“I think for a while the media — we’ve been focused on the horse race,” the Washington Post‘s Nia-Malika Henderson observed. “As you mentioned, everything happened this way: Every time there was a new front-runner, and we’ve had almost five or six front-runners, the media would then start more dogged scrutiny of their record. I think that’s what happened. A lot of this stuff had already been out there. But I think when Ron Paul started to do so well, polling well in Iowa, doubling a lot of support from 2008, that’s when the spotlight finally fell on him. I will say in talking to people out of his rallies, very raucous rallies, he’s had a lot of people, hundreds of people there. They don’t seem to mind some of this rhetoric. They feel like it’s a little disturbing but not a deal-breaker in terms of how they feel about supporting him.”

Kurtz asked The New York Times‘s Michael Shear why his paper waited until last week to publish its first piece on the newsletters.

Shear put his blame on the struggling press industry for the New York Times’ lateness on getting to the story.

“I think there’s some legitimate criticism leveled at the press for waiting, for not maybe putting this stuff out earlier,” Shear conceded. “Look, you’ve covered for years the problem of dwindling resources the media has, a struggling industry. I think in that context, news organizations have to make some decisions about where they put their resources. It makes sense to put your resources, investigative resources of which we don’t have all that many in the places where it looks like it’s going to make the most sense, which is the people that are actually getting traction.”

Watch Kurtz’s criticism of the news media for failing to expeditiously report on Paul’s newsletters below:

Kurtz put together a panel featuring Mediaite Editor-at-Large Rachel Sklar and Syracuse University’s Robert Thompson to discuss the power of Stewart’s influence on the political media narrative.

RELATED: Jon Stewart: Demagogue Or The Most Rational Man On Television?

“He is doing real political satire,” Thompson observed. “In the mass media on television, we have not had a lot of that. Before SNL we had Johnny Carson. He told jokes about politics but certainly wasn’t a political satirist. Even Saturday Night Live, Chevy Chase falling down like Gerald Ford. That was hardly real political satire. For the past several years, Jon Stewart has been doing real essays. Most of his show was about politics, he’s got evidence and clips, and he’s got attitude and maybe that’s what journalists are afraid to do is to cop the attitude that he’s got. I think reporters should be doing in the journalistic idiom a lot more of the kind of thing that Jon Stewart does four nights a week in the comic idiom, which is really bringing these sort of essays together and giving us the evidence of what he’s talking about.”

Sklar noted that Stewart wasn’t the only political satire powerhouse on television. “If you stay up the extra half-hour and watch Stephen Colbert, he lands some pretty amazing, deft punches.”

Watch Kurtz’s panel discuss the influence of political comedy below via CNN:

RELATED: NBC News Hires Chelsea Clinton To Boost ‘Making A Difference’ Series

Panelist Eric Deggans told Kurtz he found the hire rather surprising given the failure of developing Tiki Barber as a host, suggesting not that Clinton should not be in the media, but that she should start out at a relatively lower level comparatively, and not out on top. That sentiment seemed agreed upon by everyone on the program, with Hollywood Reporter‘s Marisa Guthrie adding that this was not the first time such a hire occurred at NBC– “they have Meghan McCain.” She considered it not a partisan issue, but an “insider” one– they want someone who is an insider with without the baggage of an insider, which she considered very cynical, particularly since “this is a network that suspended a reporter for saying the Clintons were pimping out their daughter to their campaign” (that reporter, incidentally– David Shuster– was on Reliable Sources later on).

RELATED: Hillary Clinton ‘A Little Surprised’ About Chelsea’s New NBC News Gig

But it was David Zurawik that had the harshest criticism for NBC. “At a time when young people who played by the rules,” he argued, “are camping out in cities because the system has failed… to take another member of that elite, the 1%, and give them one of those jobs, is really a dispiriting message to the people of this country.” He went on to say he “can’t think of a more cynical message” and that it was very “insensitive” on NBC’s part.

The segment via CNN below:

Kurtz began by asking Jonathan Martin to discuss Politico’s story, and “what it didn’t contain in details.”

He ticked off some of the language from Politico‘s story, which contained somewhat general (but not vague) descriptions of the allegations, then asked, “Why publish the story then when you couldn’t answer the central question, what precisely is herman cain alleged to have done with these women?”

Martin’s response was to point out that their story was well-sourced (“half a dozen sources”), and has been corroborated by other news organizations, as well as the Cain campaign. As to the story’s newsworthiness, Martin didn’t get a single taker when he asked what journalist would not have printed such a story.

Kurtz pressed the issue of whether the report should have been published at all, questioning the “go or no-go decision,” and suggesting that “in a lot of news organizations, an editor would have said, ‘you have done some terrific reporting, you have great leads here, but you don’t have it.’”

Martin countered by pointing out that there was a level of specificity to the allegations they printed (“an explicit sexual overture”) that, while falling short of chapter and verse, certainly met the bar for newsworthiness.

There’s nothing wrong with Kurtz questioning Politico’s reporting, of course (that’s his job), but this appears to be a missed opportunity for him to bring his own expertise as a journalist to bear. Kurtz also questioned Politico’s decision not to print the names of the accusers, when he well knows that such a move would have been inherently unfair, given the legal gag that bound them, and the fact that the women (who are, presumably, not public figures) were not sources in the story. It’s also customary for journalists to exercise additional restraint regarding the identities of victims in sexual offenses.

