Ana Marie Cox is a national treasure.

I don't think the press is held to any standard. So it is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The press is really mostly supposed to report facts. Facts. But that makes the job incredibly boring. There is no way to get personal spin involved. It isn't fun, or cool. And it's work. So instead, we have everything from extensions of political campaigns and parties to soap opera writers. Dime store novelists giving us their story of the news. Just the language of political campaigns suggesting whether the press has been: tough enough insufficiently tough expected to be tough on one candidacy or another is sad. The expectation is that the press will simply report the facts, as many relevant ones about the candidacies that they can. Not the steamy sides of personal lives, or who is cooler one to hang out with. Just facts. But, for reasons above, no one is going to hold the press accountable to the other standard (the one that gets us information). We are going to get People Magazine-style "news". Oh well.

Arrgh and woof. V difficult for this bruin of v few neurons to wait for the next phrase to unwind. If it’s a matter of time taken in editing, please take your time and do it right; too counter-communicative otherwise.
My question for you kids is: Does the disconnect in the unreality-based press lie in the shift of which we are here a part to a wide-open broadband distribution of news and information, multiplying available sources well beyond exponentially, without the decay that follows loss of interest in the press-and-TV model. It means among other things that the press is now experiencing accountability in a new way. It also signifies a corresponding shift in leadership. While the traditional sources have adapted and survive as primary sources, their inability to judge changes of cultural weather has come more clearly into focus because the electronic organism is more agile and multifaceted.
The evident conclusion is that the emessem is being brought face-to-face with its flawed preoccupation with spin to the exclusion of what at best is its finest skill, listening and asking questions. Spin is a sign of times

Quoting ed fielding: While the traditional sources have adapted and survive as primary sources, their inability to judge changes of cultural weather has come more clearly into focus because the electronic organism is more agile and multifaceted.

Since you "have been around" so to speak, I am wondering what you think of this headline from the "emessem" of its day: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.

Hey, I was just learning to read then. But yes, I thought of going into the long history of journalistic misjudgment. A venerable byword. But going on as I did, I confined myself to its oblique suggestion in speaking of a finer focus on it. The force of the demand for rigor has never had such leverage as it does now, with the possibility of pursuing stories and trustworthy opinion broadened beyond the horizon which has itself broadened in many ways unimaginable not long ago.
Ditto on the Ana Marie Cox issue.
’Nother issue raised was Obama’s coolness with the press. Can this properly be seen as yet another break with customary political culture? That cosiness with the press will compromise their impartial judgment? He is certainly threatened with, yes, a cult of personality; it looks as if he may not only be bright enough to see the danger clearly but also to dodge it. I understand that many will think me a fool, but I think that thus far the message he’s sending successfully is that it’s only about him by blessed coincidence, that the other Illinoian of note is his fundamental model, in modesty as

Another way-decent diavlog, though it only goes so far in turning over the boulder of journalism and noticing all the creepy-crawly ugly facts showing the press is just as unworthy of trust as every other herd animal on the public stage. JF was way more "on" and entertaining than in his last DV. AMC was cheerfully interesting and decently incisive at least half the time. A few gems: On the Cult Mind's Disinterest in Relevant Facts On Why, Absent Decent Scrutiny, Obama Seems So Clean (Just wait till, in the General, the Republicans come up with some Chicago home boy who claims Obama was not just "using," but also "selling.") The Self-Protective Instincts of the Press The Inside Joke About Why Journalism Itself is a Joke On Why the Herd-Fool Mentality of the Press Is Murderously Consequential EW

Wow! For once, a diavlog with Jon Fine doesn't just meander aimlessly for a painful 90 minutes before its final, merciful dying whimper! I suppose we should give the credit to AMC, who seemed a reasonably worthy addition to BHtv, though she's certainly no Matt Yglesias (or Ross or Reihan or Will Wilkinson). I do wish he had actually explained why he thinks Obama's apparent cleanness must be the result of the press's lack of diligence. What is the evidence that they haven't done their homework? It simply begs the question if he's just assuming that that MUST be the explanation. I'm afraid that on the basis of his BHtv appearances alone, I find Fine to be a real reporter's reporter: incapable of thinking logically for even one application of modus ponens. He has his reactions, but they don't seem to be based on evidence or argument. How he can function as a media critic, I can't imagine.

Quoting Eastwest: . . .

(Just wait till, in the General, the Republicans come up with some Chicago home boy who claims Obama was not just "using," but also "selling.")

. . .

