But you still inhabit the little Disneyland

Of your little Mickey Mouse personal computer...

That is feasible?

You have to be the dumbest person who has ever poster here. And that's really saying something.

What's the alternative? What would all the critics of Gregory here like to see instead - that is feasible?

What I want I can't find in broadcast or print media, which is why I am here and not there. Maybe which is why the print media, and some elements of the broadcast media, are dying a slow, inexorable death. Apparently, I'm not alone.

Don't shoot your own foot

Your arguments are all cigarette ash

And the arches of your feet

Just always crumble into cheap soot..

There's the rub. When you live in fantasy land one doesn't have to consider the limitations of reality. Feasible is a dirty word, and self-absorption rules.

-- shooter242

Joe Klein is an MSM stronghold at Time Magazine and as a pundit on TV, is he not? Well he was quite blatant and honest in his critisizm of the Israeli government recently. He was excoriated by certain grossly dishonest neocon types, not unlike you. He rapidly and relentsly told them in no uncertain terms to stop their gawdamned gaming and lying. He did that in Time Magazine. So, Sh**ter, it is possible to tell the truth in the MSM and live to tell about it. But have it your way if you must. Continue to lie and defend those who also lie. You're a transparently dishonest fool so it's too late for you to become anything other than that anyway.

See Jane Hamsher's post:The Third Rail of Israel Cools in the Blogoshere:

http://firedoglake.com/

Shooter242

That is feasible?

You have to be the dumbest person who has ever poster here. And that's really saying something.

-- omooex

----------It was I who asked what is feasible, given that it was pointed out that government people wouldn't come on the Meet the Press type programs if they were interviewed the way people here would like (or at least the way Gregory was being reviled for not doing).

I don't know from Shooter, but it sounds like you're dumping on him inappropriately. What's your point? (Or your solution to this dilemma being discussed?)

I think there is something to be said for seeing these people (Rice, Axelrod, etc.) up close and listening to their words, even if the interviewer was uncritical. The interviewing and the critiquing would have to be separate media functions, and it's unreasonable to expect that one person would do both (esp. on the same program). Probably unreasonable that they could be done by the same person on different occasions (I wouldn't come on your program and be treated nicely if I knew you were going to rip me to shreds later...)

Mr. Greenwald, you should be commended for writing pieces of this nature when even the slightest criticism of Israel can fuel charges of anti-Semitism. Also, I'm all for the press doing its job, but at some point the American people have to take responsibility for injecting some common sense into their choices, regardless of what the journalists are saying. The fact remains that Bush's arrogance, deceit and much of his lawlessness were well known by 2004, and yet he was re-elected. Even though the press by and large blew it, what followed can't all be laid at their feet.

There's the rub. When you live in fantasy land one doesn't have to consider the limitations of reality. Feasible is a dirty word, and self-absorption rules.

-- shooter242

There you go again scooter. Projecting again. You wouldnt know reality if it bit you in the ass. And we all wish it would.

As for a better host of MTP, how about Helen Thomas or Keith Olbermann?

We wouldn't we wouldn't wanna be "critical"

Not me

Not you.

Shooter, sorry. Wychwood beat you to the "stupidest person" award today. But I'm sure you'll be coming back strong any minute now.

Whychwood. You assume that the point is having high powered political personages interviewed. That's not the goal. The goal is to give people the clearest and least filtered--or at least honestly filtered--information possible. What good is it to have Axelrod on, and indeed, he is one of the lowest people in the Obama inner circle--a person almost anyone could ask hard questions of without having to offend the sensibilities of Barack himself--if all he does is use the moment as a PR exercise. Let them use their own resources for PR. In the meantime, there is no shortage of knowledgeable and experienced people to interview. They don't have to be Bush or Cheney or Axelrod or Obama. I don't actually see any value in an interview of someone like that.

As for interviewing Tzipi Livni--do you honestly believe that giving Livni such a free podium, one that is edited to remove any data that may be off message, does anyone any good? Do you believe taht's the best we can do?

Where have you been for the past eight years?

Sir Thomas Browne-URNE BURIAL.

What songs the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond all conjecture. What time the persons

of these OSSUARIES entered the-

FAMOUS NATIONS OF THE DEAD.

And slept with Princes, Counsellors,

might admit a wide solution.

But who were proprieties,

OF THESE BONES,

or what bodies,

these ashes

made up.

Not to be resolved by man/women, nor easily perhaps by spirits, except we consult the

PROVINCIAL GUARDIAN, or tutelary Observations. Had they made as good provision for their names, as they had done for their Reliquiae (Fossil remains), they had not so grossly erred in the art of perpetuation.

But to subsist in bones, and be but Pyramidally extant, is a fallacy in duration. VAIN ASHES,

which in the oblivion of names, person, times, and sexes, have found themselves a FRUITLESS CONTINUATION, and only rises into late posterity, as EMBLEMS,

MOTAL VANITIES:

Antidotes against pride,

vainglory, and madding

VICES. (apologies for CAPS)