Rather than ask whether the report should have been published at all (a valid question, but one that should have been quickly disposed of), news consumers would have been much better served had Kurtz asked Martin to explain why the report didn’t contain more detail. Politico‘s reporting indicates that they have more detail than they’ve printed (“In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter”), and Jonathan Martin indicated the same to Kurtz. “…we were dealing with sensitive, you know, sources. Sensitive information here, and so obviously we tread delicately when it came to that,” Martin said.

This, and other aspects of this story, would benefit greatly from some examination of the reporting process. Kurtz didn’t follow up, but my read on Martin’s response is that decisions on the level of detail were based, at least partially, on negotiations with Politico’s sources (I’ve reached out to Martin for confirmation).

Perhaps it’s a function of television’s dominance, where you can usually just see what people are saying, but people don’t seem to realize that print journalism relies heavily on a series of such negotiations, and they’re rarely simple. Most sources want to remain as anonymous as possible (if their information was easy to reveal, you’d already know it), while reporters try to negotiate as close to on the record as possible, which often includes trying to nail down as specific an attribution as possible (“a former board member” as opposed to “a source close to the situation”) to an unnamed source.

These negotiations are both invisible and self-evident to the reader. If a source is unnamed, or an on-the-record source is attributed on background, you can bet that the reporter tried, and failed, to get tighter attribution.

In the case of the Cain story, whomever it was that allowed Politico to inspect the document, and their other sources, likely insisted on a certain level of discretion in how the details were revealed. That’s what Jonathan Martin’s response appears to indicate, but if that’s not the case, and it was purely an editorial judgment, then that’s a different story. It’s possible the specifics of the allegations were overly prejudicial, although leaving those specifics to the imagination doesn’t seem much better.

There’s also a misperception among Politico’s critics that their report relied only on anonymous sources, and that all anonymous sources are created equal. Neither is true. The unnamed sources used were, for the most part, strongly attributed, and were supported by documents that the reporters reviewed, and partially corroborated (and pointedly not denied) by the Cain campaign in the report itself. Martin even confirms to Kurtz that Cain’s reaction was a factor in determining whether to publish.

There are few news stories that would not benefit from more detail, tighter sourcing, or smoking-gun documentation, but it’s important for media critics to reinforce the true boundaries of good journalism, rather than allow those who seek to discredit mainstream journalism move the goalposts out of reach.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Update: I emailed Politico earlier today to ask about the decision not to share certain details. Politico editor Jonathan Harris sent the following response:

I think Jonathan’s television appearance stuck to the outlines we have shared with readers on the site.

We are not able to go beyond that in responding to inquiries about our sourcing and decision-making.

I recognize that is frustrating to people who quite naturally are curious and want to know more, and frustrating to us because our natural inclination is to share what we know, but it’s necessary on a sensitive story like this.

Kurtz began his segment in a novel way, playing clips of Libya criticism from Sean Hannity, who said that President Obama “no intention of enforcing a threat that Gaddafi will be removed,” and Keith Olbermann, who criticized what he saw as the President’s mixed messages on whether the object of the mission was to remove Gaddafi.

He then showed a New York Times headline that proclaimed “some vindication” for the President’s Libya policy, way at the bottom of the page. Terence Smith said he thought the President deserved credit, and that initial criticism of the policy “reflected the public and wider view beyond the media.”

Kurtz pushed back, saying, “Seems to me to have been a one day story. The New Yorker reported an unnamed Obama aide saying the president was leading from behind, maybe so, would the press prefer he land on an aircraft carrier and brag?”

The Blaze editor Amy Holmes channeled Keith Olbermann’s criticism, to some degree, saying that the President didn’t deserve credit for Gaddafi’s killing because, despite having called for the dictator’s ouster, the stated objective of the mission was not to remove Gaddafi, but to protect civilians.

While Olbermann’s critique was likely out of naivete, and Holmes’ out of partisan convenience, they both missed exactly the same point: it ignores the diplomatic subtexts involved. The President and his advisers have several key audiences to deliver messages to (including the disparate international community, the American people, the Libyan rebels, and of course, Gaddafi), and threading that kind of needle is bound to sound confusing. The fact is, though, if your stated objective is to dispose of some flour, eggs, and buttermilk, you still get credit for baking some biscuits.

Holmes went on to criticize NBC News’ Chuck Todd for comparing the Libya arc to the Iraq War. “Iraq, hundreds of billions spent, dictator killed, Libya $1 billion, dictator killed.”

Kurtz pointedly asked, “Why is that unfair comparison?”

“This is not the metric that they set out,” Holmes said, fretting, “is it appropriate for the chief White House correspondent to do this sort of offhand foreign policy analysis?”

Holmes’ remark about Chuck Todd, and Smith’s defense that the media’s Libya criticism ”reflected the public and wider view beyond the media,” are exactly what is wrong with current attitudes about journalism. There is this notion that figures in the ostensibly objective media (as opposed to openly opinionated figures like Olbermann and Hannity) ought to simply be reciters of facts, and of what everyone else is saying. This is an abdication of journalism’s most important function, the one that separates it from simple stenography.

Not only is it appropriate for Chuck Todd to do “offhand foreign policy analysis,” it is essential for him to do so. The media should not “reflect” public opinion, it should help to shape it, by deciding what news is important to report, contextualizing that news, and when possible, clarifying it. The current “some say/others say” vogue does nothing but muddy the waters.

