I donated to Barack Obama's campaign today, in part because of the race the candidate has run, but mostly I donated because of last night. I donated today because last night represented the most embarrassing manifestation of what has rapidly become - thanks to the petty, high school tactics of the mainstream media and, in no small part, to the Clinton campaign - a race to the bottom. A race that has allowed well-heeled members of the media to sidestep the issues facing actual, reality-based Americans and instead focus on the latest "gotcha" attack, last night's exemplar being a particularly idiotic line of questioning inspired, in part, by right-wing water-carriers like Sean Hannity.

It's bad when you've got Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos doing battle to see who could ask - or introduce via video - the dumbest set of questions seen so far in this campaign. Hey, guys, when you get the privilege of interviewing the next president about the most pressing issues facing everyday Americans, let me clue you in on something: Everything you talked about last night for the first 40 or so minutes will never scratch the Top 100 of those issues. Questions about "bitter", about flag pins, about pastors, about loose acquaintances aren't important. The economy is. Getting out of Iraq is. Providing healthcare for all Americans is. This isn't a game. You shouldn't be happy with what you did, just like some moron shouldn't be happy about what he just left in the toilet.

Leaving Charlie and George, who just can't help it, alone for a moment, let me address someone who can - Hillary Clinton. Welcome to the absolute bottom of the barrel, Senator. Here's a tip: When you help engage in the sort of distracting, tabloid-style attacks that plagued - to your often-vocal dismay - your husband's administration, you become no better than those slinging the mud. I don't care whether or not the Republicans will resort to gutter politics this fall; I know they will. What's up to you is whether or not you will. The answer, only reinforced last night, is clear. You will. And you have.

Hiding behind the excuse that "the Republicans will do it later" isn't a justification for doing it yourself now. Watching Clinton, who managed to hit some soft notes for this hardened Obama supporter last night and who seemed at first to be willing to rise above, play tag-team, low-rent attack machine with Gibson and Stephanopoulos was sad to see for someone who had a great deal of respect and admiration for the former First Lady. I've seen her speak twice, during the 1992 and 1996 race, and she was a brilliant, forward-thinking leader. Fast-forward to last night, when she seemed all-too-happy to join in the needless distraction. I'm left to think she either believes what she said or is otherwise simply desperate to win the nomination. Times have most certainly changed.

It's clear there are two campaigns being waged right now: The real one facing real Americans. And the fake one, the game, being played purely for the entertainment of the Beltway insider set. Thanks for the latter, we're unable to take part in the former. But we're smarter than that, no matter what the insiders think. It's a shame they're not giving you the credit for being willing to rise above. Something, clearly, they're unable to do. The question pestering me most of late has been "At what cost?" At what cost to the party is Clinton willing to take the nomination? At what cost are we willing to take part in the distractions? At what cost are the media willing to trade access and influence for honesty and integrity? The sooner we end up on the right side of those questions, the sooner we can focus on the fall and taking this country back.

Last night wasn't a great night for America. Last night we saw the ugliness that has sullied what should be a campaign about the issues. Last night two seemingly capable anchors did John McCain's dirty work for him. But last night was last night. And today is new. Today is fresh. Today we begin again. And I started today by donating to Barack Obama, because while today is important, tomorrow is crucial.

I'm a sucker for a lot of things: Personal journalism. Progressive politics. Behind-the-scenes reporting. Media criticism. Strong, intelligent women. In Connie Schultz's new book, "... and His Lovely Wife: A Memoir from the Woman Beside the Man", we're treated to all of these things, and more. In case you didn't know, Schultz is the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The "Man", in this case, is Congressman-turned-Senator Sherrod Brown. And the book is Schultz's very personal chronicle of Brown's race for U.S. Senate, a year-plus spent in the maelstrom of a campaign, and the efforts Schultz and Brown undertook to make their young, enthusiastic marriage work. He won, they survived, and their love - portrayed beautifully in the book - endures. The importance of this book will, too, making it a no-doubt-about-it addition to your must-read list.

Schultz's book, which captures the period from shortly before Brown's decision to enter the race to a time shortly after his victory last year, works on many levels. It succeeds at behind-the-scenes chronicle thanks to its attention to detail and, most importantly, its author. Schultz, naturally, is able to take us further inside the tent than any other author, doing so with ease, thanks to the intelligence and heart in her writing. It is also a winning example of fearless, applied feminism, and should therefore be required reading (like Jessica Valenti's "Full Frontal Feminism") for women of all ages in need of a Hell yeah! from a fellow traveler. It works, too, as an inspiring kick in the pants to progressives everywhere, reminding us that our values - the values that built this country - win with Americans desperate for leaders willing to fight for them.

In Brown, Ohio found that fighter. Throughout the book, Schultz recounts how the Congressman brought his progressive populism to every corner of Ohio - those nearby, too - and never sold his soul to the Devil to beat Mike DeWine. Brown and his team fought hard to beat back any of the increasingly cheap attacks coming from the right; attacks that said far more about those making them than those on the receiving end. Brown met every charge, combining his best traits and lessons learned from other candidates to earn a hard-fought victory. Schultz, in her writing, offers several tantalizing glimpses at the mindset of the Republican Party during the campaign, as well as those in the media doing their best to fairly cover the race and its most important issues ... as well as those in the Fourth Estate (more than a few) who failed in their responsibilities. The depth of this book is amazing.

Personally, reading "... and His Lovely Wife" felt like watching video from a cheerful family reunion, or footage of your favorite team winning a championship. For so many, the charge to the 2006 election was a grueling, yet exciting, time, one in which the final outcome was matched only by the intensity of those working to achieve victory. I'll always remember the passion of election night and the feelings that came with the knowledge that we had turned Ohio blue and had helped usher in change nationwide. Schultz brings us closer, and the many personal and professional challenges faced throughout the campaign make that November night all the more special. I finished the book in such short order - a little more than a day - thanks both to its engaging subject matter and my inability to put it down. I didn't want it to end; you won't, either.

The true brilliance in "... and His Lovely Wife" is Schultz's ability to draw to nothing the distance between author and reader. I never felt distant, in time or proximity, from the story. Nor did Schultz ever feel apart as its reporter. This book, like her columns, feels as though your friend Connie is on the line, or the other side of the kitchen table, and just has to tell you something.* Something that will make you laugh. Something that will make you cry. Something that will rekindle your passion to leave this world better than you found it. Or, you'll discover after reading this great book, all of the above. We're lucky to have "... and His Lovely Wife". We're even luckier to have its author.

* Quick story: When in the airport waiting to fly home from New York this weekend, I encountered someone else reading Schultz's book. We struck up a conversation, and he told me about his recent experience at a local book signing with the author. Despite the fact that hundreds were there jockeying to meet Schultz, she took the time to speak in detail with the man, who was interested in getting into politics. He left even more impressed than he already was, and was well on his way to finishing the book, which he too loved. Small world.

