On a lazy expiration Friday, you can either spend time on the Tiger nonsense, or you can surf the web looking for chartporn and other good time killing stuff.

I chose the latter.

Consider these two lists via Tunku Varadarajan. I met him some time ago (thru Paul Kedrosky) when he was managing editor of the WSJ OpEd page. I have spoken to his NYU Stern Business School Journalism class a few times over the years.

Tunku, writing at The Daily Beast, takes a look at the 25 “most influential Liberal/Conservative journalists” by their political orientation.

I found these two to be very interesting lists:

The Left’s Top 25 Journalists

The Right’s Top 25 Journalists

Each individual has a short bio/political bonafides if you click thru to them.

Even though there is plenty to disagree about with the inclusion and order, its still rather intriguing.

Category: Financial Press, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

52 Responses to “Most Influential Journalists (by Political Orientation)”

  1. franklin411 says:

    The links don’t work, but the problem is on the daily beast’s side.

    Anyway, he’s using the term “journalist” quite loosely. There’s a difference between a journalist and a blogger. A journalist is a professional, held to professional standards. A blogger is not.

  2. call me ahab says:

    quite the stretch to call most of these folks journalists-

    Matt Drudge?? Arianna Huffington???(I’d rather staple my head then listen to her screechy voice), Glenn Beck??? Rush Limbaugh??? Jon Stewart???? Paul Krugman????

    so what we have is a collection of non-journalists- an assortment of radio and tv personalities- a comedian, an economist- can’t even classify Matt Drudge- he’s just posting articles from other sites

  3. Moss says:

    A more appropriate description would have been spin miesters. While some are journalists most are not.
    They have influence, or ratings, so I guess that was the criteria.

  4. Marcus Aurelius says:

    Walter Cronkite was America’s last true journalist.

  5. ahab,

    really? her ‘screechy voice’ disqual.s Arianna from being a ‘Journalist’? You need lay off cognos’ posts, maybe?

    f411,

    you’ve trotted this one: “A journalist is a professional, held to professional standards” out, before..

    I’ll ask, again, care to give an example, or three?
    ~~

    “I chose the latter.”–BR.

    smart play~ I will say, though, I was walking past a Telescreen, this AM, and “Today”-show was all over l’affaire Tigre`, (w/ Diane Sawyer(?) now there’s a Pro!~) in breathless anticipation of his 11:00 tee-time..

  6. call me ahab says:

    MEH-

    screechy voice or not- she’s no journalist-

    unless by having a website and blog makes her one

  7. JustinTheSkeptic says:

    Get ready for some fireworks this political cycle…both sides are extremely angry and it appears the social elite cannot placate them this time around. Gee, I wonder why? It must be nice to sit in real mansions as opposed to Mac man-shun.

  8. ToNYC says:

    Didn’t see Dylan Ratigan for top left guy. He pitches questions and plays the whole infield like the King and his Court plays softball. When the deflected answer happens, he grabs it by the neck and drills down. Is this only for print? I so hate to see talking heads allowed to go to their talking points unopposed by the journalist.

  9. ahab,

    I hear ya, just teasin’..

    She has an Opinion, and a Outlet–not, necessarily, a ‘Journalist’..

  10. flipspiceland says:

    No to Cronkite; Edward R. Murrow rules hands down

    “A nation of sheep will be governed by wolves”.

    Top that, Cronkite.

  11. Dow says:

    Both lists struck me as just pundits.

  12. JustinTheSkeptic says:

    Can we really criticize them when all they do is look for ways to feed our desires??? The system is broken there is no new thought under the sun!

  13. [...] (Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture.) [...]

  14. Where was Stephen Colbert?

  15. call me ahab says:

    BR-

    one of the funniest ever is interviews Stephen Colbert doing his shtick while being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly- had me in stitches-

    MEH-

    my Libertarian friend- I know where you’re coming from- most the time (-:

  16. Barry Ritholtz says:

    Ahab —
    You mean this?

    Stephen Colbert on Bill O’Reilly

    Or this?

    Bill O’Reilly on Stephen Colbert

  17. cvienne says:

    @MEH

    “She has an Opinion, and a Outlet–not, necessarily, a ‘Journalist’…”

    You know… I was thinking the EXACT same thing this afternoon… I even published some ‘electrons’ on the subject…

    I think I said:

    “I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once…
    That’s why I’m SURE I’m qualified to host a blog :-)”

    … or something like that

  18. cvienne says:

    @BR(4:52)

    x2

  19. stevenstevo says:

    I love it when bloggers put blogs on the same level as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Daily Show, New Yorker magazine, and the Washington Post.