If we are going to accept that there is a profession called journalism, then we need to accept that its practitioners have sufficient training, experience, and wisdom to do the job. They should be evaluated on the merits of how they do that job, and not be criticized for daring to do it.

Here’s the segment, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Throughout the rest of the week, cable news outlets ran fact-check segments which were strongly (and correctly) critical of Bachmann, but even some of them left incorrect perceptions about the HPV vaccine, presenting the completely unanimous weight of scientific evidence alongside anecdotal hysteria, as if a real controversy over the vaccine existed.

No one bothered to call out the journalists (most outrageously, Matt Lauer) who allowed Bachmann to make these statements, without challenge. These journalists failed their most important function, to act in the public’s interest.

After I wrote my column, I received some pushback from colleagues who thought it was unreasonable to expect an interviewer to fact-check on the fly. They miss the point. This isn’t about establishing some new journalistic standard whereby interviewers must parry political BS like microphone-wielding Jedi. It’s about making sure that millions of people don’t hear, unchallenged, a false claim that could kill them. If President Obama told Matt Lauer that seatbelts cause mental retardation, I expect that comment would have been flagged in some way. If Sarah Palin said that old refrigerators make a great hide-and-seek spot, I bet even Sean Hannity would do a spit-take and say, “Excuse me?”

That’s why I was looking forward to Reliable Sources this week, because this failure is right in Howard Kurtz’s wheelhouse. While he identified several key points in this story, the overall critique was deeply disappointing.

First of all, a failure of this magnitude deserves its own segment, but Kurtz sandwiches it in the middle of a broader Perry v. Bachmann debate. He correctly notes that Lauer’s failure (and Wolf Blitzer’s, and John King’s) was fueled by the shiny-object distraction of the Perry/Bachmann food fight. The New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny points out that “in the moment, it looked great for Congresswoman Bachmann,” but it didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

It only looked great in the moment, though, because Wolf Blitzer failed to follow up at the debate. Colleagues who argue that Wolf deserves a heat-of-the-moment pass ought to go back and watch the debate, all of them, in fact. When it comes time to make candidates confront each other about past quotes regarding their onstage rivals, the moderators are consistently armed with context to make their followups sizzle. This is not a question of competence, it’s a question of priorities.

Bachmann was wrong to make those claims, to be sure. For what it’s worth, her heart was probably in the right place, she probably really believes what she’s saying, and thinks she’s helping young girls. Nobody raises a Major League Baseball roster’s worth of foster children if they don’t care about kids. I don’t know if this episode will deter her from this behavior in the future, but I do know that the media eventually meted out some hefty consequences to her over it.

The same cannot be said of Lauer & co., who have been given a total pass by their brethren. While Kurtz deserves some credit for bringing it up at all, there’s nothing in this segment that will keep this from happening again, with these, or other, journalists. In a case where media criticism could have mattered in a more direct way than usual, it has compounded journalism’s failure here by failing to adequately penalize it.

This story also illustrates a growing problem with media reporting, especially on TV news personalities. We reached out for comment from all of the journalists in our original story, but were stymied by each network’s PR department. That’s no knock on those PR professionals, who are just doing their jobs, but news organizations should examine whether the practice of buffering their journalists in this way is consistent with good journalism. Network PR departments have a raft of non-journalism priorities to consider, which makes them ill-suited, from a journalism standpoint, to decide when, if, or how a journalist responds to questions from other journalists. If a buffer is necessary, it should be in the form of an editor, or some other journalism professional.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Howard Kurtz thought the media was “falling for this Palin-tease all over again,” despite no indication that she is actually definitely considering a presidential run. Newsweek‘s Eleanor Clift thought many reporters who actually have to cover Palin would privately act skeptical and “angry that they’re being led into this game that she’s playing.” In other words, they’re just “covering their backsides” in case she runs.

However, National Review writer Jim Geraghty pointed out there was a definite endpoint in the Palin-MSM game: November 1, the deadline for filing in South Carolina. So if Palin does not announce by then, he argued, she’s not interested in running.

But going against conventional wisdom, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times defended the media’s coverage of Sarah Palin, and argued that it was not that excessive.

“She is a legitimate American political phenomenon, and at some point we will know if she will run or not, and in the meantime her messages do have an impact on the Republican field.”

Kurtz and the panel agreed that candidates do this all the time, and once someone announces their presidential intentions, they lose a certain aura of mystery and their presence in the media fades a little. However, in Palin’s case, Geraghty predicted if she doesn’t run, the media will still speculate over her intentions anyway. Namely, who she will endorse, if she will endorse anyone, and what she has to say about the candidates.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

Roll Call‘s Christina Bellantoni revealed the “dirty secret” that Paul’s ascent as a media figure was aided by the fact that his intensely loyal following was large enough to guarantee huge traffic for anyone who wrote about him in 2008. “One of the reasons he has a national presence,” she said,  ”is because the media built him up in 2008 because we all got web traffic off of it, any time we put Ron Paul in a headline.”

Bellantoni also pointed out that Paul’s age is also a factor, but Paul is about the same age as 2008 nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

The Daily Caller‘s Matt Lewis talked about how Paul’s well-organized following has him doing well in straw polls and fundraising, but that his previous presidential runs haven’t amounted to much.

Kurtz interrupted, saying, “That can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if you decide, in advance, that he’s not going to win the nomination.”

