "theories" (because they aren't theories so much as frameworks, eh?) wouldn't be so popular. Why, just the other day on NPR's Talk of the Nation, some caller suggested that Bush's mishandling of the economy was part of a greater conspiracy to give the nouveau riche their come-uppance.

As for ignorance, a few semesters ago I gave an ethical problem to my class to discuss. The case involved a former East German (and current German) bureaucrat who suspended pension payments to a former SS man who was in jail in Germany, even though it was the policy of the German government to continue to make payments to said SS men. One student asked me--in all seriousness--"Where is East Germany?" I am not making this up.

They both are still cops. There are no liberals and no conservatives - those are bogus terms. There are propagandists and news readers.

A&E has a cop show called 48, You can watch the good cop, bad cop game being played. The good cop will get the guilty parites to confess and implicate their pals with the threat of a murder one charge if they don't fess up. So they do and they help the cops make the case against their pals in hope of getting a lesser charge. Then all of them are charged with murder one and prosecuted.

Liberal and conservative just a con to get you to think you have a choice and a chance. Your choice is what the defense industry gives you, war from a "liberal" or war from a "conservative".

Here is the bill - let your grandkids pay it off for you.

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton is what passes as a "liberal" these days and he makes Nixon look like a Green Party candidate.

Come on Glenn, who owns MSNBC?

"Watching them on MSNBC, I'm reminded how many Buchanans are represented in the chattering class, yet how few Maddows there are, tacking to the Democrats’ left. And if you think the party’s nominee is left-wing, you haven't heard a progressive pundit lately."

really? there are more anti war america first conservatives out there? I can't think of one. certainly not on tv.

name another prominent talking head who was arguing forcefully AGAINST the iraq war before it started.

there was just one I can recall and that was patrick Buchanan. and he continues to oppose the neocons while the democrats are ready to make hillary the vp and invade south ossetia

haven't finished it yet ...

=========================================================

Glenn, I watch Olbermann on occasion, mostly for the sensational crap with pictures the internet doesn't capture, but just another bloviating "talking head" to me now -- in Chris Matthews' league -- and I was a fan since back his evening 1/2 hour sports program on CBS in Los Angeles in the 1980s (irrc). He blew my trust.

I'm sorry, I was utilizing the Dead Sea Scrolls for my analysis. Damn Christian sectarianism! I hope HE wasn't offended. I must don my hairshirt post-haste.

The old school media's pushback against the hiring of liberal commentators is akin to their dislike for progressive bloggers. Progressive commentators, like progressive blogs, are part of a reality based community that strives for direct answers to prescient questions of the day through fact checking and research.

This dynamic is completely unworkable for a 24 hour news channel absent considerable costs and resources. The goal of the 24 hour news channel is simply to create 24 hours of programming a day, everyday. And while direct answers and facts are pleasant, they take a terribly short time to report when compared with the endless debate one can have with regards to an open ended question. The result is a media environment where facts and answers are to be avoided even when available so as to not limit the potential for mindless debate. Injecting facts and answers into a debate, which progressives like Maddow consistently attempt to do, effectively destroys the debate driven dynamic of our current media. How can anyone expect CNN to stage 10 hours of faux talkinghead debates about the short term benefits of offshore drilling if a progressive like Maddow is allowed to inform the public via a primetime show that there are no short term benefits to offshore drilling? Come on people, they have 24 hours to fill here.

Snark aside, it is manifest that facts are destructive to a well spun media narrative. The traditional media knows this and thus avoids reporting facts at all costs. This dynamic is just fine with Conservative Republicans who couldn't survive as a party in the face of an informed electorate. Progressive Democrats from the "new media" don't play by the same rules and the traditional media's reaction is to exclude and marginalize progressive voices. Anything less and the whole media dynamic is threatened. The media pushback against progressive is simply a reactionary function of self preservation.

The pushback from print journalists like the one cited in Glen's piece is also driven in part by the need for self preservation, but for a slightly different reason. Anyone who works in an office knows that the employee who stays late and arrives early tends to make the entire office look bad by highlighting the ineptitude and complacenty of the other employees. Progressive commentators like Maddow play this role in the "journalist" office, highlighting the flaws and errors of their media counterparts. Maddows presence is threatening in that she clearly and concisely informs the public regarding topical issues, the same issues the complacent print journalists are tasked with writing about. Generally speaking, the more informed their readership, the more difficult it is for the folks at TNR to print substance free articles parroting whatever talking points they have been fed by their sources. The Joe Klein FISA fiasco is a great example of this dynamic. Klein was made to look like a fool when he published a substance free article on a topic his readership knew far more about than Klein himself.