    Just what exactly are the criteria here for the rankings? It’s not economic value, as blogs don’t make money. And clearly it’s not quality of journalism. Bloggers (except perhaps a few) are not journalists. It’s kind of hard to write about something meaningfully when you don’t leave your house. Quality is a journalist on the front lines in Afghanistan. Quality is not a blogger ranting about how much money rich people make.

    Dude at the Daily Beast is just furthering his disillusionment that technology is changing the face of media. Please. I don’t care what bloggers think, and I don’t care that Google makes lots of money on the internet. I will never pay $110 a year (like I do for WSJ.com) to read crap like climatedepot.com and feministing.com.

    I won’t even read those blogs for free.

    ~~~

    BR: 1) Its not my list, but is from the former Managing Ed at the WSJ OpEd page;

    2) Regular readers of TBP can discern my priority of sources — and its heavy with the better reporters from the MSM;

    3) If you don’t care what bloggers think, why do you read what they write and comment on their blogs?

  20. super_trooper says:

    “either spend time on the Tiger nonsense, or look for chartporn”
    Can’t have them both?
    Listening to Tiger’s sexy voice while viewing some chart porn. Sounds just like my cup of tea

  21. rktbrkr says:

    VERY broad definition of journalist!

    Tim Russert must be spinning in his grave.

    I guess the Pat Buchanan’s of the world are “too 90′s” for this list, they could express their views without screaming down the other opinions

  22. alfred e says:

    @CV: OT: Welcome back.

    Have any snow? Handling it OK?

    On topic: We are seeing an evolution of “news sources”. Thankfully.

    No longer totally dependent on the MSM. We have an assortment of sources that provide a much more enriched learning environment.

    Tres cool.

    Nothing against the MSM, other than their obvious political and corporate biases. And we thought …

  23. cvienne says:

    @AE

    Tons of snow… Something like 80 inches this season…

    Must be global warming :-)

  24. call me ahab says:

    BR-

    the first one was the one I was referring to- it cracked me up- especially in that I think O’Reilly was trying to do a serious interview- but Stephen Colbert never broke character-

    the 2nd one you posted- I did see that- also very funny- but you knew going in that it was going to be shtick from Colbert- which- don’t get me wrong- is hysterical- but was expected

  25. LeeX says:

    Oh my, those links go to the Daily Beast. They had some articles by a lady who was swindled by Madoff and the commenters really blasted her (she was devastated but she would not give up her maid or ride on the subway). Those really nasty commenters stuck around and made TDB a full-on food fight in every damn article. They are really a very hateful bunch. Yikes!

  26. franklin411 says:

    @MEH
    Ron Brownstein and Eugene Robinson.

  27. tawm says:

    Paul Gigot hands down #1.

  28. TakBak04 says:

    @stevenstevo Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    I love it when bloggers put blogs on the same level as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Daily Show, New Yorker magazine, and the Washington Post.

    Just what exactly are the criteria here for the rankings? It’s not economic value, as blogs don’t make money. And clearly it’s not quality of journalism. Bloggers (except perhaps a few) are not journalists. It’s kind of hard to write about something meaningfully when you don’t leave your house. Quality is a journalist on the front lines in Afghanistan. Quality is not a blogger ranting about how much money rich people make.

    ———
    Who are your nominee’s for Quality Journalism from Afghanistan? Who is your favorite reporter from Iraq.

    BTW…I was around during Vietnam….and we used to see daily pictures of battles and killings of our soldiers.

    I don’t know what happened but we seem to have “Silent Wars” in both Iraq and Afghanistan these days. I think Obama stood by one group of coffins coming home from our Two Wars and there was a photo op. Bush II didn’t allow ANY photos of the coffins coming home from the Invasion for the Missing WMD.

    I really would love to see some good journalism from the Wars in two Theaters that THOUSANDS of our young Women and Men are sacrificing themselves to (Our National Guard) along with regular folks who inlist.

    So…who get’s YOUR vote for “WAR JOURNALISM REPORTER” of the DECADE?

