Chomsky's lecture on concision is something every media consumer should watch. In three short minutes (dare I say, concise!) he explains why mainstream television news sucks. It's a must-see.

What a pleasure to hear someone speak in complete-- and cogent-- paragraphs!

Without cable, I haven't seen the Maddow interview yet, but will check out the link.

you don't read through all the comments on the previous thread - yowser, man, the Moyers segment, especially, was outstanding. You rock.

I saw you on both and I agree. Obviously Moyers function before he was fired by w and after he came back, was to take an in depth approach--and he lets the interviewee speak. He is not required to look at the clock. Which is why I also enjoy the C_SPAN format on the weekends.

I always felt the 'media' (whatever that is) was set up for conservatives, not just because of an informal fairness doctrine that gives lip service to both sides (whatever that means)but because they are damn good at sound bites.

Moyers proved with you last night, that issues can be discussed in depth with reference to some history, some facts. Life is complicated and Disney's directive to cartoonists to shorten and exaggerate does nothing to help the spread of information.

What is fascinating to me is the play between the web and TV and it is great. Professionals like Greenwald & Walsh and even those from TPM, Daily Beast and Politico have a hand on the pulse of many people. And I see them all on cable news. It is much more refreshing that just listening to the same talking points, over and over.

Thank you.

...to friends and family members who can't figure out what kind of eccentric I've turned into. You articulate my viewpoint far better than I can (I know, I've tried to explain it to them!)

It's sad that in my family, a passion for defending the Constitution is regarded not as patriotism, but as extremism that embarrasses the relatives.

Your television appearances are vital. Too many people won't bother to read, but they're happy to sit in front of the idiot box. I'm glad you plan to continue the discussion with Moyers in January.

And like another commenter, my husband and I also appreciated your eloquence and the ease with which you articulated your thoughts.

Saw both segments, and agree that while both shows are good, Maddow's pace is more difficult.

PBS can be criticized for many things, but one must give them credit for Moyer's show. A lot of credit.

You really did well, GG.

Glenn,

The contrast you point out between the Moyers and the Maddow shows can be extended into the format of blogs like UT. Even thought it was only 25 minutes, I felt that the Moyers interview was really only just getting started when it ended, and as you point out, part of the intended subject area didn't get covered.

On the other hand, the blog format, and your preferred posting of only one or two pieces a day, allows for a much more extended conversation that can stretch for over a day on a single topic. Many more voices are included and the special beauty is that the research goes on in a cooperative way throughout the day as various people pursue minithreads and come back with evidence to support their theses.

Still, given those constraints on both the Maddow and Moyers formats, you did a tremendous job of inserting into both a viewpoint that is much needed in the political discussion of the day. Like many of the others here, I hope to see much more of this in the days to come.

I remember the day I accidently turned on the Bill Moyers when he interviewed Joseph Campbell.

I kept thinking:`Who's Bill Moyers talking to? I'd read about the rare Joseph Cambell. Cool.

Cambell was educated at Columbia University, and also studied in Paris and Munich. He edited the great Indologist Heinrich Zimmerman, Posthumously, the volumes of Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks.

He got my attention.

He authored:`The Mask of God.

The Mythic Image, The Fool (hero) With A Thousand Faces, etc., O, And Myths To live By, etc.,

The same Moyers? This is the same Bill Moyers? Bill moyers is handsome. heh. He was a theologian, and then turned journalist? Great. `Next, I hope Glenn will make a DVD low-budget movie about silly comments. I say:`It's about time Bill Moyers interviewed one honest lawyer.

I'll go dig some fruit trees. okay.

Serious. That is good news. yeti.

Glenn, Ya need to wear bib Genes.

No need a haircut. Grow a goatee.

Fix the title.

I watched Bill Moyers' Journal last night and found the interview to be quite engaging. Glenn, you did a good job of explaining the issues, and I enjoyed learning a bit more about your background and how you got to this point from your earlier law practice.

I'd missed the Maddow segment until you posted it here, but I've seen her show several times (and at least one of your prior appearances on it). I've got to tell you, I don't really care for her MSNBC show at all. I suppose her current format works, along with Olberman's, to serve as the left's versions of Fox News' popular shows, but I guess I'm either too old or not ADD enough to appreciate them.

Contrasting the shows, I find that Moyer's format with its fewer interruptions and quiet, unpretentious style feeds my brain while Maddow's format almost seems to short circuit my brain as it works directly to manipulate my emotions. Not to pick on Maddow; this is typical of these types of Soundbite City shows where the goal is to get someone to say something that triggers the audience's righteous outrage. It's worked really well for Fox over the past several years. Watching Moyers is like reading an article in something like the New Yorker, where they don't limit the articles to a single page with lots of pictures. MSNBC's shows are, not quite tabloid, but more like that magazine The Week.

(P.S. to GG: you've got a typo at the end of the paragraph right before the line introducing the Maddow clip where you meant to type "challenging.")