PSoTD

You get this.

I'd like to see this experiment for a month, just once, by a news organization such as CNN. Instead of labeling people as Republicans or Democrats, any elected official would be labeled as a member of either the majority party in Congress, or the minority party in Congress.

It's pretty clear that David Broder isn't paying attention - or no longer can pay attention - to the world anymore. At least the world I see. Anyone out there think there's just one war going on right now? I see two:

The War on Terror - which is why we we went to Afghanistan.
The War in Iraq - which is the war Reid says we cannot win - because we've allowed a civil war to start.

There's been a lot of confusion of the two wars, but there are two, and America knows it, regardless of how the Bush Administration tries to combine them. Does Broder understand that? Unknown, but his nitpicking of Reid's language about the "war" is really a waste of opportunity to write about something meaningful, and really is just a bone of contentiousness to give Republicans to chew on.

I'm sorry, comparing Senator Harry Reid to Alberto Gonzales is an insult to anyone listening. Gonzales is going to end up being seen as THE WORST ATTORNEY GENERAL IN OUR HISTORY. In the WORST PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION IN OUR HISTORY. Reid won't be seen as the worst anything. By making this comparison, Broder is implying that as long as Reid is in the Senate, it's okay for Gonzales to be AG. That is an unacceptable argument for anyone to be making.

At this point, people ought to be asking, what is Broder's motivation for why he writes what he writes? There's a lot of blogging out there that he's "confused", but nobody seems to call Broder out and ask him why he's writing what he does. Does he honestly think the perspective he's writing from - and the political alchemy he seems to expect from the Democrats but not from the Republicans - is reasonable? Is acceptable to Americans? Or is it what the bosses want...

And so I just don't get all the Rosie (palm) verbal lathering by Republican bloggers.

How did Continental Divide miss being on this list?

Isn't this more than one nation's airwaves should endure?

Here's my question about Mr. King: How many times, particularly in the last 22 years, has someone said:

"Oh, it's Larry King."

You sit there on the couch with your remote, it's a commercial on the program you're watching, so you go hunting for something interesting for a couple of minutes. CNN is good for two minute chunks of material, so you flip to CNN. And then you realize...

"Oh, it's Larry King."

and you're off to another channel.

Our political world is full cowards and folks who are full of shit. Is Imus really the one you want gone?

Unfortunately, this question can't be answered in a vacuum, or ivory halls. It doesn't include scope or reach or degrees or real options. Would I rather have Bush gone than Imus gone? Of course. Would I rather have O'Reilly off the air than Imus? Of course. But that's not the choice available to the marketplace. The marketplace choice is, can the MSNBC and CBS audiences grow, and be better served, and MSNBC and CBS better compensated, by someone other than Don Imus? MSNBC and CBS made the decision that the answer was yes after this fiasco. Many bloggers, including myself, felt that way LONG BEFORE this incident ever occurred.

It's a question that isn't asked often enough about everyone in the news media. Take Tim Russert. Could NBC grow marketplace and improve political coverage by replacing Tim Russert with someone else? It's a worthwhile discussion in my opinion, but it won't be discussed by the media at large unless Russert screws up royally, either by severely diminished ratings or an Imus-sized blunder.

Some of Althouse's commenters recognize that Imus will probably get another gig if he wants, and will still have distribution. And maybe he won't have learned, and will say much of the same thing he has been saying. In that case, perhaps Althouse will consider a better question:

What kinds of standards and practices should America expect from television and radio "news" programming now?

Because he's probably heading for a Soil Himself Weekend with the news that Don Imus was fired from CBS Radio as well.

And now, perhaps, MSNBC and CBS Radio can show Headline News, Fox News, and those rightwing radio stations something by putting on some programming that is actually worth broadcasting. We can hope until proven otherwise.

Imus canned from MSNBC.

Proof: Here, Here, Here, Here, and elsewhere...

Unfortunately, Imus can't do the prideful thing and disappear from public view. Exposed as beyond insensitive and suspected of being quite racist, he can't see the damage he's caused and continues to cause.

I'm not talking this time about the Rutgers basketball team, or black women. I'm talking about the television pundit class. He's accidentally exposed them for what they are - hypocrits. They sit and verbally judge and lay down moral judgements all the time as part of their job, but they don't seem to see themselves as part of that same spectrum, subject to the same pressures, and targets of the same blame industry that they worked so hard to create.

