not realize they are fish, or that they are in a barrel?

Don't really know what else to say about TIME, except I'd rather they be a little less defensive and a little more useful.

They're actually the opposite of reality, because bloggers who repeatedly assert false claims will lose their credibility and readership, whereas.

I don't think that is exactly right. I am sure you would agree that there are many popular and widely read bloggers who routinely get the facts wrong and manage to maintain their vary large readerships. Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin are the two that come to mind.

I asked Karen to give examples of how Glenn makes a case but doesn't have to prove it. I hope the irony of her failure to prove her own case isn't lost on her.

(As a side note, I find her reference to Glenn as "Glennzilla" to be utterly unprofessional. It's very petty and childish, and hardly helps her credibility.)

Could you fix the first link to the Tumulty article?

Glenn, shouldn't you be using anesthetic when you do this?

I think we need to come up with some jargon or terminology that helps us on this topic. A big reason they feel justified with this kind of argument is that it is very easy to equate a block such as TPM or Altercation or Glenn Greenwald or the Daily Howler with the obnoxious and truly irresponsible blog poster that are trying to be the new Drudge by being even more outrageous than he is. They're all "blogs" aren't they? For the clueless swing voter, that's all they need to know and you can bet that Karl Rove knows that.

I never like the word "blog" to begin with, but we need a new name for this institution here. I'm at a loss for what that could be but if someone invented something that sticks that would be the single biggest contribution to the online progressive cause since it started.

and do not have to meet any standards. (Certainly some of you think that I do not!) So I can guess that what all the fuss was about:

1. Establishing a file on each person in the country, based on whatever information could be obtained easily in digital form (so it can be easily processed).

2. Ranking each person according to some evolving standard, taking care to emphasize one's enemies.

3. Subjecting all those above some threshold to complete, but automatic, electronic surveillance.

4. Depending on the results, well, whatever is appropriate.

This requires little in the way of new manpower, and only a few have to understand the entire program. (The algorithms are already mostly developed for looking at them furriners.) As computers get faster, you just keep doing more and more.

I would take the Glennzilla as a great big compliment...i think she is reffering to your impact.

Maybe you should repay her by rewarding her with a nickname too!

any suggestions?

Basically Tumulty is saying that reporting today is stenography -- as long as someone dictates or whispers something in their ears, reporters can write about it. That is their evidentiary burden. But they can't be expected to do independent research, investigation, or god forbid, critical thinking to process the information. garbage in, garbage out.

Glenn (and pardon if that Glenzilla thing was considered an insult; I've seen it used by some of your biggest fans):

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not saying you make up arguments from whole cloth. The point I was trying to make is that most of what you cite to make your arguments--and I'm a regular reader--is stuff that was originally reported in the much-maligned MSM.

I think I made that a little clearer in a subsequent post on that thread, where I said:

Ivb: But where does he get the print sources and quotes that he cites? Um, the media...? Today's installment, BTW, is based on the Gellman book, which Glenzilla too seems to find pretty eye-opening.

We do not have a news media in this country. We have The Media, an agglomeration of infotainment and propaganda. Journalists like Tumulty love to cite a higher standard that they as professionals adhere to and which we as bloggers are incapable of. But there is no content to their standard. They are professionals simply because they say they are. It's all rather like knowing the secret handshake. They're members of a self-selecting, and self-validating elite because they know it and we aren't because we don't.

For the last 8 years, we have had the worst President in our history, one great tangled mass of incompetence, cronyism, corruption, and criminality. You would think that this would be the most target rich environment for "news" people ever, that it would be the Golden Age of journalism, but the opposite has been true. Journalists have not investigated this disaster of a President. They have not spoken truth to power. They have not comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable. They have become the comfortable. They have spouted talking points and regurgitated spin. They have been cheerleaders to and enablers of the whole sick enterprise. This has been their true job. Yet they bristle when we describe them so. Perhaps it's just modesty. More likely, it's because they feel threatened.

Karen linked to the second installment of a WaPo excerpt of Bart Gellman's book. It apparently contains a lot of discussion about Davis Addington, the NSA spying program and the "Hospital Room scene."

Is there any chance that this will draw more attention to the issue and actually cause anyone to investigate what the actual objections Mr. Ashcroft might have had?

I didn't think so......

And If I may C/P my initial reaction to KT's comment:

One of the things Glenn does reasonably carefully is separate what can be known from what is inferred. There's certainly nothing stopping any other journalist from doing the same thing. The only thing holding them back is the potential pushback from officials and the drying up of sources.

Of course we can look at the NYT coverage of McCain's relationship with Vicki Iseman to see how too much innuendo and not enough reporting can indeed have bad consequences, but I do remain convinced that this NSA matter is ripe for the picking if someone would have the courage to pursue it.