I've really gotten quite used to being lectured by the "elite media" about who I am and am not as a progressive blogger, while, at the same time, being chastised by same for being right on the most important issue facing us today - Iraq - but not being serious enough about it, as those who are constantly wrong have apparently been. By now, I'm equally used to the aforementioned card-carrying elite members of the mainstream media taking time from their busy schedules to ridicule we helpless peons for attempting to hold them to some sort of standard, to, in other words, ask them to do their jobs. With that introduction, I bring you the latest example: Charles Gibson.

This is a passage from Gibson's recent commencement address at Union College:

Know what is important news and what is not.

Keep abreast of foreign affairs, domestic politics - and we've got a fascinating election coming up - and economic affairs. Follow the issues in your local city or county council.

And, don't disparage the mainstream media. The editor of your hometown newspaper or the producers of network newscasts don't have 30 or 40 years of experience for nothing. When you see a news organization get fixated on non-stop coverage of Paris Hilton, or Anna Nicole Smith, or Michael Jackson, go elsewhere.

When an announcer says, "It's a report you have to see," you probably don't. When an anchor says, "shocking details," they probably aren't. When a reporter claims his news is "fair and balanced," it probably isn't. And, when politicians say, "I'm going to level with you," they probably won't.

Where to start? Well, I would definitely argue that, in the last cited graph, Gibson makes some great sense, especially when talking about the current state of news. His first two examples - "It's a report you have to see" and "shocking details" - have long been mainstays of local news (and now, cable news). As for the "fair and balanced" swipe, there's really no explanation needed, is there? But it's what Gibson said before this graph that requires attention. Serious, serious attention.

Said Gibson, "... don't disparage the mainstream media." Fair enough - member of the mainstream media again flinching at alleged criticism of the mainstream media - no news there, as they say. But what's implicit in Gibson's first thought is painfully explicit in his second: "The editor of your hometown newspaper or the producers of network newscasts don't have 30 or 40 years of experience for nothing." In other words, don't let me catch you punk kids trying to tell me how to do my job! I appreciate his sentiments insofar as they represent the notion that experience counts. Or should, at least. That said, when those veteran hometown newspaper editors or network newscast producers are either pushed aside in service of a bottom line-oriented ownership or - equally likely - make terrible decisions, I would argue that media criticism isn't just our right, it's our duty.

We should, as Gibson says, "go elsewhere" when news organizations fall dreadfully off-track, choosing instead to focus on trivialities. But that's not exactly the sentiment the young adults in the audience should have heard. Hell, it contradicts exactly what Gibson said just before he shifted to the news. Starting a passage with "I want all of you to be involved," Gibson touches on some of the most important issues facing us today - Iraq, immigration, health care, the environment, and so on. He then transitions into his media criticism by saying, "You need to care - for these are issues that are basic to your democracy. Participate." Am I the only one who notices the disconnect in what Gibson is saying? On the one hand, we are in serious times and it is incumbent on our youth to be good citizens, to be involved. Yet, on the other hand, his idea of involvement when it comes to a derelict media is, at best, to change the channel. How does that make sense?

Short answer: It doesn't.

The last thing a good citizen should do, Charles, is go elsewhere. There's scarcely elsewhere to go. You urge those graduating to participate, to be involved. Why not urge them to do the same thing when it involves the media? Should we "go elsewhere" when frustrated with the administration's lack of progress on the environment? Should we "go elsewhere" when we encounter government officials who refuse to end this terrible war? Should we "go elsewhere" when so many of us don't have the insurance we need? Of course we shouldn't. Matters are too important, as you yourself note, to "go elsewhere". When the one institution whose job it is to act as a check on a government run amok is failing, it becomes that much harder for citizens to become informed citizens. Your commentary admits to the shortcomings of today's media, yet your speech also warns those hearing it against pointing out those shortcomings, as though we should trust your colleagues with the task of recognizing what's wrong - and fixing it. This reminds me of the administration asking us to trust it to fix the mess in Iraq. Your profession is broken, Charles. It's too late to tell us not to repair it.

Remember the dust-up over John Edwards's two hires, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan? You know, the personal vendetta and charge for their firings led by bigoted Bill Donohue? That's right, the same Bill Donohue allowed yesterday by Air America host Lionel to repeatedly lie, make racist and homophobic statements and otherwise spew dishonesty unchallenged and unquestioned by his all-too-willing host. But the worst claim - the worst - made by Donohue was that he, unlike others, doesn't call for the firings of his group's targets. Sure you don't, Bill.

I would be remiss if I failed first to point you to posts about yesterday's shameful episode on Air America penned by Marcotte and McEwan, two friends and fellow bloggers subject to the kind of Donohue-led personal vendetta that the bigoted asshole himself yesterday denied in host Lionel's warm, loving embrace. I can't stress enough the insanity of the truly awe-inspiring Donohue claim - a claim unchallenged by Lionel - that he doesn't call for his targets' firings. Oh yeah? Here, for your reading pleasure (and I hope the reading pleasure of those asleep at the switch with Lionel's "show") are specific passages - quotes from Donohue himself - from four Catholic League press releases over an eight-day stretch earlier this year:

February 6: "John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots. He has no choice but to fire them immediately."

February 8: "John Edwards has apparently decided that there is more to be gained by aligning himself with the cultural left than by standing on principle and firing the Catholic bashers on his payroll."

February 12: "John Edwards had better fire Marcotte and McEwan immediately. As I said last week on TV, these two foul-mouthed bigots are loose cannons with no particular loyalty to Edwards. I was just proven right." (From a release titled " EDWARDS BLOGGER STRIKES AGAIN: THEY MUST BE FIRED NOW!)

February 13: "It is not enough that one foul-mouthed anti-Christian bigot, Amanda Marcotte, has quit. Melissa McEwan must go as well. Either Edwards shows her the door or she bolts on her own. There is no third choice - the Catholic League will see to it that this issue won't go away.

"The Edwards campaign is in total disarray and the meltdown will continue unless McEwan is removed from his staff. The fact that Marcotte had to quit suggests that Edwards doesn't have the guts to do what is morally right. He has one more chance - fire McEwan now." (From a release titled "EDWARDS NEEDS TO CAN McEWAN")

Sweet Jesus Christ Dressed as Bill Donohue, there can't be a more textbook example of a blatant, hypocritical, gutless lie than that. And yet it was allowed to see the light of day today - on Air America and on more than one occasion. I repeat, on Air America. The entire premise of Donohue's appearance on Lionel's show was as bogus:

Hold onto your hats, we've got Bill Donohue from the Catholic League. He asks: why is it ok to bash Catholics when there's outrage every time someone hints at insulting Islam or Judaism.

Marcotte, in her post, knocks this ridiculous notion out of the ballpark, but, for a moment, let what happened yesterday settle in: On a show from a progressive radio network hosted by a "talent" apparently important enough to unseat true progressive and friend of the netroots Sam Seder, a known bigot and enemy of everything the network claims to stand for was given ample time to repeatedly lie, make racist and homophobic comments and avoid any and all scrutiny of his own sad record. What's more, by not doing his homework and instead insulting his audience for not getting it, Lionel did himself and his network a tremendous disservice. Tacitly endorsing disgusting bigotry is, in my mind, not a progressive ideal.