EW

I highly doubt it. And I highly doubt any such source would be credible. What they are going to do, is remind the middle voter that Obama, as Chief Law Enforcer, is someone who actually used cocaine. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that any of the 19th century presidents used illegal substances. Indeed, at one time all one had to do was walk into a proto-pharmacy and purchase these items. But in the here-and-now, "coke" is considered bad news. And I won't rush to put a percentage on the number of voters who feel that way, but could easily see that it would exceed 50%. I can hear and see the ad now: "Who is Obama?" "A man who has admitted that in his younger days he used illegal drugs such as cocaine . . ." And they will have his "fro" picture from the 1980s flashing across the screen, first in black and white, then transforming into color. (The technique that is used in movies to insinuate that a past thing is being brought

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I suppose we should give the credit to AMC, who seemed a reasonably worthy addition to BHtv, though she's certainly no Matt Yglesias (or Ross or Reihan or Will Wilkinson).

I don't know - I tend to agree about the quality of the diavloggers you compared her to. (I'd add Mark Schmitt and a few others to the list.) I thought that as an observer of process and personality - a boots on the ground reporter, as opposed someone whose policy preferences and analysis are what's interesting - she was excellent. I think a direct comparison could be made to Garance, except that Cox presents better than GFR does, generally seems more comfortable in the presence of a camera.

Quoting AemJeff: I think a direct comparison could be made to Garance, except that Cox presents better than GFB does, generally seems more comfortable in the presence of a camera.

She isn't pretentious, as Garance F-R can get from time to time. (Not like I am saying that women get their own special category separate from the guys.)

Ross, Reihan, and Will W.? Bloggin' Noggin' is like the Mickey Kaus of commenters! Sure, you say you're a liberal, but what do those three have in common, huh? Huh?! Seriously, much love for Bloggin'. And Mickey.

Props to J.Fine and Wonkette for their humility and whit. Perhaps the failure to be moved by evidence of one's inability to explain or predict is a generational affliction, as evidenced by some of the baby boomer intellectual deadwood that clings to life in America due to their favorable timing relative to dying institutions like tenure and print.

umm.....Wah?!

Quoting Bobby G: Ross, Reihan, and Will W.? Bloggin' Noggin' is like the Mickey Kaus of commenters! Sure, you say you're a liberal, but what do those three have in common, huh? Huh?!

Seriously, much love for Bloggin'. And Mickey.

They have in common the ability to think logically and insightfully and present their thoughts in a way I find enlightening. They tend to present evidence for their views and take into account the fact that many of their listeners dont' start off automatically agreeing with all of their assumptions -- unlike John Fine and most of the dunderheads that seem to pass for "journalists". I believe I mentioned Matt Y too. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't judging on the basis of politics. In response to Jeff, I didn't have any problem with AMC, except that she didn't seem to challenge Fine's conventional wisdom enough -- or explain to the viewer why his conventional wisdom really was wisdom. She tries a bit on the question of whether the press has fully vetted Obama, but she quickly gives in when he just reasserts his position strongly. Still, I give her credit for making this diavlog watchable, unlike Fine's other attempts. If we're going to have separate categories among diavloggers, sure, I think

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: They have in common the ability to think logically and insightfully and present their thoughts in a way I find enlightening.

I always felt Ann Althouse was great in this regard. The problem with American Intellectuals is that they all fit---and try to fit---into these set formats for what an Intellectual should be. After a while, this gets very boring. I would rather just listen to what people have to say without having to feel they are litmus testing their views. The quintessential Western Intellectual used to say whatever they concluded, and the test was whether their rationale would have passed muster with what we think the ancient Greeks meant. Now, it seems they try to conform to some standard created in the 1950s, around the time Adlai Stevenson was big on the Democratic stage. I think European intellectuals do much better in this regard.

Quoting Hoofin: I always felt Ann Althouse was great in this regard. The problem with American Intellectuals is that they all fit---and try to fit---into these set formats for what an Intellectual should be.

After a while, this gets very boring.

I would rather just listen to what people have to say without having to feel they are litmus testing their views.

The quintessential Western Intellectual used to say whatever they concluded, and the test was whether their rationale would have passed muster with what we think the ancient Greeks meant.

Now, it seems they try to conform to some standard created in the 1950s, around the time Adlai Stevenson was big on the Democratic stage.

I think European intellectuals do much better in this regard.

