Again, I said it appears that Russert was a good guy.

But that's not the same as being a good journalist. He never had a good record when it came to being really tough on the powers that be. Especially when it came to the GOP.

He wasn't ever tough on anyone in the government or the corporate world, but he was tougher on Dems overall.

He stacked the deck repeatedly against them by bringing on more conservatives than liberals. He was terrible in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. He was terrible when it came to the Bush secret surveillance program. He was terrible when it came to the Libby/Plamegate scandal.

Nice guy, sure. Respected by his peers, certainly. By all accounts, great family guy, etc.

But he wasn't really a journalist. Again, he never did the real, deep, serious, tough investigative reporting of a Dana Priest, a Ron Suskind, a Naomi Klein, a Seymour Hersh, a Matt Taibbi. He never did the in-depth reporting of someone like Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater, or this great piece of journalism about Smithfield farms by Jeff Tietz:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/vr8vn

90% of mainstream journalism, especially on TV, is really all about protecting the status quo and the Establishment in general. The MSM IS the Establishment. They go to the same schools, parties, functions, roasts, etc. They know each other. They know each other too well. Politicians and corporate bosses have to go waaaaay over the line before their friends in the Media expose them. Everything short of that is not exposed.

The Press should be on a permanent mission to expose ALL abuse of power, all corporate malfeasance, and everything that has the potential to hurt the lives of Americans and the rest of the world. It must do that accurately, sticking to the facts, using verifiable evidence, etc. It should be like that 24/7. It should be a Watchdog, not a lapdog, to borrow an overused metaphor.

Right now, they're all pals, buds, friends. You can't do good reporting on your friends.

(The exception, of course, being Faux News and its spinoffs. Which does meet part of the criteria by being truly adversarial -- if the Dems hold power. They're the worst kind of lapdog when the GOP is in power. Trouble is, they make shit up, either way, so they blow the most important thing: truth and accuracy in reporting)

"Come on, virtue. Just admit it. This isn't about women at all. It never, ever was. This is about politics, pure and simple."

Actually, it's about fairness, pure and simple, my friend. This kind of duplicity would be easy to correct if only Joan cared enough about it to hire an ombudsman. Most reputable journalistic outlets keep themselves honest and accountable this way. It's a simple fix. But I don't expect Joan ever will.

Didn't she step on an ant today? Or pop a pimple? Or pick her nose? Is there NOTHING you can find to smack her over the head with today?!!!

Interesting that the Palin fanboys talk incessantly about her, shower her with uncritical, unconditional love, repeatedly, endlessly . . . yet complain that others talk too much about her.

If you compare time spent, word count and energy used in defense of your idol, it would dwarf the time, word count and energy expended by her critics.

It's not even close.

For every article critical of Palin, her fanboys will write a hundred times more in her defense.

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Fairness? Bullshit.

You're upset for ideological reasons. It has nothing to do with fairness or women's rights. You're not fooling anyone.

And you're also not willing to do what you ask others to do.

That's hypocrisy. And it's blatant.

When you start being an equal opportunity defender of women, all women across the political spectrum, and not just women on the right, then perhaps you'll gain the cred to complain about Salon's ethics.

Until then, you just sound transparently partisan, whiny and childish.

Just some samples from our egalitarian virtue001 (this took 5 minutest to find):

you're sounding awfully perimenopausal today. Could yesterday's primary results have something to do with it?5-7-08

Jimmy G ripped you a new one yesterday, dogface. He picked your stack of lies clean and got to the truth.

"It ain't over till Cankles cackles...

Now poor old Hillary will have to scratch and claw, which will only make her more unattractive. I sure hope she doesn't resort to that shrill fingernails-on-the-blackboard caterwauling" 1-4-2008

"I couldn't agree with Mike Barnicle more. How Joan interprets this as a statement designed to "dance on Hillary's grave" is a rather transparent testament to her dogged (or should I say lap dog) support of the Hildabeast"1-7-2008

Joan, as you witness Obama supporters booing and jeering the Hildabeast as she gives her acceptance speech. 1-18-2008

She's just so nineties. The pants suit. The caterwauling. The unguided missile of a husband. The scandals. The baggage. Oy vey. Enough already. 2-22-08

The Hildabeast is dead. But she refuses to lie down. Which is delightful news for John McCain. Because day by day Hillary plods on, destroying the party and cackling about it. 3-29-08

Yeah, THAT'S what we need in the White House next year -- a dumpy, cackling psychotic in a pants suit and her albatross of a husband!3-29-08

Well done!!

Thanks. You've exposed the hypocrisy of virtue001 in the most effective way. Right from the horse's own . . . mouth.

;>)

Errr... not so well done, guys. Not at all. All you've proven is that I loathe Hillary. Although, I must admit, she looks like a lot better an alternative to me these days as Obama continues to shoulder our grandchildren and their grandchildren with our debt.

But the major difference that remains is really rather obvious: I'm just a guy with an opinion. End of story. Salon, however, is supposed to be a responsible, accountable journalistic outlet. Only they're not. Which is why even the thought of an ombudsman scares the hell out of Joan. Sorry, but you haven't destroyed my argument for a news outlet acting in an evenhanded manner when it comes to matters of misogyny or any matters at all. You've simply discovered something I'm already on record about and continue to stand by -- that I loathed Hillary Clinton's behavior during her presidential campaign. And BTW, this is also something that was not uncommon here at Salon during that time period. In fact, reader's were savaging Joan for her defense of Hillary back then. Are you pretending not to remember that? Were you a part of it? Perhaps you should rifle through your own letters. Or better yet -- get a life, my friends.

My posts as "a guy with an opinion" on Hillary have absolutely nothing to do with Salon's utter failure to act responsibly and accountably on the issues. So big whoop.