And you can spare me the replies that I must have a problem with airing all sides of an issue, a problem with the notion of equal time. Bull. I'm all for opposing opinion and for the idea of it being welcome on Air America. But what I'm not for is hosts uncritically allowing guests to repeatedly make easily-refuted claims. I'm also not for hosts allowing guests to make bigoted comments and then criticizing those who have the temerity to call them bigoted. Look no further than Thom Hartmann as an example of an Air America host who welcomes opposing viewpoints. Hartmann regularly spars with those holding contrary opinions, only he does his job and challenges them using intelligence and class, two concepts lacking in the host warming his chair each morning.

When new Air America president Mark Green trumpeted the new "Air America 2.0" in March, he wrote the following:

But be a business with a sharp point of view. The era of on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand liberalism is over - or as Robert Frost once wrote, "a liberal man is too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel." For all those who worry about messianic misleaders governing on a right wing and a prayer, Air America 2.0 will be an answer. For all those fearful of plutocracy and theocracy, the pro-democracy hosts of AAR's programs will be an answer. If the conservative media continue to spout propaganda and call it news, there's now the alternative of truth, justice and the Air American way.

Boy, Mark, that sounds good when you write it for The Huffington Post, but it turns out a bit differently in practice, doesn't it? I'll cut through your self-congratulatory rhetoric and instead offer you this: It's all about legitimacy. The legitimacy Air America seeks and the legitimacy the network grants its most vocal defenders and most frequent listeners. To achieve the former, it's not smart business to insult the latter. And yesterday, we were all insulted. I hope you're happy with your choice to replace Seder. In time, I suspect you'll be as pleased as those responsible for bringing Jerry Springer on-board. Is it too much to ask that the progressive radio network be, well, progressive? I sure hope not.

Don't take this sitting down. Lionel's Web page can be found here. To contact the show, call 212-871-8283 or write at mailto:thelionelshow@airamerica.com ">thelionelshow@airamerica.com . For another feedback form for Lionel's show, click here. Also, contact Air America itself at mailto:contact@airamerica.com ">contact@airamerica.com .

Today is May 1, the day the empty codpiece stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln four years ago - under the banner reading "Mission Accomplished" - and, to the jubilation of an already in-the-bag Beltway press corps, proclaimed, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." As of that speech, 139 Americans had died. Since that day, more than 3,200 of our men and women have died. This is, of course, to say nothing of the thousands maimed, seriously wounded or left with lifelong mental scars, or the tens to probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

And for what?

Despite all of the bluster you will likely hear today, why we're still bogged down in Iraq, in the middle of a bloody civil war, is actually quite simple: Hubris. The principal justifications given us for this needless war have long been proven wrong. You know this. I know this. Even the president, I suspect, knows this. But everything since "Mission Accomplished" has been little more than an effort to make muddy a picture that is crystal clear, the notion that the Iraq of our creation (creation after destruction, really) won't be as the all-too-influential neocon enablers promised us it would be. Nowhere near, in fact.

It seems obvious that the sole remaining justification for our being there - and the continued death of soldier and civilian alike - is that if we just keep pressing, we'll eventually be able to figure out what stopped our original predictions from becoming realities. But, the tricky part is that, the longer we're there, the more enemies we create, thus giving our sorry excuse for leadership all the justification they need to keep hammering the square peg into the round hole. As Josh Marshall said, to describe the Iraq quagmire as "lost" omits the fact that the underlying premise was, in his words, bogus. Continuing, Marshall writes, "... the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag."

What's clear is that, once in the bag, our disastrous foreign policy has caused irreparable, perhaps incalculable damage. Leaving won't be easy, nor will it repair all that's been done. But it's what must happen, though to say so still manages to get you branded by the right-wing as a pro-terrorist traitor. Just trust us, they'll say, and in an undetermined period of time, some progress, to employ the odious language used by this administration, might be made. Given the pro-war crowd's stellar track record with predictions, we would be wise to force their hand and force our way out of the bag. It's the only way, for the only reason we're still in Iraq, still dying and still killing, is because our president and his enablers refuse to admit what the rest of us have long known.

It's time to come home.

One of the biggest - and yet largely undiscussed - problems facing progressive activism (blogging in particular) is burnout. Every so often, the blogosphere loses one of its brightest lights to the grind, either temporarily or, worse, permanently. Delivering fresh content, day after day, is, even for the best, a difficult proposition. Balancing a blog with one's personal life and, more often than not, day job is an even more difficult task. Toss in the daily frustration one typically feels with the administration or the spectacularly slow grind of progress and the joys of trying to make a difference can become hardships. This is less a complaint than a reality. Also, let's not forget that a healthy dose of perspective is always important. That said, I've finally put my finger on one of the most persistent causes of my periodic burnout - and maybe yours, too: Beltway Derangement Syndrome.

You're right if you think the diagnosis of Beltway Derangement Syndrome sounds familiar. While you've surely encountered its dangerous side-effects, you've also likely heard - from your friends on the right - about the concept of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", a diagnosis coined by a man who has made a living outside the reality-based community, Charles Krauthammer. It was Krauthammer who coined the phrase in 2003: "Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush." Now this, of course, is a load of steaming bullshit. And one that has been flipped around to refer to those in favor of the president. But it's important to know the other side's personal problems become ours with which to deal. And deal with them we do, through Beltway Derangement Syndrome and its dangerous partner-in-crime, Secondhand BDS.

In as concise a definition as possible, Beltway Derangement Syndrome can be defined as the disregard for reality - either creeping or acute - that can grip those whose job it is to report on and/or discuss national politics, most often from Washington. Its causes are myriad, ranging from laziness to intellectual incuriosity to partisanship to the trading of integrity for access. As I mentioned earlier, BDS has a potentially lethal counterpart, Secondhand BDS. This malady can, if we let it, grip us, those who, in the course of their political activism, consume political media, ranging from Washington Post editorials to Joe Klein columns to "Hardball" to FOX News, for example. In other words, Secondhand BDS represents the blurred sense reality brought on by over-reliance on and overdose of Beltway "conventional wisdom".

BDS is a manifestation of a systemic problem, one starting as far back as our nation's journalism schools. There, I saw firsthand how a climate of incuriosity bred a culture of mediocrity. And there, I saw how second-rate aspiring journalists could turn "network" from a noun to a verb and become, as I wrote, "back-slapping, hand-shaking, card-exchanging ne'er-do-wells who would rather network than work, kiss ass than kick it." The problem only starts there, however, as the entire corporate media landscape forces those journalists not already toeing the company line to devote precious space to meaningless fluff, distracting process stories and the latest missing white woman.