    I don’t find I get any coverage of our wars that are financed by Wall St. and our Government and the People.

    Can you help me out?

    Whatever…

  29. call me ahab says:

    BR-

    and by the way- the edit should read-

    one of the funniest interviews ever

    or maybe even-

    one of the funniest ever interviews

    but appreciate the effort anyway

  30. f411,

    for us young Grasshoppers that may be about, try, you know, some links..
    http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Ron+Brownstein

    w/ Brownstein, glad he was smart enough to bolt from the Tribune nest..

    though, w/ this one http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Eugene+Robinson I’ll assume that you’re not referencing the former “dirty Birds” (Atlanta Falcons) Cornerback..

  31. Bob A says:

    and as for Tiger Woods… to all you (if there are any ) who haven’t had at least one illicit affair in your life…
    PLEASE HAVE ONE .. in fact.. have a lot of them… or at least just shut the f*#* up about people who do.

  32. RW says:

    Including Fred Hiatt of the WaPo in the “Left” column is a clue the staff of the Daily Beast is actually clueless: It would seem that “left” now merely means “not right” for the purposes of discussion; stupid and ignorant …but then this is the current state of US journaminimalism so what else is new.

  33. TakBak04 says:

    Surprised to see Colbert miss…but many folks think he’s a Conservative…so it passed them by. Here a source I read…for better or worse… New stuff up today about Media….Since Barry Posted about Media on Left and Right..thought I’d post it…

    —–

    Totally Corrupt TV: Corporate Lobbyists Pose as Disinterested Experts on Cable News
    By Sebastian Jones, The Nation
    Posted on February 18, 2010, Printed on February 19, 2010
    http://www.alternet.org/story/145711/

    President Obama spent most of December 4 touring Allentown, Pennsylvania, meeting with local workers and discussing the economic crisis. A few hours later, the state’s former governor, Tom Ridge, was on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews, offering up his own recovery plan. There were “modest things” the White House might try, like cutting taxes or opening up credit for small businesses, but the real answer was for the president to “take his green agenda and blow it out of the box.” The first step, Ridge explained, was to “create nuclear power plants.” Combined with some waste coal and natural gas extraction, you would have an “innovation setter” that would “create jobs, create exports.”

    As Ridge counseled the administration to “put that package together,” he sure seemed like an objective commentator. But what viewers weren’t told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.

    Moments earlier, retired general and “NBC Military Analyst” Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional “three- to ten-year effort” and “a lot of money.” Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan. The first year is locked in at $644 million, but the additional four options are subject to renewal, contingent on military needs and political realities.

    In a single hour, two men with blatant, undisclosed conflicts of interest had appeared on MSNBC. The question is, was this an isolated oversight or business as usual? Evidence points to the latter. In 2003 The Nation exposed McCaffrey’s financial ties to military contractors he had promoted on-air on several cable networks; in 2008 David Barstow wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning series for the New York Times about the Pentagon’s use of former military officers–many lobbying or consulting for military contractors–to get their talking points on television in exchange for access to decision-makers; and in 2009 bloggers uncovered how ex-Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe had guest-hosted Countdown With Keith Olbermann while working at a large PR firm specializing in “strategies for managing corporate reputation.”

    These incidents represent only a fraction of the covert corporate influence peddling on cable news, a four-month investigation by The Nation has found. Since 2007 at least seventy-five registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials–people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests–have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens–and in some cases hundreds–of appearances.

    For lobbyists, PR firms and corporate officials, going on cable television is a chance to promote clients and their interests on the most widely cited source of news in the United States. These appearances also generate good will and access to major players inside the Democratic and Republican parties. For their part, the cable networks, eager to fill time and afraid of upsetting the political elite, have often looked the other way. At times, the networks have even disregarded their own written ethics guidelines. Just about everyone involved is heavily invested in maintaining the current system, with the exception of the viewer.

    While lobbyists and PR flacks have long tried to spin the press, the launch of Fox News and MSNBC in 1996 and the Clinton impeachment saga that followed helped create the caldron of twenty-four-hour political analysis that so many influence peddlers call home. Since then, guests with serious conflicts of interest have popped up with alarming regularity on every network. Just examine their presence in coverage of the economic crash and the healthcare reform debate, two recent issues that have engendered massive cable coverage.