Kurtz also called out Fox News, among others, by questioning the fairness of asking Paul about an ad from one of his supporters seeking sex scandal dirt on Gov. Rick Perry. He pointed out that this was not only unfair to Paul, but a way to advance smears against Perry, asking, ”Should those kind of unsubstantiated charges in an ad be raised on national TV?”

Bellantoni, who hadn’t seen the Fox News clip, agreed that it was “pretty ridiculous.”

The Ron Paul phenomenon is an odd one, especially where the media is concerned. Paul’s position outside the political mainstream can explain why he doesn’t win elections, but his successes, coupled with his undeniable ability to deliver media eyeballs, make the media’s Voldemort treatment of him all the more mystifying.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Kurtz brought up that some may worry, now that he’s in charge of a liberal network, that his personal politics may have swayed some decisions during his time residing over CNN. Bohrman promised that that was not the case, saying that, in all the years he worked with personalities like Wolf Blitzer and John King, he never knew how they voted and he was sure the same went the other way around. He also pointed out that he had produced the specials on the funerals for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and that they had been some of the most respectful events on air.

Things will be different, however, at Current. He said the network will wear its liberalism on its sleeve, not hiding behind any “progressive” descriptor and that, unlike other networks, there will be no attempt to create some kind of equivalency between viewpoints, contrasting it to the old Crossfire structure where the conversation was contorted to give equal air time to every opinion no matter what. There would be conservative pundits, but the debates would be lengthy and organic.

He pointed out that there seemed to be plenty of conservative viewpoints discussed in talk radio and elsewhere. Kurtz exclaimed that he sounded exactly the way the Fox News people did when they first started.

Bohrman replied:

“In an odd way, I think that, what Roger Ailes started to do 15 years ago when he started Fox News, he wanted to barge into a media environment he saw as liberal and, remember, he talked about ‘We report, you decide.’ Well, I think that Fox is now the mainstream. Fox tells a lot of people waht to think, and I think we, want to, on one level, to be a counterpoint to that.”

It’s clear to me that, if you really want to make a network that’s different than all the rest, start out by talking about how mainstream yours is. “Mainstream News, news for people that don’t run around feeling like alienated victims all the time.”

Of course, that’s probably why I write blog posts and don’t run television networks.

Watch the clip from CNN below

(h/t TV Newser)

Kurtz noted about Sharpton:

“He would be the first African American with a nightly show on cable news in years and yet he’s not a journalist, he’s obviously a liberal activist and former candidate.”

Deggans admitted black journalists are worried that such a slot for a minority host was unfortunately not going to an experienced journalist, and was concerned about reports suggesting prior financial connections between Sharpton and Comcast, MSNBC’s parent company. Yet Kurtz was just as troubled by a 60 Minutes report where Sharpton allegedly said he will never criticize President Obama on any issue. Given that Sharpton has been “rumored” to be getting his own show for a while now, it seems odd that MSNBC just doesn’t make it official already so conversations like this one between Kurtz and Deggans don’t persist.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

After his Twitter hashtag “#F*ckYouWashington” really started catching on, Jarvis realized “there is a lot of anger and disappointment in the government” and that people venting their emotions demonstrated “the hope and expectation of the people for a better government.” Kurtz and Jarvis agreed that today Twitter truly is the unfiltered “voice of the people” as the media is now informed by the ability to engage in a two-way communication with their viewers.

Given Jarvis’ language after just two glasses of wine, Kurtz joked he couldn’t imagine what would have happened after three glasses of wine? Yet even without any wine, Jarvis still had some biting comments here, suggesting he couldn’t believe any member of Congress could walk around right now and not be absolutely humiliated.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Uygur stated the conversation that soured his relationship with MSNBC was when he was told “people in Washington have a concern with my tone.” While MSNBC executives allege such “people” were merely MSNBC bookers and producers, Uygur was “incredulous” of that claim, and instead interpreted “people” to mean members of government. Uygur argued, “our media is obsessed with access, it’s not just MSNBC” and that journalists should be challenging politicians and not worried about trying to get them to appear as guests. Kurtz took exception to such criticism:

“I see people who I agree with and disagree with on Fox, on MSNBC, on CNN, challenging the government every night. So it does kind of come back to your tone, I’ve watched you, you’re a passionate guy. You can be pretty strident at times. Don’t your employers, if you’re going to work for an MSNBC, have every right to say your style needs some adjustment. Why does that tick you off so much?”

However, Uygur insisted his removal from the show was not about his style, and after watching a recent 60 Minutes piece on Al Sharpton, Uygur may have figured out what it was truly about:

“So the guy [Uygur] who was criticizing the President is out, even though he had really good ratings, and the guy [Sharpton] who has decided not to criticize the President about anything is in [in an interview, Sharpton told 60 Minutes that he will not criticize Obama]. That’s interesting.”

Just as Uygur began to claim no one in the media is saying what he says, that both Democrats and Republicans are screwing Americans, Kurtz ran out of time. Yet just like Keith Olbermann offered, Kurtz too suggested that Uygur might be back since he’s now “liberated.”

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Van Susteren wrote a note a few hours after Reliable Sources directly to the show’s host on her blog, Gretawire, which read, rather simply, that he was wrong and that she had taken to a public forum because she had been ignored previously:

On your CNN show today in which you were critical of Fox News Channel and what you say is Fox’s lack of coverage on the hacking scandal, you neglected to mention that on ON THE RECORD at 10pm we have, in our last two live broadcasts, covered the news story. We did it in a responsible manner. I urge you to go back and check. It was just the facts and no sugarcoating. Your omission today skews a fair analysis.

