THIS IS IMPORTANT:

Moral of the story --- Without NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC they are gone NOW.

The Taliban has allowed two BBC workers to arrive in Kabul.

No surprise. The BBC has been doing excellent work for the Taliban, just as good as al-Jazeera.

Ultimately, the Taliban is interested in convening an international conference on Afghanistan under UN aegis,

That's going to be a little difficult, considering the UN still recognizes Rabbani as the leader of Afghanistan.

Too bad, all their best efforts aren't denting our beloved President's approval ratings one bit.

Time was when I would have been perplexed as to what needed to be done about this--no more! There are things which are obviously true but which you will never hear from journalism. And there are things which are obviously true that you will never hear from broadcasting. But you can read them here.

1) The business of journalism is nonfiction entertainment. They can "buy ink by the barrel"--but that is true precisely because they make the money by attracting an audience. And the fact that they attract an audience does not make them more moral than you or me--their money is no cleaner than yours or mine.

2) Journalism entertains by following a formula: promise truth but deliver titilation. Scare the audience into not ignoring you by attacking the things, people, and institutions upon whom the public must depend. Tell the story quick so the audience hasn't heard it first from someone else and can ignore you.

3) Journalism maintains its facade of "objective truthtelling" primarily by avoiding controversy with other journalists. If one journalist says "A (nicotine, SUVs, the ozone layer, whatever) is an important threat to the public" it is bad form and counterproductive to dispute it--that would make work for everyone, and caues questions about the objectivity of both parties. In other words, "cooperate and graduate".

4) "Liberal" politicians simply join the chorus of journalists attacking the things, people, and institutions upon whom the public must depend. That places the propaganda wind at their back--and moots any claim that journalists are independent of liberal politics; liberal politics is just journalism without the deadlines.

5) Inasmuch as journalism is systematically negative and superficial it is NOT "the first draft of history" but the first draft of a Democratic party platform.

6) Newspapers are part of the press, and thus are protected by the First Amendment. But "the press" includes books and other printed matter and does not include any form of broadcasting. Not because broadcasting was invented after the First Amendment was ratified--IMHO the Internet fits the First Amendment model perfectly--but because nothing the FCC does would pass First Amendment muster if applied to printing presses.

7) Because indeed the Constitution was designed and instituted before the advent of telecommunications of any sort, broadcast journalism is not necessary. Of course, the Constitution was designed for an electorate which understood that the character of the congressmen and--and especially of the POTUS--were crucial. The idea that the people can trust journalism to provide them with a true and complete understanding politics adequate to obviate the need for honesty and integrity in the capitol is arrant nonsense put out by purveyors of "objective" journalism.

8) The conclusion is that the FCC and its licensees should be sued to require them to cease and desist from allowing/perpetrating broadcast journalism. The Florida fiasco is the most obvious tort; the Bush faction would have given a lot of money to buy off that erroneous call for Gore, if given the time and opportunity to raise it. And however much they (we) would have raised is how much was illegally contributed to Gore.

They can always fall back on Clinton for some anti-US propaganda. The draft dodger did a good job for the Taliban at Georgetown.

Funny how he didn't blame America when they attacked the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers, our Embassies or the Cole.

Liberalism is, as noted above, simply superficial negativity toward the institutions and people upon whom we depend. One of those institutions being the reputations of the founding fathers of our country . . . and our armed forces--not excluding police--being another . . .