I'm not really clear what you're talking about. I asked for some kind of evidence or logical argument or insight (or at least some sense of organization, which was totally lacking from Fine's earlier appearances). If asking for at least one of those things counts as demanding that everyone fit into some single boring mold developed in the 1950s (before I was born, by the way), then

"Who is Obama?" "A man who has admitted that in his younger days he used illegal drugs such as cocaine . . ." I doubt McCain will want illegal drug use to be an issue in any campaign. His wife, Cindy has a record with illegal drug use that seems to go far beyond a youthful lack of judgement. At the time she was raising four young children and committed several crimes in the attempt to get the drugs to which she was addicted. In fact Obama might just respond with a discussion of the difference in how she was treated vs. what would have happened if he had been busted with coke. Even if one argues that this is the candidate's wife and not the candidate you have the issue of how does she get off so easily.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/021400-102.htm

Chris Mathews appeared to be trying to start the tide last night. He had an Obama supporter from Texas on and decided to play "Hardball" and asked the supporter to name Obama's legislative achievements. The guest had nothing to say and Matthews smiled at his little victory. Then Keith Olberman pointed out that Chris probably couldn't name any legislative achievements of anyone in the Senate. Matthews reminded Olberman that "this is Hardball, and an Obama supporter should be able to name some of his legislative achievements". Olberman then reminded Matthews that it WASN'T "Hardball", it was in fact, the polling results show. It was quite a battle of egos. The truth is that Obama's campaign should have made sure their representative was better prepped. Although Obama passed few federal laws, he did alot at the state level, and his rep should have been able to steer the question into that direction of Obama's favor. Of course, there's no guarantee that the MSM will follow Matthews' lead, because frankly, it didn't make Matthews look particularly good. It looked like intended "gotcha" journalism. But it's definitely a sign of what's to come, from the GOP.

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...1&out=00:23:51 Wouldn't the correct term be the "Rom-bus"? Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Tip your bartenders.

uncle eb:

Wouldn't the correct term be the "Rom-bus"?

You're such a square, if a little bit skewed.

ohc: Interesting find. I did not know this. Of course, it's not an issue for me. Matter of fact, I'm more worried about someone's lack of life experience if (s)he hasn't done drugs.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/021400-102.htm
I agree with you. I do think people who worry so much about what is in Obama's past should take a long hard look at McCain. He is the politician that I feel has been given the biggest pass for years. Even if the MSM decides to continue overlooking his problems, I feel certain the blogs aren't going to allow Obama to be smeared without tit for tat.

Obama should be grateful to Matthews - this is going to be a weakness for him, and having it forcefully pointed out now, rather than well into the general, is likely to be helpful. If Obama's campaign is as good as it seems to be, they'll find a way to answer the charge before it becomes a serious obstacle. If they can't, then they're probably not good enough to win.

Quoting ohcomeon: I do think people who worry so much about what is in Obama's past should take a long hard look at McCain. He is the politician that I feel has been given the biggest pass for years. Even if the MSM decides to continue overlooking his problems, I feel certain the blogs aren't going to allow Obama to be smeared without tit for tat.

Totally agree. I am very thankful for the blogosphere on the St. Maverick McStraightTalk issue -- the MSM has been terrible on this. I give McCain credit for playing them so successfully, but it really has been a long eight years of uncritical coverage. I'm not sure whether it's correlation or causation, but I am finally starting to see just a bit of skepticism about McCain in the MSM. I'd like to think the blogosphere has something to do with this. It's going to take a lot more work, though. This issue again illustrates what Timothy Crouse first pointed out, way back in 1972: the media is so concerned about being seen as "liberal" that they tend to bend over backwards when covering conservatives, and tend to overcompensate for their own tastes when

Quoting bjkeefe: Just to cite one example: the attention being paid to Obama's brief affiliation with Rezko compared with McCain's close ties to the Keating Five.

He was one of the Keating Five -- can't have closer ties than identity.
I read somewhere that McCain thinks in that case that he was a victim of the media's attempt to find balance -- 4 of the Five were Democrats.

Eastwest, That's a great collection of dingalinks. You must be aiming for the "dingalink-of-the-week" award. I know the viewer-generated link for "Bob Wright defeats Dr. Evil" is actually yours. (Not that I wasn't tempted to link the very same thing when I watched it!). I have informed BHtv management of their error.

Oh, I dunno about the value of the blogosphere. How about getting the citizenry to do something as simple as reading the basic biography of McCain on Wikipedia? He has a complex history; his risk-taking and insolence with respect to authority are breathtaking at times, and they are in the public record. I'm not claiming his reckless background is a bad thing for a leader. One can argue that experience and advanced age have produced better judgment and discretion. But people should learn about the large forces in his life. Digging up obscure details about how a man is a hypocrite because he tries to shield his wife -- that just does not carry much weight with me.

In the links mentioned, somehow they neglected to include: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrit...ll-clinton.htm

BN:

He was one of the Keating Five -- can't have closer ties than identity.

Thanks for the correction. My error sorta makes my point, though, doesn't it?

