I have never considered Keith O. to be anything approximating news/journalism. He speaks to a particular point of view and if that is your point of view then you will probably be entertained by how he communicates his ideas.

As to Rachel, I don't know what she is capable of because I don't think she has been able to really express what her expertise is on MSNBC. Having no control of the subject or dialogue she is merely reacting rather than taking a leading role in analyzing news.

But that is kind of my point. I don't want more mirror images of the Fox model even if they speak to my point of view (which is liberal). I believe that the best way to serve my point of view is not to have a network or newspaper or anything else blindly parrot it to the choir, but for factual reporting to be followed up by substantive analysis by people with real expertise in the specific issue being discussed.

For example, I trust that Rachel is very intelligent, but I wouldn't view her as the best source for discussing granular economic data in the same way that say Robert Reich or many others could. At the same time, she apparently has a doctorate in political science so I imagine that comes with a concentration and area of expertise that I would be very willing to hear her discuss with others who share that expertise.

Where the journalist fits in here is to moderate that discussion so that it focuses on delving into a fact based analysis that answers questions to bring a higher degree of understanding.

That said, do i think this will lead to the end of Fox--of course not. Fox and its brand of propaganda have been around for centuries (the American Revolution is in large part the result of propoganda propogated as news). But it is possible to lessen its influence and credibility and you do that by providing people with more, not less, resources to better understand the world and events. I really don't believe it is done via a spitting match where my liberal station takes on your conservative station. That will get us nowhere and we liberals are better than that.

title: The Plot Against Liberal America

Basically, The American Dream in all it's "this land is your land, this land is my land" glory is all over ... Norquist won.

link on my name

I didn't watch much msnbc or listen to much Air America once both proved so incredibly biased during the primaries, but I caught and transcribed the two examples noted in my first post in this thread (on page 7) in just a few minutes of listening/viewing to Maddow:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/21/tnr/permalink/6a0c15c9b1b901b800ea805b87217169.html

Also, after one of the debates, Maddow said that an answer Hillary gave about her Iraq AUMF vote "insults me personally." Given the consistent bashing that Hillary got from Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, and company, and the sampling of comments I've encountered, I'd be quite surprised if these are close to the only ones.

No worries. I still love you. (Apologies to Mrs. Bamage.)

while it's tempting to see Bush as the "presidential spokesmodel" (as I certainly saw him pre-09/11) and blame EVERYTHING on Cheney, Bush's temper and his "loyalty" have been responsible for taking many options off the table, adding both to the echo-chamber and to foolishly "steadfast" (stubborn) policies.

I am curious what Woodward's new book will describe.

Cheney and the GOP machine came into the white house with a highly detailed agenda of what they wanted to accomplish (defund, dismantle, neuter) at every level of government in every department and they went to work immediately. I have sensed that Cheney's mission is largely accomplished and he's not, aside from the oil, interested in Iraq (that's a done deal and he's a patient long-range thinking man) ... he's moved on to Iran, where he has been (I think) thwarted.

Bush on the other hand has apparently influenced the course in Iraq. The overall impact of the infighting between Cheney/Colin Powell versus Condi Rice is an enormous cesspool of blame for the outcomes in Iraq for historians to dissect, however, Bremer (Bush's boy) was personally responsible for what were two biggest catastrophes -- disbanding the army and debaathifications, both of which he accomplished by fiat, even though his actions were far in excess of what "the plan" was and/or his apparent authority. Yet, idiotic Bush loyalty as far as I know precluded even any discussion of removing Bremer (an idiot) or backtracking on his proclamations.

See also Homeland Security and half a dozen other agencies that have been crippled by "loyal" but unqualified or second-rate political hack appointments.

For most of the first Bush term, Bush minded his minders and advisors like a good boy ... then he got a taste for it... and his poll number plummetted and the 2008 elections reared their head.

Why isn't Obama doing better? I could scream.

Dear Glenn,

Great blog. TNR has become an old antique. The only attention it gets is from the media and it has to print something ridiculous to get even that,

Good to see Obama now blasing Fox News. Amazing to see how the media is not more critical of GOP TV (Fox).

The bias toward right-wing pundits is worse than just what they do on the air. Developed as celebrities, they're allowed to use their fame to advance right-wing causes off the air. Joe Scarborough took a week off of his MSNBC show in 2004 to campaign in Florida for President Bush, and Sean Hannity appeared at at least on fund-raiser for Rick Santorum.

Had an anchor identified as "liberal" done that, the outcry would have persisted until the anchor was fired. Because it was conservatives using their news platforms to advance specific candidates, almost no one took notice.

I highly recommend reading "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank. Salon had a rather truncated interview with the author recently which whet my appetite after which I bought the book. The central premise seems to be that conservatives, what we now call "conservatives" are in fact, descendants in mind of the old robber barons who made fortunes in rail, cotton, and other early industries who then sought the hand of a compliant state to protect their gains.In their worldview, government either exists to benefit them exclusively or it should not exist at all. So they have systematically sought to destroy any sort of good government by subverting it to serve corporate interests and expressly NOT the interests of the people. The effort to do this has become an industry in itself and has made a lot of people rich. Lobbying has become a business unto itself, Frank asserts. Nevermind morality. It's all about the dollar, which is, as anyone here will agree, as soulless a way of operating as you'll find. The other branch of this "industry" involves propaganda of the kind the New Republic is spewing regarding Rachel Maddow's new show and all things "liberal". All these terms are buzzwords now. Industry jargon. But it's all about propagating a worldview which we have collectively bought into. It sounds like the Wall Street Journal, or the Money section of USAToday, which is always watching the twitching of the markets for any sign of unrest that might affect the fortunes of the priveledged. Then they use the argument that because Corporate America is suffering, you will be too out there in Council Bluffs,IA, or Winnetka, IL or Framingham, MA. Then they blame the "liberal" media for all this economic woe. They blame our "broken immigration policy" for letting "aliens" into the country and stealing our jobs. And they use the budget knife to "trim the fat" from corporations which leads to job losses in the millions. They call it being more "efficient" and "increasing shareholder value", but it's just profiting at the expense of well...EVERYONE ELSE. Anything that threatens that accepted way of doing business is decried as "liberal" and therefore disgusting and unacceptable. And anything that challenges the underlying argument or consciousness behind this state of affairs is called "lacking in substance", read: stupid. This is why people like Barack Obama and other progressives will have a tough job ahead. It's an entire worldview that has infected our culture that has to change. Not just our politics. The soon-to-be past administration is the most nakedly obvious example of the robber-baron mentality playing itself out in the last 8 years. The reason people want change is that it has produced such far-reaching and invariably disastrous results as the mask has finally slipped off their real agenda. God knows it took long enough.