I should add that I am sending you this message publicly because last time you did not do your homework on another topic I politely sent a message to you privately. Greta

A curt, but not rude, critique, though it can be quite a stab in the heart to tell Kurtz– who boasts the naturally rule-abiding disposition of your elementary school vice principal– that he did not do his homework. To be fair, while Kurtz did argue that to not cover the story would betray a double standard as he called the Fox News Watch commercial break coverage “embarrassing,” he kept up a tone of devil’s advocate throughout the segment, even at one point arguing that CNN had covered the story too much because of its own interests in competing with Fox News. He also admitted that the idea of not covering a story that affected one’s own company hit home for him because he had delved into CNN scandals on his program, and as such, in some ways, expected others of his ilk to subscribe to the same standards. But at no point during the segment was there any indication that Fox News’ primetime division was giving the story the time of day, which cast a serious shadow on whether or not the network was giving the story a fair shake.

Given that Van Susteren admits in her piece that Kurtz has not responded to previous correction pleas in private, it will be interesting to see whether this will develop into a public discussion of journalistic integrity and correction policy– both are active on Twitter, after all, and the climate is ripe for a public discussion on the topic– whether that topic be how to address an internal scandal or how to publicly address inaccurate coverage of coverage of an internal scandal.

Kurtz welcomed to his panel today former Carter speechwriter James Fallows and Washington Post blogger Eric Wemple, both who expressed little sympathy for News Corporation and its entanglement in the scandal. Kurtz opened the chat proposing that, as much as many criticize Fox News for not devoting as much coverage as other networks to the matter, a risk existed, perhaps, that the network would be accused of “putting out some kind of sanitized version” of the story. Fallows argued that, yes, expecting them to be at the forefront of coverage on their sister organization’s corruption was unwieldy, but “it’s realistic to expect them to devote some coverage.” Wemple agreed: “there is a difference between responsibility and expecting them to be at the forefront.” Wemple also argued that they had to cover it because it was a juicy story, and “if they fully ignore it, they’ll push people elsewhere.”

As a media reporter, Kurtz admitted that the story was somewhat personal to him. “When CNN has controversy, we always do it,” he noted, and he expected the same of his analogs at Fox News. Otherwise, he argued, the network sends the message that “we’re only aggressive when someone else is in trouble.” He also called the Fox News Watch commercial segment on the topic, where the panel decided not to talk about it at all, “an embarrassment” but considered the possibility, as Cal Thomas argued the week after that segment, that those who are competitors are covering the story with more zeal because of their interests in it.

To that claim, Wemple argued that it was News Corp who were playing up the story by virtue of so many people in their organization being involved in it and stepping down, but refrained from attacking the American side of the organization too much because journalistic standards in America are “vastly superior” to those of Britain (with the exception of the New York Post). Fallows agreed in part: “the range from high to low [standards] is broader than in the United States.”

The segment via CNN below:

Ashburn in particular pulled no punches and even targeted a comment from Mediaite founder and ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams. Ashburn argued that Abrams “actually made the argument that ‘we learn about the justice system through this’ and I say that’s bunk!” Uh-oh, Ashburn must be angry because now she is hurling four-letter words! Instead she claimed people actually learn about the justice system in classrooms (like she did from Floyd Abrams, Dan’s dad) and presumably not from Nancy Grace screaming “the devil is dancing.”

While Diamond preferred that serious matters like murder trials be left to experienced journalists to report on rather than just anyone, it seemed that whoever it is that might be discussing juries, burdens of proof or anything else legally-related might be at the very least sparking an interest in viewers to go out and learn more about the judicial process. And for anyone who can’t take Floyd’s class like Ashburn did, but is still interested in the law, then ultimately maybe the excess Casey Anthony coverage isn’t such a bad thing?

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Instead, Aravosis opens with a ridiculous premise, saying that “whenever you have a political contest, and one side wins, they cover the victor.”

Not only is that premise false, it papers over the relevant fact, that coverage of the Marriage Equality Act is a rare example of the media doing its job. The media’s coverage of Proposition 8 (which Prager correctly cites), and even more recently, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, did not focus on the so-called “victors,” but on the negative consequences of each of them. Aravosis does point out that opposing viewpoints get plenty of airtime in all of these cases, but misses the point that the tenor of the coverage in these cases wasn’t the result of some “cover the winner” default, but of sound editorial judgment.

In the case of marriage equality, it appears that journalists have made the judgment that, whatever your personal beliefs, the disparity between the rights of gay and straight people to marry is unjust. It’s the same sort of judgment that journalists have made about other forms of discrimination, long before they were codified by law, and which demonstrate one of journalism’s most important functions: to act as our national conscience, to hold the unjust accountable.

That function was largely abdicated in the run-up to the Iraq War, and has gradually eroded in favor of horse-race political coverage and he said/she said “balance.” Kurtz and his guests missed a chance to point that out.

From there, the “debate” got sidetracked into a discussion of Prager’s reasons for opposing marriage equality, and Aravosis’ constant interruptions of same. Even here, he doesn’t engage Prager’s easily-rejoined objections. Prager seems to think that the media ought to cover the fact that some churches would rather take their adoption marbles and go home, rather than treat same-sex couples as equals. Instead of pointing out how this says more about those churches than it does about marriage equality, Aravosis opts for transparent straw-man arguments, bizarrely saying, at one point, that “Now, Dennis is talking about I’m trying to turn him into a woman.”