    As the recession slammed the country in late 2008 and government bailouts followed, lobbyists and PR flacks took to the air with troubling regularity, advocating on behalf of clients and their interests while masquerading as neutral analysts. One was Bernard Whitman, president of Whitman Insight Strategies, a communications firm that specializes in helping “guide successful lobbying, communications and information campaigns through targeted research.” Whitman’s clients have included lobbying firms like BGR Group and marketing/PR firms like Ogilvy & Mather, which in turn have numerous corporate clients with a vested interest in shaping federal policies. Whitman is a veteran of the Clinton era and when making television appearances continues to be identified for work he did almost a decade earlier.

    According to its website, Whitman Insight Strategies has worked for AIG to “develop, test, launch, and enhance their consumer brand,” and continues to assist the insurance giant “as it responds to ongoing marketplace developments.” Whitman Strategies has also posted more than 100 clips of Bernard Whitman’s television appearances on a YouTube account. During a September 18, 2008, Fox News appearance to discuss Sarah Palin, Whitman proceeded to lambaste John McCain for proposing to “let AIG fail,” saying that this demonstrated “just how little he understands the global economy today.”

    On March 25, 2009, in the midst of a scandal over AIG’s executive bonuses, Whitman appeared on Fox News again. “The American people were understandably outraged about AIG,” he began. “Having said that, we need to move beyond anger, frustration and hysteria to really get down to the brass tacks of solving this economy,” he advised the public. In neither instance was Whitman’s ongoing work for AIG mentioned.

    Another person with AIG ties is Ron Christie, now at the helm of his own consultancy. While working at Republican-leaning firm DC Navigators, now Navigators Global, from 2006 through September 2008, Christie was registered to lobby on behalf of the insurance giant, lobbying filings show. During that period, AIG shelled out $590,000 to DC Navigators.

    On September 18, 2008, Christie went on Hardball to discuss the government’s response to AIG’s near implosion days earlier. He was introduced only as a Republican strategist. As Chris Matthews mocked a presidential press conference on the financial crisis held earlier that day, Christie interrupted to say President Bush was “smart to have gotten a former person from Goldman Sachs who is a very bright man, who understands the markets and liquidity.” Christie was referring to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who had once been the chair and CEO of Goldman Sachs and who played a pivotal role in the AIG bailout. “This is not a political sideshow. This is putting the right person in his administration to deal with this crisis,” Christie said.

    Bigger players were on AIG’s payroll, too: shortly after receiving its first bailout, in 2008, AIG hired PR mega-firm Burson-Marsteller to handle “controversial issues.” In April 2009, B-M hired former White House press secretary Dana Perino, already an established TV pundit. A month later she was picked up as a contributor to Fox News, where she has had occasion to discuss the economic meltdown.

    This past July, for example, Perino joined a roundtable on Fox Business Network’s Money for Breakfast, which briefly noted her affiliation with B-M but neglected to mention its link to AIG. When a fellow guest commented that AIG had been “highly regulated” before the crash, Perino pounced, suggesting that current financial reform efforts demonstrate how “Washington has a tendency to overreact in a crisis.” When Gary Kalman of USPIRG suggested that regulations had, in fact, been rolled back for decades, Perino scoffed, “I don’t think there are many business people who would actually agree with that.”

    (Whitman, Christie and Perino did not return requests for comment.)

    Another conflict of interest plagued the televised debate over how to reform healthcare. Terry Holt, once a spokesman for the Republican National Committee and for House minority leader John Boehner, has also been, on and off since 2003, a lobbyist for the health insurance trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans. When he and three other Republican operatives formed communications and lobbying firm HDMK in 2007, one of their first clients was AHIP.

    On March 5, 2009, Holt, introduced simply as a Republican, told MSNBC anchor David Shuster that the Obama administration was “going to, you know, cut Medicare benefits for something like 11 million seniors to start this big healthcare reform project.” By October AHIP was running ads in several states against the health reform bill that asked, “Is it right to ask 10 million seniors on Medicare Advantage for more than their fair share?”

    Holt also made several appearances to discuss healthcare policy on CNN, where his affiliation with insurers was cited on several occasions, starting in September, though not during a September 14 appearance on The Situation Room, when Holt discussed healthcare reform efforts. The network subsequently experienced a small scandal in October when blogger Greg Sargent revealed that political analyst Alex Castellanos, a frequent commentator on CNN, had been helping craft attack ads for AHIP–including the one that referred to the “10 million seniors” losing Medicare benefits–while discussing healthcare policy on air, identified only as a Republican strategist.