The overemphasis on empty journalistic calories produces expected results. In the world of political journalism, this translates to a Fourth Estate power structure wed nearly completely to entrenched interests and, not coincidentally, the Republican Party line. High-profile journalists and pundits are now as well-to-do as those they cover. Threats to those in power, therefore, are threats to them. Witness the media's utter disdain for the bloggers whose sole offense is holding their feet to the fire. This climate fosters, more often than not, severe cases of BDS. Look no further than the many online destinations keeping track of these crimes against journalism - Media Matters and Think Progress come to mind - and you will see its symptoms.

But the symptoms - the lazy, sycophantic, ridiculously partisan journalism we face on a daily basis - aren't nearly as interesting to me as the feelings they inspire in those consuming such media. Even the most focused progressives, those busy using their power to take power, can succumb, albeit temporarily, to Secondhand BDS. These feelings of gloom, doom, doubt and pessimism can't help but creep in after prolonged exposure to the mainstream media. Maybe, we think, the new Democratic Congressional leadership hasn't been as successful as it has. Maybe, we think, that the prosecutor purge - like so many administration scandals before - won't amount to much. Maybe, we think, the president is poised to regain his stride. Maybe, we think, that his plan for Iraq will work out in the end.

But we know none of this is the case. We know it. Last November, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we handed the Republicans their ass. We're in the majority now and are starting to act like it. At any moment, Alberto Gonzales could resign. And, as Atrios noted Monday, "People hate Bush and hate this war. It's that simple, and it's been true for quite some time." What's more, on issue after issue, the American people are closely aligned with the Democratic position. Yet why, then, do we sometimes find ourselves fighting these feelings, most often while watching cable news? Why do we sometimes feel like the innocent man being interrogated, made to think he actually did steel that car? Why do we sometimes feel as though what we're doing won't make a difference? There's no mistaking this feeling, the one that hangs over you like the piece of bad news that can't help but overshadow what should be a great time. It's Secondhand BDS.

The best part about Secondhand BDS is that it is entirely preventable. One way, of course - and perhaps the best for your sanity - to combat Secondhand BDS is to change the channel. Ignore those who have been so wrong on so many issues, as their case of BDS is likely beyond repair. Another is to confront what ails you head on. Fight the source of your headaches. Pressure advertisers. Write journalists. Contact their bosses. Because today's Don Imus could be tomorrow's Glenn Beck. Believe it. And believe in yourself and your cause. You are on the right side, not them. And your side is in charge, too. Resist the burnout that can slow your progress. Fight the conventional wisdom. Be the change. Remember: Only you can prevent Secondhand BDS.

Looking back at the exchange of ideas that started with this story and now continues with this one, I'd like to further engage in the discussion of the Don Imus saga, specifically as it relates to the free-speech issues so important in today's society. To that end, I'd also like to dive into the issues Matt, a journalism graduate school friend, brought up in his latest comments. Let's start here:

But, even if the language bothers you, he DOES have a right to say it. Doesn't he? If the FCC approves of something on the public airwaves and it does not violate the Constitution, can it not be said? If you say it cannot, then who dictates what's morally reprehensible speech and what isn't? You? Al Sharpton?

And when someone who has the right to use public airwaves to make those statements - protected, Constitutionally allowed statements - it becomes a problem when they can be coerced out of saying them because of pressure applied to corporations and advertisers.

To answer Matt's first question, of course Imus has the right to say what he said. He's always had that right. And he always will. He had it before he got fired; he has it now. He remains both protected and allowed by the Constitution to speak his mind. But what's missing here is that Imus, while he shares the same First Amendment rights we all enjoy, doesn't have a Constitutionally protected right to host a prominent radio program simulcast by a prominent cable news network. None of us do. Such opportunities are privileges, afforded the chosen few by the even more select group of media owners and decision-makers.

Now, that thought is something far more important as a jumping-off point into a good, old-fashioned free-speech dialogue than the Imus matter alone. To me, that people took advantage of their rights to help convince networks and advertisers to abandon Imus is much less a threat to democracy than the fact that control over what we read, see and hear through the media is in fewer and fewer hands. Without a doubt, ownership consolidation - and the threats corporate control pose - trump the actions of myriad motivated Americans. To say nothing of the absence of the Fairness Doctrine in today's media landscape. But first things first.

"If you coerce higher-ups to make the 'offender' leave, you set a precedent for corporate censorship - far scarier than government censorship in my eyes," Matt writes. Ignoring government censorship, which is a grave threat to free speech but not what we're addressing, it's vital to note that corporate censorship is not a one-way street. The precedent here isn't ours. It isn't something that trickles up from the grassroots. It's theirs. Those in control of the media we consume, the corporations beholden far more to their interests (financial, philosophical) than ours (objectivity, truth), dictate what we read, see and hear. Sometimes overtly, often not. Consider the climate in this country prior to the invasion of Iraq. Specifically, the gung-ho nature of cable news coverage of the run-up to war.

Dissenting, anti-war positions, when they weren't altogether absent, were marginalized in favor of aggressive, pro-administration cheerleading. On MSNBC, the most prominent anti-war voice was Phil Donahue. Brought to the network to do the job that Keith Olbermann has helped accomplish, Donahue - when the march to war began - found himself at odds with network officials and their corporate bosses. He was told to soften his show topics. He was told to book more hawks than doves. What he brought to the network, however, ran counter to the overwhelming trend. An internal NBC study expressed such concerns: If his show were to persist after the war began, it would be "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Donahue would never have that chance. His show was cancelled in February of 2003 to make way for an expansion of a program titled "Countdown: Iraq" and for right-wingers like Michael Savage, Dick Armey and Joe Scarborough. At the time of its cancellation, Donahue's show, which was less than a year old, drew more viewers than any other show on the network, including "Hardball". The sycophantic views of that show's host, Chris Matthews, were apparent for anyone watching the network on May 1 of that same year, when the president, speaking before a banner that read "Mission Accomplished", said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Matthews, who called the president a "high-flying jet star" and likened him to Ronald Reagan, said things like, "He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him - I mean, he seems like - he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does." Mission accomplished, indeed: One host, Donahue, pushed out for his views in favor of others brought on board for theirs. A textbook case of corporate censorship, if you ask me. Looking back at that internal NBC study, it's funny how times have changed. In 2003, Donahue was fired for taking an anti-war stance. Four years later, Olbermann, whose views more or less echo Donahue's, is one of the network's brightest lights. Why the difference in outcome? Here's one answer. Further, though, why, given today's political realities and the long-term trend in support for progressive positions, has Olbermann's program remained the lone progressive-friendly outlet on cable news?

One answer is the tendency of high-profile pundits and their employers to trade objectivity for access. In this Beltway-centric, conservative-friendly culture, anything to the left of Joe Lieberman is regarded as fringe radicalism. Even those widely regarded as being correct on important issues - like Iraq - are considered less "serious" than their incorrect counterparts. Another answer, the death of the Fairness Doctrine, is more structural, but not entirely divorced from the other. Couple the idea that network owners tend to the conservative with the idea that they no longer need offer alternative views to those put forth by their often pro-corporate, pro-conservative hosts and the picture is clear. Now, couple these ideas with the idea that control of mainstream media is in fewer and fewer hands - non-billionaires need not apply - and the picture is clearer yet: It's going to be a long, lonely road for progressives.