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

While the panel mostly agreed the suspension was unfair, the consensus was that MSNBC “had no choice,” but also pointed to the network’s “murky” suspension policies: (video from CNN’s Reliable Sources)

What’s missing from this discussion is the fact that Halperin’s suspension wasn’t about punishing him, or about profanity (as the segment pointed out, Scarborough himself dropped an f-bomb on the air, precipitating the delay), but about protecting the Morning Joe brand. Scarborough’s daily helping of gabbuccino isn’t a huge success because of how many people are watching, but because of who’s watching.

Morning Joe is the only thing you’ll see on TV sets every morning within the beltway, the kind of influence that money can’t buy. While the chatter can be loose and irreverent, at times, it generally doesn’t veer far from the middle of the road, politically. Halperin’s remark, and the swift reaction from the White House, attest to the show’s influence, and to the desire to protect it.

Another bone to pick is the notion that this is a one-time aberration for Halperin, which also goes to the criticism that Halperin is superficial. As the blog Inside Cable News pointed out quickly, Halperin has covered both ends of the genitalial spectrum where Obama is concerned, and was forced to apologize for surmising that then-candidate John Edwards thought then-Sen. Obama was “a pussy.”

Halperin’s apology had a familiar ring to it:

I’m sorry. In a live radio interview this week, I used a word I shouldn’t have. The fact that I was conveying other people’s words is no excuse for my lapse in judgment. It won’t happen again.

Having covered the sexual hardware, let’s not forget Halperin’s figurative money shot, a photoshop of Sen. Mary Landrieu sporting the infamous joy jelly-assisted hairdo from There’s Something about Mary.

The common problem here isn’t the crudity, or the “edginess,” but rather, the contrived attempts to be edgy. Nothing exposes Halperin’s game  quite as effectively as his meek probing of Scarborough about his show’s bleeping policy. Did you ever see Lenny Bruce consulting his audiences about their local obscenity ordinances?

It is contrivances like these, or his White Man’s Burden non sequitur from awhile back, which lead some to conclude that his political knowledge is as superficial as his faux-edgy antics.

In the end, Halperin’s remark should have little long-term effect. He’s firmly entrenched in the mainstream media, and weaknessesin his commentary notwithstanding, he’s well-respected for his workhorse reporting. If it helps, he has a decent case to make that MSNBC reneged on a verbal contract that Scarborough made with him on the air.

Kurtz wondered if Beck talked his way out of a job, and noticed his show “got increasingly weird – it became more religious themed, more talk about Jews and Middle East caliphates.” According to Kurtz, given that Fox felt the show wasn’t a priority for Beck, and Beck didn’t enjoy being reined in, Kurtz wasn’t surprised the relationship ended it the way it did. Yet Shister added Beck’s use of Nazi and Holocaust rhetoric as an insult didn’t help either, since much of his over-the-top language just alienated people in the end.

Shister also admitted Beck was “brilliant” at “tapping into collective rage” in society, and therefore was sure he would have some success online. Yet Kurtz and Shister couldn’t help but laugh at Beck’s final ominous message that in the future his critics will long for the days when he only appeared on television for one hour per day. We’ll have to wait and see who ultimately gets the last laugh.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

First, there was Kurtz and panel’s deconstruction of Stewart’s response to Politifact, which they characterized as a counterattack on Fox, with David Zurawik comparing it to the New York Times correction page “saying ‘Well, we made a mistake and we’re sorry for it, but The Wall Street Journal made 21 mistakes, they’re worse than us.’”

The point they’re missing is that Stewart’s overarching criticism in that segment, in which he listed 21 Fox News statements that Politifact had rated “false” or worse, was of Politifact. While Politifact was correct to point out that Stewart went off track when he qualified his statement with the phrase, “in every poll,” it’s fair to criticize them for failing to note that Politifact themselves have consistently rated statements on Fox News as “false,” or even “pants on fire,” which supports Stewart’s broader point. Perhaps Stewart would have been better served by saying “Fox News consistently misinforms viewers, even if some polls show the misinformation doesn’t always stick.”

In fact, a review of Politifact’s archive shows only two “false” claims by CNN contributors, and one by Piers Morgan, while MSNBC did a little worse, with 12 “false” or worse (Rachel Maddow had four, but one of them was hotly contested, and Mediaite judged that Maddow and Politifact were both wrong. Ed Schultz took the silver with 3, Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough had two “falses” each, and Lawrence O’Donnell, just one.)

Stewart’s 21 examples were hardly comprehensive, either. Fox News contributor Sarah Palin alone is responsible for 21 “false” or worse statements, though 13 of them were from before Fox hired her.

With such a disparity, it’s fair for Stewart to wonder why Politifact neglected to examine his claim on their own terms. If Fox viewers somehow end up not being the most misinformed, then does that mean they’re not paying attention to what they’re watching, or is Politifact just picking on Fox?

More glaringly, though, Kurtz fails to get back to the true “smoking gun” of the Stewart/Wallace interview, the Bill Sammon edit. Kurtz, in fact, dismisses Stewart’s criticism of the edits by pointing out that the full interview was later available online.

To be fair, Stewart himself buried the Sammon edit in favor of a sound bite in which Chris Wallace “gives away the game” by saying that Fox News tells “the other side of the story,” but others, including Media Matters and Keith Olbermann, did pick up on it, and Kurtz should have, too. Bill Sammon is Fox News’ Washington managing editor, and his leaked internal documents have raised serious questions about his objectivity. In the unedited footage below, Stewart references Sammon’s emails, a seconds-long segment that doesn’t seem likely to have been cut due to time constraints:

Wallace himself conspicuously omitted any mention of the Sammon edit from his response on Sunday.