In this respect, Imus is doing us an unintentional favor. This hypocrisy - the "judge others by my words, but not me" approach to infotainment has long sickened the national debate. The practitioners of it need to be excised from that debate, for the health of discussion. The lineup of people supporting Imus are the people supporting, and benefitting, from this hypocrisy. So, in a way, it's good for them to stand up, and proudly proclaim their solidarity with this cancerous punditocracy. We now know more about who deserves a speedier exit from the public eye - and this includes the programming management at MSNBC.

MSNBC has given themselves three weeks to find alternative programming to replace Imus. If they fail to do this, they're in for very long-term PR attacks. Deservedly.

Furthermore, there is no way that this should be dropped by those who are pressing it. If we want to get hate and bigotry off of the radiowaves, then a standard has to be set somewhere, and that standard can only start with a responsible party. Is MSNBC responsible? That's what the real question is here.

It's really disturbing how many of America's largest papers are the playground of the dumbest fuck editorialists (DFEs) in the industry. Smaller newspapers have better talent. Period.

Last year Dan Froomkin posted a very useful resource of information on who was within the White House Press Corps.

This is all good and fine, except that things change, and I don't really see this as Froomkin's responsibility to keep the rest of us informed as to who belongs. I do, however, see it as a reasonable feature of the White House Correspondents' Association to do so on their web site.

I'm not sure who is managing their site - if anyone - but it's an homage to how professional organization web sites should not look today. The damaging "last updated" component shows several pages stagnant for over a year. Design appears to be from the mid nineties. These folks put on a big dinner and have the President attend, and yet leave their site like this? The past few years, the Dinner has received a lot of public attention. Maybe they ought to use a little money and spruce up their web appearance.

I mean, c'mon, the White House News Photographers Association has a MUCH BETTER site.

Getting his own gig on CNN:

CNN is replacing both of its morning show anchors with recent recruits from other networks, sources familiar with the shake-up confirmed last night.

Soledad O'Brien and Miles O'Brien are out at "American Morning," which has struggled recently in the ratings. The pair, who are not related, will make way for John Roberts, a former CBS anchor and correspondent, and Kiran Chetry, who recently jumped to CNN from Fox News.

Every time I see John Roberts on CNN guest-anchoring some news program, the same thought goes through my head: He enjoys the political horserace stuff WAY TOO MUCH. Last night he was on Anderson Cooper, and he seemed to be in total glee when the talk was about candidates' money reporting and poll numbers. I realize this information is somewhat newsworthy, but I wonder if Roberts' smiling and self-enjoyed retorting is a bad sign for his editorial preferences going forward.

I have started to wonder why Americans don't start asking for more democracy in news media. That's right - democracy. For example: The White House Press Corps. Americans have no say in who covers the White House. But it doesn't have to be that way. The Washington Post could poll their readers to determine who THEY think should cover the White House. NBC could poll their viewers. It could be done, but one reason it isn't done is because news consumers don't demand it.

So why don't we? Why don't we start harping at our news institutions for an open policy for public input into reporter choices? And for editors as well?

I'd like to see this enterprise get a little financial backing and see what it really might be able to do in their market...

Eight former staffers of the Santa Barbara News-Press, who claim they were illegally fired in the latest dispute at the embattled paper, have launched a new Web site of their own, where they plan to cover local stories until they get their jobs back.

Dubbed "Santa Barbara Newsroom," the ad-free site, at www.santabarbaranewsroom.com, launched Monday with stories about local issues such as school relocation plans and property taxes, as well as a few editorial columns.

The news site's staff includes Anna Davison, Melissa Evans, Dawn Hobbs, Rob Kuznia, Barney McManigal, Thomas Schultz and John Zant, all of whom were fired earlier this year from the News-Press after hanging a banner over a freeway urging boycott of the paper. Reporter Melinda Burns, also on staff, was fired last year.

"We're engaged in this effort as an interim project until we get reinstated to the newspaper," said Hobbs. "That is what we do, we cover journalism. This is a way for us to resume doing what we love doing, and continue to cover the community."

Burns agreed, adding "for now, we are excited about being back doing reporting."

In a related development, Burns wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, published Monday, which discussed the need for legislation that would protect efforts to unionize.