With this in mind, why would the government need censor the media when the media does a fine enough job doing it for them? Matt and I are in agreement that government censorship of the media is a scary proposition. Setting arbitrary standards to limit communication is an equally frightening concept and something that cannot be taken lightly. That said, Imus is no victim here. His rights aren't being trampled. As I said earlier, Imus has the right to say what he said. He's always had that right. And he always will. The only difference between now and then, however, is that he's been fired. Not because of free speech, but because his continued presence would have hurt the bottom line of his employers, whose peers, it should be noted, employ people who say far more offensive things than Imus. And those employers, though they may agree with what their employees say, love one thing more than ideology: Money. And the money good ratings help generate. This is why Olbermann, who impresses in the key demographic, prospers, but it's also why his bosses remain too timid to hire another like him.

And that, regardless of your ideology, poses a far greater threat to free speech than "Hey hey, ho ho, Don Imus has got to go!"

In response to something I wrote about the Don Imus saga Friday, Matt, a journalism graduate school friend of mine, replied and made his case quite succinctly. Another friend, Karl, weighed in, as did I. With our back-and-forth in mind, I'd like to add some detail to my point-of-view. If I may make so bold, Matt's entire argument can be summarized in his own words: "By calling for (and ultimately causing) the firing of Don Imus, it sets a bad precedent for free speech." I disagree, and, though I am as firm a defender of free speech as he, I would like to take this argument in a different direction, speaking to both the issues of our freedoms and the role of the people-powered movement in the debate.

Before I do that, however, I'd like to address another of Matt's central assertions, the importance of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in determining Imus's eventual fate. Matt wrote, "What happened here was a vast minority of people took full use of the media resources around them (in this case, Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson) and created a situation where there was a perceived national outcry against this particular discussion. Advertisers and corporate executives were pressured into firing Imus lest they be subject to continued protesting outside of their offices. In the face of this pressure, advertisers dropped out and corporate was forced to fire Imus." Quite simply, no.

Sharpton wasn't responsible for Imus's firing. Nor was Jackson. Nor was I. Don Imus was responsible for what happened to Don Imus. He said something both woefully stupid and incredibly bigoted, millions of people took note of the man's sad track record of similar statements, and they responded. What Imus-defenders may perceive as the start of the story - the response - only occurred because Imus so polluted the airwaves. The fault is clear: It begins and ends with Imus. Now, back to my point, about what I think is the collision between the old way of doing things and the new way of doing things. This intersection is especially apparent in the uproar surrounding Imus's statements.

Imus - and his many, many peers still gainfully employed (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, for instance) - represent what I'll call "active assholery". In the past, active assholery was met only with what I'll call "passive participation" or, worse yet, nothing at all. In other words, people like Beck would enjoy free rein to pollute the airwaves with all manner of hate speech, while the rest of us had to sit there and take it. If you don't like my choice of phrase, why not use Matt's chosen frame, the free market model? There, our choice was easy: Listen, or don't. Take it, or ... take it. Even the most aggressive tools at our disposal were anything but.

I'm not interested in capitalism winning out. I'm interested in democracy winning out. Expect the market to take care of people like Imus? If that's the case, the market has been doing a terrible, terrible job. In my model, on the other hand, active assholery meets active participation. When confronted with the Imuses and Becks of the world, we no longer have to take it. We can, and should, do something about it. And I fail to see why their rights to speak out trump ours. Referring to the Imus matter, Matt wrote, "The way it was done, in my opinion, subverts that Constitution and opens up a whole different discussion about what free speech truly is." Not so. What would have subverted the Constitution would have been to embrace the old model, to do nothing. By taking back our rights, we actively embraced all that's good about that brilliant document.

Thinking about it through this frame, I see nothing at all wrong with contacting journalists, their employers or their corporate partners and voicing our concerns. How is that different from contacting our elected officials? Sure, the outcome may not be the same, but the intent often is: Seeking responsiveness and the awareness of a particular point-of-view. By likening what happened to Imus to what he believes could happen to me, Matt does a tremendous disservice to his argument. Why? Because, at the core, we're not talking about punishing speech with which people don't happen to agree. We're talking about fighting back against what has been a steady stream of hate speech. Matt's counterexample to the Imus firing - a coordinated right-wing response to my writings - falls flat because my criticisms of those whom the right-wingers admire never, ever wade into the use of flatly bigoted language.

These are the sort of traps we face on a near-daily basis: Contact an advertiser about a prominent media personality using bigoted language and we're taking part in a partisan witch hunt, but make legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration and face ouster simply because we said something with which conservatives disagree. See the problem? As a progressive, I've become used to being confronted regularly with these sort of false equivalencies. And when we're not being held subject to such scrutiny, we're being barraged with muddying arguments like those now being made about rappers' use of the word "ho". This is why, I'm sure, someone will accuse me of being a hypocrite for writing something like this in the past. You told people to change the channel. We're telling you to change the channel. What's the difference? But what I wrote about then - content with which one disagrees - bears no similarity to what I'm writing about now, truly bigoted content.

Who, in the long run, will be more hurt by what Imus said - Imus, or the Rutgers women's basketball team? Certainly not Imus, who, after some time in civil society's penalty box, will surely be back, perhaps on satellite radio (and perhaps, due to the attention now being paid him, at an even higher pay grade). When that happens, there's nothing in Imus's history that tells us his contrition won't be short-lived. The team, meanwhile, will, no matter what heights the women reach in their lives, always face the stigma of being called "nappy-headed hos". This goes far beyond hurt feelings and, in doing so, beyond a simple First Amendment argument. Imus hasn't lost his freedom of speech, He's lost his job. His employers terminated him not because his actions posed a First Amendment crisis; they did so because his continued employment posed a bottom-line crisis. So, in that way, what happened was a victory for the market. And democracy.

In response to something I wrote about the Don Imus saga Friday, Matt, a journalism graduate school friend of mine, replied and made his case quite succinctly. Another friend, Karl, weighed in, as did I. With our back-and-forth in mind, I'd like to add some detail to my point-of-view. If I may make so bold, Matt's entire argument can be summarized in his own words: "By calling for (and ultimately causing) the firing of Don Imus, it sets a bad precedent for free speech." I disagree, and, though I am as firm a defender of free speech as he, I would like to take this argument in a different direction, speaking to both the issues of our freedoms and the role of the people-powered movement in the debate.

Before I do that, however, I'd like to address another of Matt's central assertions, the importance of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in determining Imus's eventual fate. Matt wrote, "What happened here was a vast minority of people took full use of the media resources around them (in this case, Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson) and created a situation where there was a perceived national outcry against this particular discussion. Advertisers and corporate executives were pressured into firing Imus lest they be subject to continued protesting outside of their offices. In the face of this pressure, advertisers dropped out and corporate was forced to fire Imus." Quite simply, no.