As Stewart said, Fox News is home to many fine journalists (including, soon, my White House colleague, Ed Henry), and just as Sammon’s alleged injection of partisanship into the news division undercuts the work that they do, so, too, does this edit. Relegating the full interview to Fox’s website cut its audience exponentially, and Kurtz missed an opportunity to correct that, and raise an important point that directly impacts the debate Stewart and Wallace were having.

Zurawik also dinged Olbermann over his “rancor” and use of insults, but I think he missed the mark a little bit. Olbermann’s ability to go at his opponents has long been a key to his appeal. The problem is that the rancor and the insults have become increasingly artless and petty, in stark contrast to the sharp, florid wit present in much of his commentary. Zurawik says Al Gore should “rein him in,” but Gore would be better off sharpening him up.

The best observation, though, came from Glynnis MacNicol (now with Business Insider), who noted that “(Olbeermann)’s been trying to demonize MSNBC, and sort of make them the enemy he’s playing off of, and it clearly, in the first week, didn’t work, and he pulled back and said ‘Rachel Maddow’s my friend now.’”

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

In the run-up to the Countdown re-launch, host Keith Olbermann launched increasingly sharp barbs at his former colleagues, and condescension at his former friends. Rather than positioning himself as an alternative to Fox News, or neutral CNN, Olbermann set himself up as the “us” in an “us vs. them” battle with the only other prime time liberal cable news bloc, MSNBC. As Glynnis observed, this strategy doesn’t seem to have worked.

Despite relatively strong ratings for his debut show, Countdown didn’t make a dent in MSNBC’s ratings, and his decision to overlap with Rachel Maddow’s show caused a swift backlash from fans who didn’t feel like choosing.

Olbermann cast his decision as a desire not to hurt Maddow’s ratings, the equivalent of a mosquito generously offering not to exsanguinate a crocodile. The truth is, by targeting his old friend’s show, he was making himself look like a jerk, and costing Maddow very little. That same dynamic likely applies to viewers of other liberal MSNBC shows, as well. Even those who might like Countdown better are bound to wonder why Olbermann can’t let his show stand on the merits, rather than trash the efforts of others on the same “team.” No one likes to see Mom and Dad fight.

The good news is that the cable news town appears to be big enough for two liberal sheriffs. With an impressive (especially for a small net like Current) debut of 179,000 demo viewers, and little (if any) effect on MSNBC’s numbers, it appears more likely that the cable news landscape can support two liberal-leaning networks, rather than settling on an eventual last network standing. The next step is for Current to fill in the rest of its prime-time lineup with the right kind of talent to build on Countdown’s success.

There shouldn’t be much shock that journalists believed the “media caricature” of Bachmann, both because it was perpetuated so frequently by many in the media who enjoyed exploiting her past historical gaffes, but also because, as Jon Stewart just described this morning, there tends to be a bias towards “sensationalism and laziness” in the media. In other words, the picture of Bachmann being crazy and unintelligent, regardless if true, is too exciting to ignore, and journalists were generally lazy or uninterested in determining whether or not she actually had any intellectual firepower behind her sometimes outlandish statements.

The very fact that just a few months ago Chris Matthews was nightly referring to Bachmann as a “balloon-head”, and many other commentators would similarly talk dismissively of Bachmann and Sarah Palin as not credible political figures, goes a long way towards suggesting why it was hard for them to be taken seriously. In the media echo chamber, it’s difficult for your one voice, no matter how intelligent, to disprove thousands of other voices saying you’re an idiot.

Yet with everyone’s undivided attention last week at the debates, Bachmann capitalized on a rare opportunity to change her media narrative. Whether it was simply because the media as a whole was remorseful for persecuting Palin for so long (doubtful) or because every other Republican presidential candidate was so boring and uninspiring by comparison (more likely), journalists listened directly to Bachmann and have now rewarded her with the distinction of being considered a serious and even formidable candidate for President. And with Matthews himself leading the charge of praising Bachmann, it seems many now realize that she couldn’t ever possibly be as bad as how, prior to the debates, she was so often described.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

One of Brown’s Republican targets:

“It’s unfortunate that Tim Pawlenty couldn’t be here. But cut him some slack. He’s having his foot surgically removed from his mouth. Oh no don’t worry, lucky for him it’s covered under ObamneyCare. That along with spinal transplants.”

Kurtz’s panel agreed that the comedian was a “a bad hire” and represents a certain “tone-deafness” in the Republican party of thinking an Obama impersonator at their event would be a good idea. It seems an even worse idea was pulling the comedian off early, since such a news-making action now amplifies the boneheaded decision to have this impersonator in the first place.

Watch the clip below from CNN:

Powers admitted she was shocked to learn Weiner had lied to her and felt sorry for him as she witnessed his life fall apart. However, her opinion started to shift towards disgust with his behavior after she remembered the denials he made to various interviewers and read the contents of the various text messages he sent. Powers concluded such behavior was “sociopathic” and that Weiner truly needed help.

