Charles Krauthammer has become, in my mind anyway, a voice of reason in crazy world. He is an eloquent writer who writes a column for the Washington Post each week, and is a regular commenter on Fox News. I have come to really appreciate his point of view on many of the major issues that face our country. He has an award winning style of writing and has an impeccable record for stating his opinion in such a way that is hard to disagree. Check him out on the WaPo website or Fox News.

Wouldn't it be nice to see a roundup of all the MSM reporting on Katrina, before, during and after. What kind of a job did they do? I do remember the Fox News coverage with Shepard Smith. I emailed Fox News begging them to get Shep off the air and out of New Orleans. Shep had become a part of the story he was covering. He was too close to the story. It is only naturaly for reporters to get too close to the story when they are living the story themselves. Shep got completely out of hand in his complaining and bemoaning that no help was coming as fast as was needed. Fox News did get him out not long after that.
I noticed that when covering the Israeli/Hezbollah war, Fox News did rotate the reporters on a regular basis. Fresh perspectives were needed and Fox got new people in the area to help with the on air coverage. One reporter who was reporting from her home was Jennifer Griffin. She lives in Israel and she was also rotated off at regular intervals. I have to say that I thought she did a great job and obviously has many contacts in the area. I think she was very instrumental in getting the Fox News crew released from captivity.
I wish a blogger with more experience than me could put together a timeline and a reporting history of the major MSM players. It would be fun to look back at the coverage and compare to how the coverage is now, one year later.

The question that begs to be asked......
After listening to the entire interview Hugh Hewitt did with Elizabeth
Sullivan of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, I was amazed at the refusal to go on record agreeing that harm has been done. I wonder if they think we are safer now after the NYT's publication. Is that possible? They all agree that no harm was done, but was anything good been done. What is the public's interest that is served by this.
 
After reading about Elizabeth's tie to the NYT's, her answers and her refusals to agree are much clearer to me now. When dealing with the MSM, you got to know who you are listening to, reading, or talking to. I wish Hugh had known about her connection before the interview. Hewitt is one of the best interviewers today. I thoroughly enjoy his interviews.

   The question that needs to be shouted at the LA Times is why. Why does the American press continue to bash anything American? Whose side are they on? The free press is out of control. Will the public rein these malcontents in? Who knows, but I do agree that there needs to be more questions asked of the press. Why are they beyond the public's questions?
The idea that reporters such as Howard Kurtz and others who purport to be media critics are nothing more than media pr people. None will take a stand against the media. Until the internet became available there was no place for people from around the country could gather to exchange ideas. This may very well be the answer to why the antique media is becoming more and more provocative, the more they become insignificant.    

After hearing Bill Keller's excuses why the NYT continues to publish classified information, I wonder why he continues to do it. Does he hate George Bush so much that he would risk lives to prove a point? Whatever the motivation, I don't think this is going to stop. Maybe someone can prove the damage that is being done by what they are doing. I believe I like this font much better. Maybe this one.

I will be reporting on  Le Tour de France here as well.