The focus group was held in Las Vegas, because as Luntz describes, nearly no one that lives in Las Vegas is originally from there, so he presented this collection of “normal Americans” (neglecting to mention that they all appeared to have made the same, odd decision to live in Las Vegas.) Things go from predictably unruly, to remarkably unruly towards the end of the clip, which is odd given that its originally presented in a manner that brings expectations of unity. Not so much.

Watch the clip from Fox News below (H/T Greg Mitchell, Correct Video via Johnny Dollar: )

Despite bringing in new voices to discuss the matter on a grander scale, the focus was very much on Olbermann’s behavior throughout the elections. Kurtz provided the strongest dissent, beginning his assessment by say that journalists should “absolutely not” donate to campaigns. “I believe you made a serious mistake, Keith,” he advised, “with these Democratic donations.” He suggested that there had to be “some kind of line” between journalists and opinion commenters on one hand, and partisan players on the other. Also, as a journalist, Olbermann was not entitled to such liberties.

Mitchell found the origin of the problem in the beginnings of journalists appearing on cable news programs and being encouraged to give opinions, and found the perception to be the issue, not the reality– “when the owners of these companies are donating huge sums, it’s the perception that they’re controlling things.”

Kurtz, who finally agreed with Olbermann on the point of transparency in donating, still did not give up the point that Olbermann had done serious damage to his objectivity. “We give up certain rights in order to get the kind of platform that you enjoy,” Kurtz noted, though he did not argue that keeping the donations quiet is preferable.

The discussions from tonight’s Countdown via MSNBC below:

(This post has been updated. -SK)

“We’re going back to basics, we’ve obviously had our first African American president we’ve had the female candidates and whatnot [and whatnot!] you look at him he looks like the candidate, the traditional view of the candidate, and is there a visceral comfort in that for people? I’m just curious from real kind of sociological point of view.”

Ah yes! The sociological point of view! Read: are people less scared because he’s white. Peggy Noonan can actually be heard disagreeing with Deutsch in the background before she goes on to note that Brown does mark a change in the voting habits of a Massachusett because he looks like “a new sort of Republican…he’s a regular guy who looks like an American from the middle, or self-made into a middle class, upper middle class guy…we’re seeing some evolution of what Republicans in Mass are right now.”

So basically a bunch of white people spent part of their morning remarking on how safe and attractive a Republican candidate is. Also, Mike Barnicle thinks Coakley is reminiscent of your least favorite substitute school teacher. Video below.

(h/t Greg Mitchell)

The brief (and hopeful) online announcement reads as follows:

NEW YORK Due to overwhelming reader and advertiser demand, Editor & Publisher will publish its next issue, the January 2010 edition, as planned, Editor Greg Mitchell announced today.

It will be mailed to subscribers around January 4.

But it may still be the final issue of E&P, after 125 years.

In a surprise move, E&P’s parent, the Nielsen Co., revealed last Thursday that the magazine, along with sibling Kirkus Reviews, would be shut down at the end of this month, and many assumed no more issues would be printed.

But the outpouring of support for E&P from within and outside the newspaper industry, and from readers and advertisers alike, led to a decision by staffers to go forward with the January issue, and continuing to post stories at E&P Online until January 1 when, under current plans, the end of the line will arrive.

Meanwhile, a number of outside companies and individuals have expressed interest in possibly keeping E&P going, so stay tuned for updates. Thanks again for the thousands of messages of support and media/Web coverage.

Frank Capra couldn’t write a better ending. Let’s hope it comes true!

The core of the debate — and what we can expect to hear in the coming weeks and months — seems to center around a few basic ideas, namely Guantanamo Bay, torture and language.

Some have made the argument that the Obama administration is trying to demonstrate the American justice system to the extremists, or the developing nation’s from where many of these extremists come. And while this story is sure to garner a ton of attention in the Fata regions of Pakistan, for example, critics of this concept point out that is a non-starter. The appreciation of habeus corpus and a jury of one’s peers hasn’t worked too well so far, at least in the eyes of the those responsible for 9/11.

More likely, the Justice department is simply looking for an end game. If you believe, as some interpret the Constitution — that nobody can be held without a fair trial — then these guys must be tried. The risk here is that somehow they will be acquitted, though we’ve all read that Mohammed has admitted to being responsible for the planning of 9/11. But will that admission hold up given that we also know that he confessed while being water-boarded — which, is either torture or “harsh interrogation techniques,” depending on which networks you’re watching or what you’re reading?

Will Mohammed’s testimony hold up? And what happens if the trial is dismissed or he is acquitted? How can we detain a guy that we can’t prove, without a shadow of a doubt, to be guilty under the American system.

The way that this debate evolves has as much to do with language as politics and law. Are we at war? If we are at war and these are prisoners of war, aren’t we supposed to return them to their country according to the Geneva Convention? But they do not come from a “nation” as defined by the Geneva convention. So then, are we really at war — and if so, with whom? This leads some to say that we are trying these individuals criminally, which is a huge hot-button word on this subject.

Mediaite publisher Dan Abrams — also NBC’s chief legal analyst — addressed these very issues on MSNBC, calling the decision to try the suspects in a civilian court as opposed to a military commission “a tough call.” Check out the clip below:

And beyond the obvious political implications, questions of rhetoric and fairness also arise.

>>>NEXT: Can Sheikh Mohammed possibly receive a fair trial?

This morning, New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell was freed from his captors in northern Afghanistan by a military raid that took the life of his interpreter. As in the case of David Rohde, the Times asked news outlets not to report on Farrell’s capture, although fortunately his was a shorter ordeal than Rohde’s.

According to Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher, E&P found out about Farrell’s disappearance on their own, but Times executive editor Bill Keller asked them not to publish anything. Hours later, Mitchell was freed. Who could possibly object to this tactful, sensible handling of things? This being the Internet, there’s always someone.

When New York Times reporter David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan last November and held there for several months, the Times asked print and online sources, including Wikipedia, not to publish anything about the kidnapping for fear that it would further endanger Rohde’s life. (Ironically, it was Stephen Farrell who wrote the story of Rohde’s escape.) One might think that showing some restraint to help protect a human life would be a no-brainer, especially since Rohde’s kidnapping was its own story and not connected to a larger story of public interest.

But Wikipedians freaked out about the Times‘ — a print publication’s! — ability to suppress content on the Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit. One blogger wrote that “One can’t help but think that The Times – along with these other media organization – who so often sprout about a free and unhindered press; about the rights of the media to report the news without favour – have set a very bad precedent with the Rohde kidnapping.”

Well… no. What bloggers and aggregators who associate ‘reporting’ with ‘writing down my opinion’ often forget is that real reporters do real work, and often put their lives in real danger. If any given pundit suddenly vanished from the blogosphere, things probably wouldn’t change all that much, but if a Rohde or a Mitchell vanishes, a vital swathe of foreign correspondence disappears, the likes of which can’t easily be replaced. The Times — and the outlets that respected its calls not to report on the kidnappings — did the ethical, responsible thing by getting past the angels-dancing-on-pins arguments and protecting real human lives.