Regarding her statements calling for Weiner’s resignation and blasting his treatment of women, Powers suggested “I didn’t want to do it, but I felt I had to do it.” With Weiner now getting some type of treatment, Powers was happy for him, but still unsure how anyone would be able to trust him again in the future.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Kurtz disapproving of the decision to leave out Eliot Spitzer:

“I’m sorry, if you’re going to do this kind of story, you have to include Eliot Spitzer. Even if he does now host a primetime CNN program, otherwise you are airbrushing history.”

Kurtz also read a statement from CNN saying that an individual producer made this decision, but other reporting on the channel did in fact include Spitzer. Given the increased scrutiny on all news channels throughout the day from various sources (including Kurtz), it’s odd to think that the producer did not think the Spitzer omission would raise eyebrows. Luckily though, now after this incident it’s likely Spitzer can rest assured that in the future he rightfully won’t be forgotten again in stories summarizing politicians who were caught in any sexual shenanigans.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Zakaria provided Kurtz with a statement clarifying the details of his meetings with Obama in addition to posting his own statement on his website:

The characterization that I have been “advising” President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I’ve had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.

Kurtz reported that Zakaria states “he never gave Obama advice or counsel on any aspect of administration policy” and that Zakaria defended himself as a commentator, and not a reporter, who had similar meetings in the past with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yet Kurtz insisted that it seems like a smarter to idea to always disclose such meetings, or not have them at all, in order to avoid suspicions later when word leaks out.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

On CNN’s Reliable Sources, ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross looked back at the reporting on terror–and terror threats–in the days (and years) after 9/11. Reviewing the many potential threats that made for frightening news reports (such as a report of Ross’s in 2006 about a possible attack by suicide bombers on a “major sports facility” in the U.S)–but, in looking back, never came to the point of an attack–Ross had few regrets.

“We wrestled with that,” Ross said of the sports threat, which came just days ahead of the NCAA Final, but said the threat had been reported to police across the country and was “worthy of our reporting.”

Watch it here, from CNN:

The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin said the Trig post showed “rotten taste,” and brought up the David Letterman joke that prompted outcry (and an angry response from Sarah Palin) a few years ago. She also observes the near-free ride that Andrew Sullivan has gotten on his pursuit of Trig Trutherism. Unfortunately, she failed to connect the dots between the Wonkette boycott, Sullivan’s objection to it, and the fact that he’s next on their list.

Clarence Page talked about the “normally delightful” comeuppance of Wonkette at the hands of their “lack of experience” in not knowing that you don’t go after the kids. Adweek’s Michael Wolff called Wonkette “tone deaf,” and throughout the segment, a chyron that said “Wonkette’s Low Blow: An apology for mocking Trig” appeared.

Cumulatively, the effect was a failure to convey the true character of the Wonkette post, which was “tone deaf” in the way that a punch in the balls is “impolite,” and the apology, which was of debatable sincerity and completeness.

The segment was also disappointing because it didn’t ask any of the deeper questions that this story begs. Chief among them is the power of the Twitter boycott, and the question of whether such boycotts are necessarily a good thing. While it’s not surprising that Andrew Sullivan has reservations, so do some who support the boycotters in spirit.

Additionally, while comparing this episode with others where politicians’ children were insulted, it would have been natural to discuss the ways in which this attack crossed lines that the others didn’t. Finally, with advertising expert Wolff on hand, why not delve into the practical consequences of a #TrigsCrew-style boycott?

In any case, Kurtz deserves credit for covering a story that isn’t getting the attention it deserves, but is right in Kurtz’s wheelhouse. It would have been nice if he had gotten a little more distance on his swing.

Here’s the segment, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Ironically, the Kyl episode they’re describing also seems to illustrate that our collective sense of outrage that a politician would lie is also hopelessly outdated. Having covered the four major 2008 campaigns, and being told repeatedly that it was raining when it was not, I can attest that Kyl’s ironically honest disclaimer should become PR boilerplate for all press secretaries.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

But the research for the “Top Ten List” of Keith Olbermann’s Nazi references, compiled by our own Matt Schneider, illustrates the fallacy of the comparison. Only six of those ten were from MSNBC’s air, and those examples stretched all the way back to 1998. Beck, by contrast, makes Nazi references with such comical frequency that during my one visit to Beck’s Mercury Radio offices, I could hear the word “Nazi!” wafting out of the studio into the waiting room. I half-expected “Nazi” to be an all-purpose, “Aloha”-style salutation at Beck HQ.

However, Press also illustrates the need for liberals to hold their figureheads to a higher standard. As I’ve said before, even if the score is 50 to 1 in Nazi references, or other crazy talk, isn’t it better to be able to say “We don’t do that,” and for it to be true?

Also lost in the Beck/MSNBC foodfight is the fact that CNN employs its own noted Nazi-bomb thrower, Redstate’s Erick Erickson.

Here’s the clip, From CNN’s Reliable Sources:

Update: The opening paragraph of this post has been updated to reflect the fact that, as commenters have pointed out, Keith Olbermann is not the only MSNBC host to ever make a Nazi reference.

Simon stated some other reasons for the media preferring to cover Trump and Bachmann because quite simply “they say outrageous things and they’re fun.” Yet Simon suggests that Trump as a candidate completely falls apart if you attempt to imagine him sitting in the Oval Office and trying to make important decisions. Dana Milbank agrees that the amount of coverage is not appropriate and considers Trump to be an “absolute joke.” Milbank, more so than the others on the panel, is worried that the media is “just being played” by all of these potential candidates who he thinks are really just interested in self-promotion and enhancing their speaking fees.

Watch the clip from CNN below: