Joe Scarborough spent "Morning Joe" harping on the lipstick on a pig comment. An Obama campaign surrogate called the controversy ridiculous. Because her response didn't fit the script Scarborough had written, she was said to be ineffective. Scarborough wanted a more impassioned response despite the fact that Joe admitted that the charge of sexism was unfounded.

If you use MSM, you will become a low information voter. Olbermann and Maddow provide the only balance on MSNBC, the others just give out style points.

Uh... That wasn't journalism, it was being an analyst which is actually Halperin's job. Journalism is reporting and analyzing is expressing an opinion.

I saw this too! Boy howdy, it scared the beejesus out of me. Then I watched Morning Joe and Scarborough and Pat Buchanan brought my faith in ugly PUGNESS right back!

I saw this, too, and for the first time, felt that CNN was doing more than putting me to sleep. This was the first time in a long, long time I've seen real journalistic exploration on television. Go Mark Halperin! Hopefully, others will be inspired to show that they have chops too!

Halperin was on NPR earlier today and said he was ashamed for his profession.

Oh my god. I have to say that this is truly a shock. I had seen Halperin's name on several blogs and blew it off because I wrongfully assumed I knew what he'd say. I am seriously blown away that he had it in him to be so straightforward and honest, particularly in KZ's comment above in his NPR interview saying he was ashamed of journalism. Mr. Halperin, I've gained tremendous amount of respect for you today.

This whole thing stinks...like a pigsty.

I wish Democrats would use this opportunity to say that Sarah Palin is George W. Bush with Lipstick!

As of this afternoon, the media worm seems to be slowly turning. I really don't understand how the McCain people can think it's ok to leave this void with Palin. We need to keep up the pressure on the media. Shame them into responsiveness.

Halperin's finally had enough. Good.

He tried to be nice, much too nice, to the far right.
He's learned.

You're on the right track now, Mark. Don't back down!

Tuesday morning I ventured from my home in Cincinnati to Lebanon to wave a big hello to John and Sarah. I had spent Monday creating signs on the McCain's new slogan of McCain Street USA for their rallies. I think that they should be greeted by similar signs wherever their campaign trails lead them. There are three "white on green" street signs in the series:

ROAD to RUIN

formerly
G.W. BUSH BLVD

is now
McCAIN STREET

Below is a yellow diamond shaped "Warning Sign" which reads:
DELUSIONAL
IDEAS AHEAD

To see a screen sized image, please go to the googlegroup

NOTAMAVERICK.

I designed these signs so that they can be created by printing a few legal and a few letter sized pages on a home Inkjet, then mounted on cardboard from a bicycle box or a box that yard sign wires are packed in.

We must watch different tv. I mostly see Halperin as a round-table guest on Charlie Rose (PBS), and I've generally found him to be as you describe in this post. I also happen to have caught him the Anderson Cooper exchange you describe here. And, aside from agreeing with him, I wasn't startled by what he was saying, for who I've come to see him as. I've heard him give good analysis plenty of times. And, as a previous person noted earlier in this thread, that's what he's doing -- political analysis -- not "journalism." A lot of times analysts give "takes" on things that I don't always agree with. I look for their particular reasoning and their general track record. I think Mark Halperin is generally pretty smart. Have you caught him on Charlie Rose?

"I am so tired of OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM. Objective Journalism is how LIES GO UNCHALLENGED!"

That is not "objective journalism" -- which is what is MISSING. It is "false-equivalency"/"balanced" reporting:

"Half of my statment came from Obama, and half of my statement came from McSame. It's up to you to determine which of the two is a lie, and which not, and I'm not going to give you the information necessary to do that, because then it would be unbalanced journalism."

OBJECTIVE journalism gives the facts, without partiality or bias in favor of either of however many sides there are. It is "fair and balanced" "journalism" which views facts it doesn't like as "liberal bias," and facts it likes as "God's word".

OBJECTIVE journalism also draws a bright red line between facots, on on hand, and on the other, opinion/"analysis"/editorializing.

There is no "evolution" necessary in the terms -- nor is that what is happening. What is happening is a deceitful redefining of the terms: so what O'Reilly spews can be termed "news" when instead it is clearly propaganda, "opinion"/"analysis"/EDITORIALIZING based upon distortions and out-and-out confabulation.

Very astute observations. I've noticed other subtle shifts in some CNN coverage and commentary recently. This might just have to do with the growing trend of Americans who distrust media and pundits in general.

When enough viewers decide they are getting ridiculously skewed commentary, the networks will lose all credibility and have less power to influence the public perception. Newspapers are losing readership and I expect the networks see the writing on the wall.

Here's an article just published recently on a study of the rapidly growing American distrust of media:

http://watchingamerica.com/News/5753/americans-are-less-informed-and-read-less-newspapers/

"I'd barely finished shaking my head in dismay at Gergen, who seems to tailor his commentary to favor whatever trade wind is blowing across the presidential campaign at any given time,..."

You took the words right out of my mouth.