Of course, it's not an issue for me. Matter of fact, I'm more worried about someone's lack of life experience if (s)he hasn't done drugs.

I have pondered this question too: What sort of person would never try so much as a joint in her entire adult life? I wish I knew someone who met the criteria so I could get an idea. I think McBomb actually claims to never having altered his consciousness with a drug that wasn't alcohol, but ¿quién sabe? What I wonder about even more is what drugs are the candidates on currently? I figure them for a steady mix of booze, coffee, Lunesta, Adderall and Xanax. Well, Hillary's is old school, so she may go with the Valium. (The most potent drug, of course, is the most ancient: power).

Quoting Simon Willard: Oh, I dunno about the value of the blogosphere. How about getting the citizenry to do something as simple as reading the basic biography of McCain on Wikipedia? He has a complex history; his risk-taking and insolence with respect to authority are breathtaking at times, and they are in the public record.

You're right, Simon: there certainly are people who won't acquire information that isn't spoon-fed to them. But I do think there is at least the possibility that the blogosphere has an effect. One route: some of the MSM have started following blogs, for whatever motivations. Some of them will note something that's generating a lot of buzz online, and some of those will take a look (or a closer look) at the story. Thus, the people who rely on one news source exclusively have a better chance of being exposed to something they might not otherwise have encountered. I remind you that it was TPM who broke the attorney firing scandal, for example.

This is an example of Obama at work in a significant setting, fragment that it is. As a display of competence and undaunted forcefulness (in the face of famously bright brass— the ribbons! the ribbons!) he looks here like capable Commander-in-Chief timber.

ed: Indeed. His eloquence seemed pretty non-faux, as well.

Quoting ed fielding: This is an example of Obama at work in a significant setting, fragment that it is. As a display of competence and undaunted forcefulness (in the face of famously bright brass— the ribbons! the ribbons!) he looks here like capable Commander-in-Chief timber.

Sure does. Thanks for posting this, Ed. I agree with Brendan -- looks like genuine eloquence. Not only that, it's a kind of eloquence that can't be caricatured as "empty uplift" or "feel-good pablum." It's "straight talk", though very civil straight talk. Somebody (deebee, I think) was making fun of Obama's debate-skills recently, suggesting that he only knew how to be eloquent when somebody else wrote his words for him. It's true that Hillary was the better debater, but, except during elections, presidents don't particularly need to do debates (as opposed to informal arguments and arm-twisting). Besides that, set Obama's performances against most other presidential candidates in the debates (George W. Bush, for example) and you can see that Obama's debate performances are quite good. The Democrats just happened to be blessed with a really good field this time around.
I'd be happy enough with HRC-- she's clearly intelligent, competent and tough enough for the job. But Obama seems to have been more

Quoting Wonderment: I have pondered this question too: What sort of person would never try so much as a joint in her entire adult life? I wish I knew someone who met the criteria so I could get an idea.

I think McBomb actually claims to never having altered his consciousness with a drug that wasn't alcohol, but ¿quién sabe?

What I wonder about even more is what drugs are the candidates on currently? I figure them for a steady mix of booze, coffee, Lunesta, Adderall and Xanax. Well, Hillary's is old school, so she may go with the Valium. (The most potent drug, of course, is the most ancient: power).

The unconfirmed rumor was that the younger George Bush (the W one in there right now) did cocaine. And of course, "booze". But it didn't seem to matter to the Republican voter of eight years ago, because he was a Republican, and so therefore gets a pass. And the Democrats aren't going to make a stink about something like that, because their attitudes about it are more, well, cosmopolitan. The point I was making, is that this hasn't even started yet with Obama. And if his supporters think that there will be universal regard that pointing these things out will

No, it just shows that he "hates the millitary and America"...and may even be an Al Qaeda operative. After all, did you hear what his wife said... Seriously though great link. To me, THIS is how a president should speak. It is the best answer to the incessant claims that he lacks substance. On the drug thing, isn't it fairly well established that W did coke too, but lied about it?

I don't think W lied about it -- he just refused to answer the question (saying he didn't want to lead young people astray).

I prefer "parallelogram", thank you. But I realize you're just using Hyperbola.

Quoting Simon Willard: Oh, I dunno about the value of the blogosphere. How about getting the citizenry to do something as simple as reading the basic biography of McCain on Wikipedia? He has a complex history; his risk-taking and insolence with respect to authority are breathtaking at times, and they are in the public record.

I'm not claiming his reckless background is a bad thing for a leader. One can argue that experience and advanced age have produced better judgment and discretion. But people should learn about the large forces in his life. Digging up obscure details about how a man is a hypocrite because he tries to shield his wife -- that just does not carry much weight with me.

