Atrios links to a interview with Josh Rushing, the military press liaison who featured prominently in the film Control Room. Control Room, you might remember, is a documentary by some Al Jazeera reporters about the international perspective on the coverage of the war. The film was alright, but Josh Rushing’s part in it was among the more interesting pieces. The interview is pretty good and well worth reading for his take on how he was portrayed in the film, the type of liberties the filmmakers took, etc.

I do want to highlight one important piece of the interview, though:

Matthew Felling: On the issue of polarization, one of your quotes that got massively publicized was when you compared Fox News Channel to Al Jazeera. In your book, you mention a few anecdotes about how Fox was reporting on the war. How did you view their coverage?

Josh Rushing: When I would go out and give reasons why we were going to invade Iraq, having been given the messages from a Republican operative that was my boss, he would give me the theme of the day. Sometimes it would be “WMD,” others it would be “regime change” and others it would be “ties to terrorism.” I would go out to a Fox reporter and they would say “Are there any messages you want to get across before we get to the live interview?” And we would script the interview around the government messaging, and they would thank me for my service at the end of it. And out of fairness, that wasn’t just Fox. There were a number of American networks who did it. The reporters were in a position where there was no way their editorial leadership or their audience for that matter, wanted to see them be critical of a young troop in uniform.

But the devious part of that, is that the administration knew that and understood that and used young troops in uniform to sell the war in a way it knew couldn’t be questioned or criticized. If you look at MSNBC, they packaged their coverage with a banner that said “Our Hearts Are With You.” So when that banner is under my face and I’m giving the reasons why we need to go to war, is anyone going to ask me a critical question? Of course not, their hearts are with me. And there’s a danger in that.

The media’s purpose in a democracy is to be professionally skeptical of anything that anyone in a position of authority or power says. If they’re not, who is? Nobody, and then the people in authority and power can say and do anything they want. So I was disappointed in that.

(Italicized portions were bolded in the original piece, and the bolded sections above are my emphasis.)

He’s absolutely right, of course, but that won’t get our media to do the right thing here and think critically about the information they’re being given by government sources. When politics are involved, as they always are with the Bush administration (and in most issues in any administration), that critical filter has to be there. There are ways to respectfully ask critical questions and get at truth without having to disrespect a soldier in uniform or, well, anyone.

When history looks back at this period, I think that will be the largest theme of this era, the horrible Republicanization of the news media, where supposedly independent outlets acted as if they were just propaganda rags.

Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) had his home raided. TPM Muckracker is tracking the story, and the video above will give you an overview of the brewing scandal that’s about a month old.

This cartoon pretty much sums up why his campaign won’t raise much. (via Atrios)

The audio is a bit horrible (video camera, no remote mic) of Dodd making a campaign stop in Anamosa, Iowa. His answers are actually very, very good. I loved how he would’ve answered the question that started the recent Obama and Clinton spat and I do wish he had a chance to answer more questions (I agree with him on the futility of the debate). He is, in my opinion, the best balance of experience, knowledge, and leadership in the race right now. I would be proud to see him as my President.

Watch the whole thing, it’s worth it. The health care plan he mentioned is detailed on the ChrisDodd.com site.

I guess it’s OK if I say this now, but I used to HATE ESPN.com’s home page. For at least the last 3 years, most of the time I was there, it had turned into a big, bloated, ugly, messy mishmosh of too much text, too much advertising, and too little organization. I would literally look at the Top Story area, and the headlines and then leave, immediately, to the safe, more pleasant confines of the various sport index pages inside the site. The only time I loved it was when it was converted into the “war” mode for major event coverage.

Late last week, however, ESPN launched a new version of the home page. I have to say, they basically fixed all of the problems and addressed a lot of the things I personally would argue for in meetings. Here’s a screen shot:

Think about what you’re seeing… there are only 2 ads above the fold. 2. Scores are front and center, and it’s clean and easy to read most of the content on the page. I’m still not a fan of the subdivided boxes in the second column (page 2, the Mag for example), because it’s easier to read when the widths are consistent all the way down. Overall, though, this thing is awesome.

My biggest, biggest super happy, Thank God you finally did it item is the fact that the page stops scrolling after one page down on my monitor. I don’t know if you remember, but the page used to scroll on for-freaking-ever. At least 3-4 page downs on my monitor, and on a 1024×768 or 1280×1024, that would be even worse. This one, I see the bottom pieces of content after hitting page down once. Love it, love it, love it. I personally would argue for this in meetings, but I couldn’t get edit to listen. I guess someone else made the more persuasive case. Whoever you are, you rock.

Now, any chance of bringing the photo gallery back to the front page? I miss it. The photography and photo editing at ESPN is one of it’s strengths. Wish we would see more than just the front page photo.

(Heidi and I are in Washington D.C. this weekend to celebrate our first anniversary)

Tomorrow, I’ll walk through the National Mall and stand upon the land where history, real history happened, where Martin Luther King spoke of dreams and John F. Kennedy asked us to give to our country, where thousands and thousands marched against war, where real democracy and fierce debates shaped our country and created hallowed ground.

Dissent and debate matter in this country. Every positive change in this country has been marked by both, from the elimination of slavery to the recognizing women’s right to vote. These are marks of a vibrant democracy and a vibrant public and civic life. Without those protests and marches, we would be a different country today.

So, on the way to the Mall tomorrow, I will look toward the White House with great sadness because it’s current inhabitant has not been a steward of this legacy. He does not believe in the debate and the raucous exchange of ideas that have shaped our country for so long.

I’m speaking of the Bush administration’s utter contempt for dissent and disagreement, of loyalty oaths and and fake “town halls” where only loyal Bushies are allowed to attend. I’m speaking of a President who hides from protesters lest he hear dissent.

Of all of his failings, and he has many, this has been the key one. After all, thin skin breeds defensiveness and stubbornness. Those feelings breed rigidity and limited thinking. That creates poor policy and bad judgement. His administration is, in other words, a case study in why dissent is important for the health of the nation.

I wrote nearly a year ago that we should look at the fraud of “bipartisanship”, that “we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our ‘bipartisanship’ moments on the most important issue of our time.” Looking out at Washington D.C. tonight, I ask that we also take a look at the President’s fraudulent patriotism.

Patriotism on the President’s terms have brought us Abu Ghraib. It has brought us horrible lies and more lies. We now may be looking at a resurgent al-Qaeda. Supporting the troops in the Bush administration meant Walter Reed. All because when citizens and officials stood up to question the President or his war plans, they were brushed aside and ignored in the name of patriotism.

Over the last 6 years, those of us that have disagreed with the President’s policies have been called anti-American, defeatists, and traitors. Some, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, vilified even the mere act of questioning the President. The President and his supporters have continually invoked the language of patriotism in defending their long-failed policies. They would like our patriotism to be blind, closing our eyes while biting our tongues, lest we “undermine the President.”

When the President and his supporters speak of patriotism, they are speaking of blind support for them and their failed policies. That’s not America. Real patriotism involves questioning our leaders, following the examples of Martin Luther King and millions of other protesters over the years. We should learn from the patriotism the thousands of brave individuals around the nation who try to line motorcade routes or stand outside Presidential appearances even in the face of aggressive policing by the Administration. Real patriotism isn’t blind or obsequious. Real patriotism can involve dissent, which is the real tradition that binds us all together.