A quick thought on media hypocrisy. Which of these two things will have a bigger negative impact on the national security of our country, the outing of an undercover CIA operative who had not traveled abroad in years, or the outing of a series of highly secret CIA detention centers where the most dangerous and high-ranking terrorists are taken to be debriefed in a very thorough manner that may or may not involve torture? Terrorists who do not don a uniform, do not fight for a sovereign nation, have not signed the Geneva convention, and who intentionally target women and children? These detention centers are crucial to our success in the war on terror. They are a big part of the reason that we have not had a Madrid or London-style train bombing here in the States. Where are the Democrats demanding to know just who the Washington Post reporter talked to? Certainly his sources signed national security nondisclosure documents if they were involved in such a sensitive operation. Where's the demand for the investigation and prosecution of these leakers? It's doubtful anything will come of it, it doesn't suit the purpose of destroying the Bush Presidency, so the extremely dangerous bias liberal media will stay away, unless FOX News shoves it down thier throats, which is why viewership goes up on FOX and down on the usual suspects!!!!

Maslow's pyramid...media is at the lowest level.

Deadline Hollywood They Shoot News Anchors, Don?t They? Media moguls, not looters, killed Katrina?s truth tellers

More harm as been done in the name of "News Reporting" and "The People's Right To Know" than anything else, I think. The rights of the media had the adverse effect of pretty much giving the media the right to make the news instead of reporting it. In the past few years we have seen cases where the mighty in the media world have fallen and still haven't fully recovered for their irresponsibility. I remember reading an article 10 years or so ago, it was an interview with one of the older news people like Walter Cronkite (but I don't think it was him). What was said was that when these older news people did a story, they needed 3 sources and, at least, 1 of them had to be unimpeachable. Then it became the way of the media to only demand one unimpeachable source with no other supporting sources. Back when the interview was done it deteriorated to only having one source and that source didn't have to be very good. The man, as I recall, said he can see the day come when the media needed no valid sources... I think that day is here.

They write fiction mostly. I think media moguls make more money off fiction than the dry facts. And the public loves the fiction and the rush,

Hey it gives us mere peons something to complain about. lol

I think you're right, Outlooker. News has become entertainment. That's why those of us who want to be informed must seek out news from multiple sources, and evaluate whether or not the information we receive is both valid and complete.

And those sources don't always mean valid news sources, Abby. Even though the personal view, i.e. the eye-witness accounts, we sometimes get in these forums may be less that accurate... it is still input and even in the account we can glean "truths" by comparing what people say with what other sources say.

Actually Joe Wilson needs to be investigated.