Hannity, Olderman, all the others. It's just a Hatfields vs. McCoys bitch fest.

If you are a Hatfield, or a McCoy, you might not see it that way. Too bad for you.

Classic Example: keith olderman spends significant time on his show ripping Bill O'Reilly and Rish Limbaugh. Neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh hold public office. They do not set policy.

Why do you watch one pompous ass smear another, if not for entertainment?

It ain't journalism.

Classic Example: keith olderman spends significant time on his show ripping Bill O'Reilly and Rish Limbaugh. Neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh hold public office. They do not set policy.

-- NotOrbitBoy

As far as I know very, very few who post comments here "holds public office" or "sets policy" either. But for some reason most of us think that discussing policy amongst ourselves might have some impact on how policy is set. Why do you comment? Just to blow it out your ear?

"Amazing that there are still so many people who see the entire world through -- every last square inch of it -- exclusively through the prism of their specific preference in the Obama v. Hillary wars (Hard-core Obama fanatics now think that Chris Matthews and other Hilary-haters are exemplars of great journalism and hard-core Hillary fanatics think that Fox is Fair and Balanced)."

I am surprised you are surprised that so many people who see the entire world through the prizm of their specific preference in the "Obama v. Hillary wars." There is nothing new here and you especially should not be amazed. We all see the world through our own colored glasses and there is no pretense of objectivity. We are not obligated to sit through one hour listening to Keith Olbermann savagely tore into Hillary Clinton that we passionately support or Bill O'Reilly, who used to be a tabloid anchor person with "Hard Copy" brutally day after day tear into Obama we passionately believe in.

Just as O'Reilly has right-wing "ditto heads" flocking to his show to hear him tear into "liberals who have brought Anerican culture down", you see liberals tuning every night to get their daily dose of Bush-bashing from Olberman. There is a reason, Olbermann, Mathews et al chose to side with Obama over Clinton even though they are all liberals. One has the demographics of hippie young people, the one advertisers want on his side, the other is an over the Hill (pardon the pun) woman cheered on by the over 65s. So, where once most of these liberals were all watching Olbermann, they are now in two separate camps. That is how it ought to be. They definitely know where their bread is buttered and go overboard to please their base where saying "screw" you to those on the other side. There is no mystery here

to add -- I feel strongly that the treatment of Hillary Clinton has acted as a serious "wake-up call" and tonic for old time feminists ..

and I consider myself one.

Ya know, I'm an old time feminist, too, but I haven't been asleep since the 60's; needing to be magically "awakened" by Hillary's campaign. Sure there's sexism and agism around; they have been all along -- and less restricting now than then. But some of us just plowed on anyway, lived our lives, and dealt with these issues as they arose. For us, the cries of "Sexism!" awakened us only to what seemed to be the cynical use of this issue by the Clinton campaign, to gain the sympathy and support of older women (a group I'm sure identified by Mark Penn with his "micro-trend" polling).

I had trouble choosing between Obama and Clinton because there didn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between their centrist policies. Ruled out Clinton because she ran a chaotic and "ruthless" (to use your word) campaign. Supported Obama because he at least seemed able to run a smooth, well-organized campaign and excited younger voters who got involved in politics.

Kind of interesting in regard to KO and Maddow that they started out quite neutral or leaning toward Clinton but seemed to have problems with her campaign (and husband). I put up with the silliness in KO's program because he's not afraid to talk truth to power, as does Maddow. Don't see how any feminist - male or female - would have problems with Maddow, an articulate, bright, well-educated and well-informed woman with a sense of humor -- unless they're threatened by women with those qualities.

I appreciated Glenn's addressing some media issues that really bug me and I thought he did it well. When I hit the comments (didn't have the fortitude to read them all) thought I'd fallen into another blog. Some folks are so tied up in right and left and conservative and liberal that they miss the central issue, i.e., honesty vs. lies and distortions in the service of ratings and other corporate agendas. Also don't understand the complaints about KO and Maddow not presenting a well-rounded, serious "news program." That not what they do, and I for one get most of my news elsewhere. What they were hired for and do well is politics. As for Matthews and the rest of the middle-school locker room crew -- best avoided. They're scared of women - especially the smart ones.

Dear Glenn,

Thank you for all your fine work. Your post comes in a week when Mikhail Gorbachev also observed how the neo-con propagandists have overrun our "free press" and distort to their agenda with extremist slant. Never thought I would see a Russian President lay that one on the American press and have to agree with him. Quite a sad day for us.

For me, one of the early breaking points was after one of the Bush/Kerry debates David Brooks said he thought Bush had "won" the debate because he kept repeating his main point. I knew that Brooks was not stupid so the only explanation was that he was a stooge and the whole MSM was just a put on--an ugly, manipulative put on. The phrase that best captured the nature of these frauds is "Goebbels in Red Shoes".

A closing thought on what the extremists attempt with their manipulation with their hateful slander of the word "liberal". Its political origination coming from John Stuart Mill's On Liberalism and laying the groundwork for modern democracy and the template for the United States Constitution. To hear these "serious" thinkers defame this fine man's philosophy and great contribution to humanity is as profound an intellectual crime as all the other intellectual crimes they commit combined. So if it were just that well then that would be one thing, but their moral depravity in tandem with their intellectual dishonesty makes them truly evil.

Maybe with the money they are paid to help the war machine kill other people's children they could go out and buy some character although they might not know what to do with it.

Very truly yours,

Conrad C. Elledge