    When I interviewed Holt recently, he told me that there was one occasion when his work for AHIP was not mentioned on CNN, and that afterward, a producer contacted him to discuss his work for the trade group. Holt said that he believes that cable appearances “operate best with maximum transparency.”

    “When you’re addressing the public, it’s a reasonable expectation that they be fully aware of your perspective–where you’re coming from–and I see my obligation as informing the news organization that’s asking me to appear or to comment about my standing and letting them be the judge,” he said.

    Democratic lobbyists and corporate consultants have also made appearances to discuss health reform with no reference to their pharmaceutical or insurance company clients. On September 24, 2009, Dick Gephardt appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, where he labeled the public option “not essential.” Gephardt was asked by host Dylan Ratigan to discuss healthcare reform in light of his experience as a Congressman during the Clinton effort in 1993 and now simply as “an observer through this process.” There was no mention of his work advising insurance and pharmaceutical interests through his lobbying firm Gephardt Government Affairs, nor any mention that Gephardt is a lobbyist for NBC/Universal.

    Likewise, Tom Daschle dropped by MSNBC on May 12 and July 2, 2009, and NBC’s Meet the Press on August 16, 2009. At each appearance he discussed healthcare reform with no mention of his work on behalf of lobbying firm Alston & Bird, which advises insurer UnitedHealth Group. Only during a December 8 appearance on MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy was Daschle finally confronted, albeit with kid gloves, about how his simultaneous work for lobbying firms on behalf of health insurers and meetings with administration officials on healthcare reform appeared to be at odds. “I certainly want to be appreciative of perception, so we’re going to take great care in how we go forward,” Daschle promised. A month later, on January 11, the former Senate majority leader returned to MSNBC to discuss healthcare with Andrea Mitchell. In the nearly ten-minute interview, his insurance work went unmentioned.

    As of this writing, healthcare and financial reform legislation have largely stalled. And although it would be foolish to argue that Daschle’s TV appearances sank the public option or that Dana Perino’s punditry fatally wounded a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, there can be no doubt that there is a cumulative effect from hundreds of appearances by dozens of unidentified lobbyists and influence peddlers that helps to drive press coverage and public opinion.

    more at….
    http://www.alternet.org/story/145711/totally_corrupt_tv%3A_corporate_lobbyists_pose_as_disinterested_experts_on_cable_news

  34. TakBak04 says:

    Sorry…thought I’d snipped this down two four paragraphs… It came out longer. Don’t want BR Blog in trouble with copyright laws.

  35. call me ahab says:

    TakBak-

    it’s like a novel-

    Tolstoy?

  36. TakBak04 says:

    Yes…it turned out like Tolstoy on the blog…huge. I shouldn’t have saved the “print version” and then snipped to post. Usually I snip, cut and past from original. I’m truly sorry. Hope one of BR’s elves will snip it down.

  37. alfred e says:

    @takbak04: Spectacular. Dead on. IMHO one of the absolutely best posts ever.

    So where do we go from here?

  38. beaufou says:

    Why on earth would you use the term journalist for biased people.
    Talking heads is more appropriate.
    A journalist has no outside influences, left or right, he tells the truth, then again you said by political orientation which dismisses the lot of them.

    Where’s Tom Friedman, the d-bag of the decade?
    Oh, I forgot, he’s too busy getting a bailout for his wife’s business.

  39. FrancoisT says:

    That was quite a tour de force: They managed to omit Glenn Greenwald (a.k.a. Glennzilla) from the Top 25 of the Left.

    Unreal!

  40. What frustrates me is I have to click through 50 links to see the fifty people. I sure hope that style of posting dies soon

  41. Wes Schott says:

    …much the same reaction over here –

    Job says “Intriguing indeed.

    Most intriguing question I have is: where are the “journalists” on these lists? :-)

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist a “journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues.”

    The word “opinion” is noticeably absent from that definition.

    See also http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalism.

    Strikes me that few if any included on these lists should be allowed to join the SPJ and call themselves journalist.