Sharpton wasn't responsible for Imus's firing. Nor was Jackson. Nor was I. Don Imus was responsible for what happened to Don Imus. He said something both woefully stupid and incredibly bigoted, millions of people took note of the man's sad track record of similar statements, and they responded. What Imus-defenders may perceive as the start of the story - the response - only occurred because Imus so polluted the airwaves. The fault is clear: It begins and ends with Imus. Now, back to my point, about what I think is the collision between the old way of doing things and the new way of doing things. This intersection is especially apparent in the uproar surrounding Imus's statements.

Imus - and his many, many peers still gainfully employed (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, for instance) - represent what I'll call "active assholery". In the past, active assholery was met only with what I'll call "passive participation" or, worse yet, nothing at all. In other words, people like Beck would enjoy free rein to pollute the airwaves with all manner of hate speech, while the rest of us had to sit there and take it. If you don't like my choice of phrase, why not use Matt's chosen frame, the free market model? There, our choice was easy: Listen, or don't. Take it, or ... take it. Even the most aggressive tools at our disposal were anything but.

I'm not interested in capitalism winning out. I'm interested in democracy winning out. Expect the market to take care of people like Imus? If that's the case, the market has been doing a terrible, terrible job. In my model, on the other hand, active assholery meets active participation. When confronted with the Imuses and Becks of the world, we no longer have to take it. We can, and should, do something about it. And I fail to see why their rights to speak out trump ours. Referring to the Imus matter, Matt wrote, "The way it was done, in my opinion, subverts that Constitution and opens up a whole different discussion about what free speech truly is." Not so. What would have subverted the Constitution would have been to embrace the old model, to do nothing. By taking back our rights, we actively embraced all that's good about that brilliant document.

Thinking about it through this frame, I see nothing at all wrong with contacting journalists, their employers or their corporate partners and voicing our concerns. How is that different from contacting our elected officials? Sure, the outcome may not be the same, but the intent often is: Seeking responsiveness and the awareness of a particular point-of-view. By likening what happened to Imus to what he believes could happen to me, Matt does a tremendous disservice to his argument. Why? Because, at the core, we're not talking about punishing speech with which people don't happen to agree. We're talking about fighting back against what has been a steady stream of hate speech. Matt's counterexample to the Imus firing - a coordinated right-wing response to my writings - falls flat because my criticisms of those whom the right-wingers admire never, ever wade into the use of flatly bigoted language.

These are the sort of traps we face on a near-daily basis: Contact an advertiser about a prominent media personality using bigoted language and we're taking part in a partisan witch hunt, but make legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration and face ouster simply because we said something with which conservatives disagree. See the problem? As a progressive, I've become used to being confronted regularly with these sort of false equivalencies. And when we're not being held subject to such scrutiny, we're being barraged with muddying arguments like those now being made about rappers' use of the word "ho". This is why, I'm sure, someone will accuse me of being a hypocrite for writing something like this in the past. You told people to change the channel. We're telling you to change the channel. What's the difference? But what I wrote about then - content with which one disagrees - bears no similarity to what I'm writing about now, truly bigoted content.

Who, in the long run, will be more hurt by what Imus said - Imus, or the Rutgers women's basketball team? Certainly not Imus, who, after some time in civil society's penalty box, will surely be back, perhaps on satellite radio (and perhaps, due to the attention now being paid him, at an even higher pay grade). When that happens, there's nothing in Imus's history that tells us his contrition won't be short-lived. The team, meanwhile, will, no matter what heights the women reach in their lives, always face the stigma of being called "nappy-headed hos". This goes far beyond hurt feelings and, in doing so, beyond a simple First Amendment argument. Imus hasn't lost his freedom of speech, He's lost his job. His employers terminated him not because his actions posed a First Amendment crisis; they did so because his continued employment posed a bottom-line crisis. So, in that way, what happened was a victory for the market. And democracy.

In response to something I wrote about the Don Imus saga Friday, Matt, a journalism graduate school friend of mine, replied and made his case quite succinctly. Another friend, Karl, weighed in, as did I. With our back-and-forth in mind, I'd like to add some detail to my point-of-view. If I may make so bold, Matt's entire argument can be summarized in his own words: "By calling for (and ultimately causing) the firing of Don Imus, it sets a bad precedent for free speech." I disagree, and, though I am as firm a defender of free speech as he, I would like to take this argument in a different direction, speaking to both the issues of our freedoms and the role of the people-powered movement in the debate.

Before I do that, however, I'd like to address another of Matt's central assertions, the importance of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in determining Imus's eventual fate. Matt wrote, "What happened here was a vast minority of people took full use of the media resources around them (in this case, Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson) and created a situation where there was a perceived national outcry against this particular discussion. Advertisers and corporate executives were pressured into firing Imus lest they be subject to continued protesting outside of their offices. In the face of this pressure, advertisers dropped out and corporate was forced to fire Imus." Quite simply, no.

Sharpton wasn't responsible for Imus's firing. Nor was Jackson. Nor was I. Don Imus was responsible for what happened to Don Imus. He said something both woefully stupid and incredibly bigoted, millions of people took note of the man's sad track record of similar statements, and they responded. What Imus-defenders may perceive as the start of the story - the response - only occurred because Imus so polluted the airwaves. The fault is clear: It begins and ends with Imus. Now, back to my point, about what I think is the collision between the old way of doing things and the new way of doing things. This intersection is especially apparent in the uproar surrounding Imus's statements.

Imus - and his many, many peers still gainfully employed (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, for instance) - represent what I'll call "active assholery". In the past, active assholery was met only with what I'll call "passive participation" or, worse yet, nothing at all. In other words, people like Beck would enjoy free rein to pollute the airwaves with all manner of hate speech, while the rest of us had to sit there and take it. If you don't like my choice of phrase, why not use Matt's chosen frame, the free market model? There, our choice was easy: Listen, or don't. Take it, or ... take it. Even the most aggressive tools at our disposal were anything but.

I'm not interested in capitalism winning out. I'm interested in democracy winning out. Expect the market to take care of people like Imus? If that's the case, the market has been doing a terrible, terrible job. In my model, on the other hand, active assholery meets active participation. When confronted with the Imuses and Becks of the world, we no longer have to take it. We can, and should, do something about it. And I fail to see why their rights to speak out trump ours. Referring to the Imus matter, Matt wrote, "The way it was done, in my opinion, subverts that Constitution and opens up a whole different discussion about what free speech truly is." Not so. What would have subverted the Constitution would have been to embrace the old model, to do nothing. By taking back our rights, we actively embraced all that's good about that brilliant document.

Thinking about it through this frame, I see nothing at all wrong with contacting journalists, their employers or their corporate partners and voicing our concerns. How is that different from contacting our elected officials? Sure, the outcome may not be the same, but the intent often is: Seeking responsiveness and the awareness of a particular point-of-view. By likening what happened to Imus to what he believes could happen to me, Matt does a tremendous disservice to his argument. Why? Because, at the core, we're not talking about punishing speech with which people don't happen to agree. We're talking about fighting back against what has been a steady stream of hate speech. Matt's counterexample to the Imus firing - a coordinated right-wing response to my writings - falls flat because my criticisms of those whom the right-wingers admire never, ever wade into the use of flatly bigoted language.

