Laura – Yes! I caught just the end of Olbermann’s remarks about Milbank, and didn’t understand – and then your comment prompted me to Google it, and I came up with this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/dana-milbank-leaving-coun_n_116997.html

and this passage struck me

Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, who notified us today that after four years appearing with us, he had accepted another television offer. This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision.

For nearly a week we’d been waiting for him to offer a correction or an explanation for his column from last week in which he apparently reported an Obama quote without a full context turned the meaning of the quote inside-out.

OK – I ‘get’ that guest commentators might generally share a host’s POV – and indeed, others might predictably disagree, and still be regular guests…..but what I don’t get is Olbermann’s “increasingly difficult decision”.

I suppose we can dismiss it as an example of what Nance was referring to, regarding “badly written” commentary.

Plus – what DO these guest people get paid, for their seat-of-the-pants kibitzing? If someone opts to “accept another television offer” – what would that offer be, I wonder?

In fairness, I’m also half-German. My ancestors are all proud people with a lot of reasons to be modest.

Alex, I don’t know the Parraghs, but my mother’s side of the family were Hungarian Reformed. She visited the Big D several times as a teen-ager in the church youth group; apparently, Detroit, Cleveland and McKeesport are big hubs of the Hungarian Reformed Church in America.

I used to be a passionate believer in “balanced” journalism. The older I get, the more I feel that journalism has to be accurate, even if it comes at the expense of artificial balance.

Calling a spokesman from a trade organization is rarely useful for any story. Getting out of the office and using your two eyes to look and your two ears to hear are more important for any reporter than regurgitating second-hand information.

The problem with cable news, and the Internet, is that too many of us aren’t even working with second-hand information; we’re writing about subjects we only know about third- and fourth-hand.

I discovered Rachel Maddow on podcasts from Air America and was struck by her crisp reporting and good sense — and her wit. I don’t watch any of the 24-hour news channels, so I missed seeing her on TV. However, I’m very pleased that she has her own show now, and you can be sure that I’ll be tuning in to see how it goes.

According to Wikipedia, she actually has a PhD from Oxford in political science. I’m very impressed, and cannot think of another pundit on the 24-hour news channels who has such an impressive credential. Unfortunately, credentials and smarts get you nowhere on TV. Let’s hope that her ratings numbers are successful. I think they will be, but then, what do I know. I thought Keen Eddie would last more than 7 episodes.

Maybe Rachel will guest on The Daily Show? You know, to hype her new show. Wouldn’t that be too cool for school!

The Jonah Goldberg interview was hysterical. I don’t know who was funnier; Jonah trying to talk in so many circles he eventually made himself dizzy, or Jon’s succinct take down of the Pantload’s silly piece of garbage. Given the premise of his magnum opus, I honestly don’t think Jonah probably did much better in the stuff they cut.

Oh and one last thing: Rachel Maddow rocks.