Feeding a single, simple line to the public is the hallmark of the Right (and the far Left, for that matter), where conformity of thought and expression are apparently prized and enforced.

Among most other political persuasions (such as true libertarians, as well as liberals, progressives), coming to agreement on a single talking point is remarkably rare. This is demonstrated in every session of Congress, as well as any non-Right political march, so it’s hard to accept that you could really believe otherwise.

The bloodbaths I’ve observed among progressives defending their political positions, particularly in the abstracted worlds of online communities and mailing lists, would put you in a coma.

“Clinton is a generally centrist, not a conservative- only Fox would give her the time of day.”

There is a big difference between ‘time of day’ and ‘favorable coverage’. And I’m glad you can consider Clinton a centrist considering she advocated an even more liberal approach to health care and had many other ‘liberal’ positions as First Lady and Senator of New York.

“That reporter was suspended by MSNBC for his remarks and he made an on-air apology. I’d love to know how many times Fox has called its so-called journalists on the carpet for their incessant and nasty attacks on Obama.”

You seem to lack an understanding of the difference between a reporter and a opinion host.

If you want to hold opinion hosts to the same standard as reporters then what do you say about
Chris Matthews who played the pimp piece several times and talked about it in a joking manner. I don’t recall Matthews being suspended. The only reason Clinton went to Fox is she felt unwelcome at MSNBC and CNN.

Clinton is a generally centrist, not a conservative- only Fox would give her the time of day.

This from Ezra Klein is key:

It was an idea born from disagreement. Weeks, or maybe months, earlier, I had criticized Time’s Joe Klein over some comments he made about the Iraq War. He e-mailed a long and searching reply, and the subsequent conversation was educational for us both. Taking the conversation out of the public eye made us less defensive, less interested in scoring points. I learned about his position, and why he held it, in ways that I wouldn’t have if our argument had remained in front of an audience.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/on_journolist_and_dave_weigel.html

basically, civil war had broken out among establishment types like Joe Klein and upstart “Juice Box Mafia” types like Ezra Klein, and basically the launching point was the Iraq War. Joe Klein’s signing up for Journolist was a kind of gesture of generosity, and that was the list’s birth. Joe Klein was willing to dialog outside of public view, so everyone could speak frankly and get some satisfaction. It’s kind of related to the reason why the Federalist Papers were written with pseudonyms. The contributors’ names would have changed everyone’s attitude about contributing. Only on Journolist, everyone knows each others’ names, but the space is out of the larger public view, so everyone can speak frankly. Remember, the 1st Amendment is about protecting everyone’s right to free speech, but also freedom to *assemble.*

Now someone can interpret an assembly in a certain way (they’re conspiring, etc.), of course. But look at the reason why this assembly had to happen in the first place–the Iraq War. If it wasn’t for *that* assembly of interests that met in *ahem* certain places in Washington once upon a time, there would be no Journolist (come on, if there was ever an American political event that was less based on public deliberation, you’d have to go back to the Spanish American War)…

The case for freedom of assembly, I think, is eloquently made by Henry Farell in this dialog with Cass Sunstein:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8936?in=00:01&out=55:44

“It was after MSNBC … called out Chelsea for being pimped out for votes.”

That reporter was suspended by MSNBC for his remarks and he made an on-air apology. I’d love to know how many times Fox has called its so-called journalists on the carpet for their incessant and nasty attacks on Obama.

You wrote: “Would anybody think that a man should be a commentator on BET if he privately said that black people should “set themselves on fire”?

I don’t think the two examples are equivalent because clearly he was speaking in hyperbole –we have no reason to believe that he is a sadist or a violent man, and in a friendly conversation I think it would be obvious that it was said to make a point, that he didn’t mean it literally; whereas if anyone said that about an African American, it would be appalling because African Americans have a history of being treated in a hideous way; would it be different on BET? I think back to a comment Jessie Jackson made about Obama when he didn’t know the audio was on; I never thought for a minute he meant it literally; it too was said to make a point but heard by other people, as opposed to the person he said it to, it sounded violent.

Whenever I read a post that mentions “lefties” my stomach ties into a knot: why? Because I know that anything I read after I see that word will be angry and defensive, and the same applies to the instances when I see words like “right wing fringe” or “wingnuts”. Call me an idealist, but is there any possibility that we could have the same discussions we have now without inserting that division, without taking sides before we even get to our points? I’m not criticizing anyone; this is something that is pervasive in our culture, especially in the media (TV) but oh, how I would love it if we could suspend those categories; I suspect we would find we have far more in common than not.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Why-does-Washington-Post-need-a-reporter-to-cover-conservatives-97248839.html.

Would anybody think that a man should be a commentator on BET if he privately said that black people should “set themselves on fire”?