These are the sort of traps we face on a near-daily basis: Contact an advertiser about a prominent media personality using bigoted language and we're taking part in a partisan witch hunt, but make legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration and face ouster simply because we said something with which conservatives disagree. See the problem? As a progressive, I've become used to being confronted regularly with these sort of false equivalencies. And when we're not being held subject to such scrutiny, we're being barraged with muddying arguments like those now being made about rappers' use of the word "ho". This is why, I'm sure, someone will accuse me of being a hypocrite for writing something like this in the past. You told people to change the channel. We're telling you to change the channel. What's the difference? But what I wrote about then - content with which one disagrees - bears no similarity to what I'm writing about now, truly bigoted content.

Who, in the long run, will be more hurt by what Imus said - Imus, or the Rutgers women's basketball team? Certainly not Imus, who, after some time in civil society's penalty box, will surely be back, perhaps on satellite radio (and perhaps, due to the attention now being paid him, at an even higher pay grade). When that happens, there's nothing in Imus's history that tells us his contrition won't be short-lived. The team, meanwhile, will, no matter what heights the women reach in their lives, always face the stigma of being called "nappy-headed hos". This goes far beyond hurt feelings and, in doing so, beyond a simple First Amendment argument. Imus hasn't lost his freedom of speech, He's lost his job. His employers terminated him not because his actions posed a First Amendment crisis; they did so because his continued employment posed a bottom-line crisis. So, in that way, what happened was a victory for the market. And democracy.

Since I asked a question, and Shakes answered with a question of her own, allow me now to add a third, somewhat related question. Over and over, from myriad Don Imus defenders, we've heard the same sad excuse: He was joking. This should sound familiar; it's what we typically hear whenever Ann Coulter pollutes civil society with her filth. I distinctly remember hearing it - from Coulter herself - when she suggested someone "rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee". I also remember hearing it after she called John Edwards a "faggot" at CPAC. And now we've heard it, again and again, about Imus. So, guessing by the title of this, here's the question: Where's the joke?

Where is the joke in calling for someone's assassination? Where is the joke in calling someone a "faggot"? Where is the joke in calling women "nappy-headed hos"? That's right, there isn't one to be found. Sure, the comments may have drawn a laugh, or applause, but let's not mistake the laughter and applause of assholes as the indication that what was just said was a joke. Yet that's what we hear, as though the Rutgers women's basketball team, not Imus, are at fault. And their crime? Not getting the joke. So again, I ask: Where's the joke? Was it when Imus said, "That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and ..."? Was it when he contrasted the Rutgers team with their opponent, Tennessee, by saying, "And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute ..."? I could go on, detailing the entire sad exchange, but you get my point. There is no joke here.

I heard this excuse today when listening to Mike Trivisonno's radio show. Speaking to a comedian set to make an appearance in Cleveland, Triv suggested what Imus said was a joke. I'm paraphrasing, but he added that "I don't get offended when someone calls me fat." So, you see, the Rutgers team is just being thin-skinned. But let's take this a step further, considering Triv talks about his weight all the time. His line of reasoning assumes, then, that the team, as a matter of fact, are "nappy-headed hos". And somehow, I just don't see them agreeing. This was a very personal, very vile insult. And I'd like for one person to tell me where the joke was, because no one is laughing.

There's a lot being written today about this silly item:

But when asked about more mundane matters - like the price of some basic staples - Giuliani had trouble with a reporter's question.

"A gallon of milk is probably about a $1.50, a loaf of bread about a $1.25, $1.30," he said.

A check of the Web site for D'Agostino supermarket on Manhattan's Upper East Side showed a gallon of milk priced at $4.19 and a loaf of white bread at $2.99 to $3.39. In Montgomery, Ala., a gallon of milk goes for about $3.39 and bread is about $2.

Thank you, kind reporter, for showing us the obvious, that people like Rudy Giuliani are out of touch. Great work. Right up there, in fact, with those telling us that the sun rises in the east and that the sky is blue. You know what? I'd actually be hard-pressed to tell you how much those things cost. I mean, sure, you would hope that the major presidential candidates would have at least the faintest grasp on the real world, but you can't tell me this is the most important "gotcha question" reporters should ask these people. Don't you think something like "Sunni versus Shiite, what's the difference?" would be a good start? Or perhaps something like "Who is a better war planner: A long-serving, four-star general? Or Jesus?" What about "What would be your Plan B should your spectacularly misguided invasion of a Middle East nation fail, spiraling into a bloody civil war and a regional destabilization?"

Call me crazy, but I think those questions are a tad bit more important than the price of groceries. We're electing a president, not an errand boy we're sending to the corner store with $20 and a shopping list. This is why the "Which candidate would you rather have beer with?" questions make me want to jump off the roof of my apartment building. I don't care, nor do I care that Giuliani apparently has the real-world awareness of Monty Burns. I care about whether or not the next president knows that the U.S. Constitution isn't an old piece of toilet paper, something that Giuliani probably thinks. After all, we're talking about a candidate who recently responded, when asked if he believed that the president "should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review", that he would, to paraphrase the questioner, "want to use this authority infrequently".

And that, to me, is far scarier than not knowing the price of milk.

Coming off of her embarrassing interrogation of John and Elizabeth Edwards, it appears as though Katie Couric has yet again embarrassed herself and her profession. This time, it's plagiarism:

Katie Couric did a one-minute commentary last week on the joys of getting her first library card, but the thoughts were less than original. The piece was substantially lifted from a Wall Street Journal column.

CBS News apologized for the plagiarized passages yesterday and said the commentary had been written by a network producer who has since been fired.

The CBS anchor "was horrified," spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said. "We all were."

I bet they were. That's how I've felt since Couric became the CBS anchor. But, then again, I'd be horrified, too, if my hackery was so blatant:

What made the ripoff especially striking was the personal flavor of a video - now removed from the CBS Web site - that began, "I still remember when I got my first library card, browsing through the stacks for my favorite books."

Much of the rest of the script was stolen from the Journal. Couric said: "For kids today, the library is more removed from their lives. It's a last-ditch place to go if they need to find something out."

Zaslow wrote in March: "The library is more removed from their lives. It's a last-ditch place to go if they need to find something out."

Couric said: "Sure, children still like libraries, but books aren't the draw."

Zaslow wrote: "Sure, there are still library-loving children, but books aren't necessarily the draw."

Couric cited the same statistic as the Journal column - a 60 percent rise in sales of hardcover juvenile books - as "an encouraging sign that kids value reading." Zaslow had called that "an encouraging sign that kids still value books."

