more from the sclm
Counterspin Central says MSNBC dumping the Donahue show--which I never watched; I barely have time to watch important stuff like anime--because of an internal memo recommending his cancellation because he's a liberal ought to be "the proof that the 'liberal media' myth [links added] has been dead for some time."
Personally, I find Mark A. R. Kleiman's commentary on the reportage surrounding the departure of Glenn Hubbard much more edifying:
None of the news stories I've seen so far even asks the obvious question: Was the decision that Hubbard needed to "spend more time with his family" his, or the President's?
His resigning, and his being fired, are two very different events. Did he finally decide that the cost, in professional terms, of defending the indefensible was getting too high? Had he lost one too many internal battles, and decided to stop trying to provide adult supervision to the fiscal behavior of the credit-card conservatives? Or did the Mayberry Machiavellis just decide to complete a clean sweep of the economic team that presided over the disaster of the last two years?
It's hard for me to believe that no one in the Washington press corps knows the answer; what's the point of all that suck-up journalism if it doesn't buy you access? The stories I saw didn't quote any statement from the President, which might or might not have provided a hint.
But I'd settle for simply having the question posed. "White House officials asked on background were unwilling to say whether Mr. Hubbard's departure was on his own initiative or at the suggestion of the President or his senior staff." That would remind the naive reader that the question was open, and assure the sophisticated reader that the reporter was actually trying to do some reporting, rather than copying press releases over in his own handwriting.
No kidding! I don't believe a liberal media, but I sure long for a competent one.
By the way, Kleiman also takes a look at a shocking novel glorifying gang violence.