A similar thing about recklessness is said about George Washington. In his younger military days (that I think went back to teenage years if I am not mistaken), he was not known for judgment. Yet he is seen as one of the great generals of history. The notable one about McCain was the "Bomb Iran" comment, though. Although Reagan made some joke in the early '80's, as president, about launching a bombing of the Soviet Union

Quoting bjkeefe: Just to cite one example: the attention being paid to Obama's brief affiliation with Rezko compared with McCain's close ties to the Keating Five.

This is priceless.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I don't think W lied about it -- he just refused to answer the question (saying he didn't want to lead young people astray).

I think he was rumored to have done coke. The surprising thing is that no one pressed the issue. If it were the Democrat, that would have been thrown back at them at every chance.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Sure does. Thanks for posting this, Ed. I agree with Brendan -- looks like genuine eloquence. Not only that, it's a kind of eloquence that can't be caricatured as "empty uplift" or "feel-good pablum." It's "straight talk", though very civil straight talk.

Somebody (deebee, I think) was making fun of Obama's debate-skills recently, suggesting that he only knew how to be eloquent when somebody else wrote his words for him.

It is definitely a good clip. Points to consider, though, is that the President is Commander in Chief. And so basically (as Senator Obama was pointing out), the senator was chewing out the underlings for a policy where it is not clear that these military officers had anything to do with its design or implementation. I would like to know what the prior background to the exchange was. And since it is well believed by many, that the Iraq War was a costly and ill-considered foreign policy move, it is a bit of a freebie to be, basically, Master of the Obvious as you deliver the message. In the Senate, it is very easy for the Senators to control the setting and make great debates. If anything, this is the thing that

uncle eb: Nolo contendre.

Drudge is not a dark overlord making americans vote a certain way, therefore he is irrelevant? Can you say readership jealousy? I could have listened to the two Olbermann-NPR-Politico-addicted idiots in the cubicles next to mine and hear a more well thought-out discussion on web news sites. Cox clearly hates Drudge, therefore she must proclaim him irrelevant. As far as I know, his batting average was much better than hers while at Wonkette, the only difference was repercussions are rare if no one notices. This person has responsibility for content at Time????

Elizabeth Bloomer Warren? Oh-- you mean the wife of Leslie Lynch King, Jr.

'Why did Romney use Arcade Fire's music?' the bloggingheads ask. An obvious reason: Because Romney hagiographer Hugh Hewitt has long used Arcade Fire's music as his post-commercial intro music on the Hugh Hewitt show. Likely not Hugh's idea, but I think that's the source, as vague as it remains.

Yes! He really was Leslie King Junior. The president who lived the longest too, if I have it right. Plus the only one to do a Boy Scouts commercial?

I've been watching Blogging Heads, on and off, since its inception, but this is the first time I've felt the urge to post a comment. Jon Fine and Ana Marie Cox natter on and on about should the press be accountable for their statements, or are they there to simply spout nonsense in an entertaining way. This is a timely discussion, and happily they include themselves as objects and not just subjects ... but only in the past tense. It would have been useful for them to also hold up the mirror to their current conversation. Jon was eager to pronounce, with apparent authority, on Obama's non-existent legislative record of achievement, and I waited with bated breath to hear his views, but, alas, they did not materialize since Ana Marie leapt in to agree with him. So I decided to Google a bit. Surprisingly, I found that Obama has been quite active in the US, as well as the Illinois, Senate. I easily found the following article, pointed to by Matthew Yglesias: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20.../807/36/458633 No one would accuse the Daily Kos of impartiality, but in this case the article was basically just a list of bills Obama and Clinton have sponsored. Possibly

Quoting sapeye: No one would accuse the Daily Kos of impartiality, but in this case the article was basically just a list of bills Obama and Clinton have sponsored. Possibly faked, but unlikely. To check, I went to the Library of Congress Website, and sure enough, Obama has not been sleeping during his whole time in DC.

It seems to me that it is not Obama's rhetoric that is empty, but Jon Fine's. Apparently Jon was not wrong only about New Hampshire.

I have wondered about this topic too along the way. Mrs. Clinton became a Senator in 2001. Barack Obama became a Senator, I believe, in 2005. (He lost an election in 2002, and so the next federal election would have been 2004.) I think what Mrs. Clinton does with the 35 years remark, is take the earliest times when she was involved with Congress (that would be serving on the House of Representatives staff that drafted the Nixon Impeachment articles). Additionally, any time served as a first lady. This would be close to 20 years if you add up the time in Arkansas---people forget that. As a lawyer-spouse, she probably was involved in every darn issue of Arkansas state goverment or Clinton