Sweet Jesus, what an embarrassment. When I was in school, plagiarism was about as mortal a journalistic sin as possible. That an unnamed producer was fired, yet all we learn about Couric is that she "was horrified" is a sham in and of itself. Any self-respecting boss would tear through Couric's operation like William Tecumseh Sherman. I'm reminded today of something I wrote when she first became anchor, something echoed both by Shakes and Oliver Willis:

Without a doubt, Couric is a trailblazer. And a pioneer in nightly news whose ascention is worthy of praise. But let's not pretend this was a "hard news" decision. No, it smacks of a "bottom line" decision. Then again, which broadcast news decision isn't a bottom-line decision these days? Producers don't want true investigative journalism. They want money. And every time we place what sells over what counts, journalism loses yet another battle in the war for its survival.

Couric isn't the problem. She's only the natural outcome of the system that produced her.

Here's a final thought for you: The Post article mentioned that "it is 'very common' for the first-person commentaries to be put together by staffers without Couric's being involved in the writing, but that she does participate in topic selection." I don't know what's worse, really. The fact that what Couric was reading was stolen from another piece. Or the fact that Couric is so amazingly absent from the nuts and bolts of her profession. But, I suppose her profession never really was journalism, was it?

I suppose the "hidden scandal" will soon be not-so-hidden. Here's the latest:

• Daily Kos: Karl Rove and GWB43.com - Huge National Security Threat? (March 24)

• About: U.S. Politics: Current Events: GWB43.com, AttorneyGate and Federal Records Requirements (March 24)

• CREW: Do White House staffers comply with federal law when they communicate with other agencies of the government? (March 26)

• truthout: White House Use of Outside Email Accounts Questioned (March 26)

Emails released by the Department of Justice over the past two weeks in conjunction with a Congressional investigation into the firings of eight US attorneys show that White House officials have communicated with DOJ staffers about the attorney purge, using email accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee in possible violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Using alternative email accounts also creates the appearance of impropriety, lawmakers charged Monday, because it allows White House officials to avoid the usual archival process and the automatic paper trail that is established when they use White House email servers to conduct business. Emails sent through the RNC server can be destroyed.

• Providence Journal: Subterranean Homepage News: gwb43.com: Parallel White House email system? (March 26)

• Washington Post: GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails (March 27)

• Providence Journal: Backchannel for WH emails draws House scrutiny (March 27)

• ePluribus Media: The GOP, GeorgeWBush.com and the line that jumped the Congressional Firewall (March 27)

• USNews: E-mail Controversy Prompts Many Aides To Stop Usage (March 27)

But just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence.

"We just got a bit lazy," said one aide. "We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed. We saw that with the Clintons but I don't think anybody saw that we were doing anything wrong."

But the release of White House emails to the Democrats and the expanded request for more from Rep. Henry Waxman has iced the system. At least two aides said that they have subsequently bought their own private E-mail system through a cellular phone or Blackberry server. When asked how he communicated, one aide pulled out a new personal cellphone and said, "texting."

• CREW: Crew Asks White House To Explain Repeated Violations of Presidential Records Act (March 28)

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said, "It appears that White House staff members routinely violated the law by using RNC email accounts for official business. The public deserves to know how the White House explains this end-run around the law." Sloan continued, "Congress passed the PRA to make clear that White House records belong to the American people; this administration is prioritizing legacy over legality."

• Talking Points Memo: There's your answer (March 28)

But as we noted earlier with Karl Rove, this may have been too clever by half. If the president's aides were using RNC emails or emails from other Republican political committees, they can't have even the vaguest claim to shielding those communications behind executive privilege.

• Dan Froomkin (Washington Post): White House E-Mails (scroll down) (March 28)

• War and Piece: Outside email at the White House (March 28)

A reader who has a security role at a federal agency writes, "On the issue of using outside/unofficial e-mail address from official sites, the CIO at (redacted) has expressly forbade the practice for security reasons as it is all too easy to put sensitive information in an e-mail. ... Needless to say, hearing that the WH does not mandate that practice and lets (Rove) do 95% of his e-mailing from a blackberry, presumably with access to an unofficial address, is quite shocking. Still find it absolutely amazing that his clearance has not been revoked."

• Daily Kos: The White House's impending email security disaster (March 28)

Previously: Your weekend "hidden scandal" homework

I suppose the "hidden scandal" will soon be not-so-hidden. Here's the latest:

• Daily Kos: Karl Rove and GWB43.com - Huge National Security Threat? (March 24)

• About: U.S. Politics: Current Events: GWB43.com, AttorneyGate and Federal Records Requirements (March 24)

• CREW: Do White House staffers comply with federal law when they communicate with other agencies of the government? (March 26)

• truthout: White House Use of Outside Email Accounts Questioned (March 26)

Emails released by the Department of Justice over the past two weeks in conjunction with a Congressional investigation into the firings of eight US attorneys show that White House officials have communicated with DOJ staffers about the attorney purge, using email accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee in possible violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Using alternative email accounts also creates the appearance of impropriety, lawmakers charged Monday, because it allows White House officials to avoid the usual archival process and the automatic paper trail that is established when they use White House email servers to conduct business. Emails sent through the RNC server can be destroyed.

• Providence Journal: Subterranean Homepage News: gwb43.com: Parallel White House email system? (March 26)

• Washington Post: GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails (March 27)

• Providence Journal: Backchannel for WH emails draws House scrutiny (March 27)

• ePluribus Media: The GOP, GeorgeWBush.com and the line that jumped the Congressional Firewall (March 27)

• USNews: E-mail Controversy Prompts Many Aides To Stop Usage (March 27)

But just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence.

"We just got a bit lazy," said one aide. "We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed. We saw that with the Clintons but I don't think anybody saw that we were doing anything wrong."

But the release of White House emails to the Democrats and the expanded request for more from Rep. Henry Waxman has iced the system. At least two aides said that they have subsequently bought their own private E-mail system through a cellular phone or Blackberry server. When asked how he communicated, one aide pulled out a new personal cellphone and said, "texting."

• CREW: Crew Asks White House To Explain Repeated Violations of Presidential Records Act (March 28)

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said, "It appears that White House staff members routinely violated the law by using RNC email accounts for official business. The public deserves to know how the White House explains this end-run around the law." Sloan continued, "Congress passed the PRA to make clear that White House records belong to the American people; this administration is prioritizing legacy over legality."

• Talking Points Memo: There's your answer (March 28)

But as we noted earlier with Karl Rove, this may have been too clever by half. If the president's aides were using RNC emails or emails from other Republican political committees, they can't have even the vaguest claim to shielding those communications behind executive privilege.

• Dan Froomkin (Washington Post): White House E-Mails (scroll down) (March 28)

• War and Piece: Outside email at the White House (March 28)

A reader who has a security role at a federal agency writes, "On the issue of using outside/unofficial e-mail address from official sites, the CIO at (redacted) has expressly forbade the practice for security reasons as it is all too easy to put sensitive information in an e-mail. ... Needless to say, hearing that the WH does not mandate that practice and lets (Rove) do 95% of his e-mailing from a blackberry, presumably with access to an unofficial address, is quite shocking. Still find it absolutely amazing that his clearance has not been revoked."

• Daily Kos: The White House's impending email security disaster (March 28)

Previously: Your weekend "hidden scandal" homework