    A more apt name would have been the left’s or right’s top 25 opinionated people, or even better hate mongers …

    IMHO it’s time to either redefine journalism, or declare it a dead profession. Like engineering. :-)”

    …and Hanks adds-

    “Christiane Amanpour”

  42. mathman says:

    What a lot of these TV pundits sound like at times:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkxuPxdsZ58

  43. rktbrkr says:

    Risky business.

    The gov is turning the “moral hazard” issue upside down providing extra support for lenders and borrowers who took the biggest chances. This article mentions homes with multiple mortgages. The program raises the issue of favoritism, why just these 5 states?

    The US new motto “we support recklessness”!

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1489992.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=9523624#Comments_Container

  44. DeDude says:

    Dow @ 4:46: “Both lists struck me as just pundits”

    I think you nailed it. Talking about left and right leaning journalists is actually an oxymoron. A journalist is supposed to present facts, not opinions. Their job is to take an issue of importance (there goes 2/3 of them) and present their audience with all relevant facts regarding that issue (there goes the rest); preferably in a simple and easy to understand way. There is no left or right in “all relevant facts” so if the journalist does his/her job, you cannot categorize them politically. When you look at the criteria for journalism, I think some bloggers like Barry are much better journalists (presenters of all relevant facts) than those hired into journalist positions at main street media outlets.

    It is unfortunate that in our lazy-dumb-ass culture, very few people want to take the effort to be recipients of true journalism. They would actually have to take a brake from those beers and ballgames to absorb information, and think about what it means. So the market for real news has disappeared, and we have these pundits masquerading as journalists, and propaganda machines masquerading as news outlets. It is so much more comfortable and easy to have your biases and underlying emotions (fear, selfishness, compassion, self-righteousness, etc.) feed, than it is to have them challenged by facts.

    Because facts and reality has become an inconvenience for the released messages, rather than the focus and goal, public debate is polarizing and we have become increasingly unable to solve problems. It’s just a basic fact that if “solutions” are based on some “fantasy” ideology rather than facts, they fail. You can manipulate opinions and perceptions of reality but the facts will come back and bite your dumb a$$ sooner or later. Unfortunately our current masters don’t care much about that because they know they will have harvested the profits and be long gone by then.

  45. torrie-amos says:

    who the fuck really cares, journalist bloggers assholes whatever

    people talk, always have always will about what fancies there interest on whatever

    people listen or they don’t, take it in or not, as an editor 80% is highly repetitive, always has always will be, hey, we like too communicate things to death, lol, 17% not bad, a point or two sneaks in there, perhaps a little off or even wrong, it’s got some moxie to it, 3% an original thought, wowsie bowsie, which is missed by 99% of folks simply due too timing or context, yet, that 1% dues appreciate it

    it’s only human nature, hell even my crap is repetive for the most point

  46. VennData says:

    Where oh where are the moderates? In other words, Can’t I have stem cells with my right-to-work coffee?

  47. Darkness says:

    Poor Jon Stewart. The man is carrying way too much weight.

  48. A says:

    I do agree that there are more pressing issues than Tiger-Gate right now. But I do think Tiger made a relevant point that equally applies to Washington and Wall Street: “I knew my actions were wrong. But I convinced myself that normal rules didn’t apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself.”

  49. GrafSchweik says:

    Journalism in the US has become an intermittent phenomenon.

    For the CNN lovers among us and those who still bask under the luminous illusion that CNN still engages in journalism more than 50% of the time I pass on the following from a German friend, once a devoté of all things American, who lived in Berlin for 15 years. Two years ago he got to watch CNN for the first time since the early 90s: “I couldn’t believe it! Compared to the BBC it was like watching East German television. What happened?”

    A long, painful recounting of recent US economic, political and social history followed.

  50. ToNYC says:

    I repeat, if a one-to-one interview journalist is tasked with getting their question answered directly, who is better than Dylan Ratigan in nailing the weasel’s cages shut ’till they get to the the point that was being drilled into the space between their eyes?

  51. TakBak04 says:

    @How the Common Man Sees It Says:
    February 20th, 2010 at 3:14 am

    What frustrates me is I have to click through 50 links to see the fifty people. I sure hope that style of posting dies soon

    ———

    And the 50 People left out many others more influential than about 10% of those included. I guess it’s different folks read different Guru’s….but still there were so many influential people left out. What about Tom Friedman on the Right and Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olberman on the Left? Bloggers and Journalst for Print were mixed up ….but without real statistics as to demographics of change in the media today.