From the Now-It-Can-Be-Told Dept:

Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent

That's a good point, Michael. I think the concerns about Rahm Emanuel come down to style more than substance.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Emanuel. But I like the fact he's a centrist and, like you said, it's good to have a pro-Israeli voice represented (at least, I think it's good.)

However, I've heard Emanuel described as a "bare-knuckles politican" and a "bad cop to Obama's good cop." I think that's where the concerns lie - that he might not be willing to work with Republicans.

But it's worth remembering that Obama is still the man in charge. I think he - and the country - deserve a honeymoon period before we start second-guessing him too much.

What I hear in the Fox piece is more insideous ... almost an unintended confession of conservative bias.  Cameron mentions that Palin's ignorance was known within the McCain camp, but they couldn't report it because it was "off the record".

Couldn't, like other media outlets, Fox have still reported this stuff citing "sources who wished to remain off the record"?  Sounds like Fox chose not to report what they knew.

More from Cameron and Bill O'Reilly

That depends on how it was presented, Gene.

I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years and sometimes, sources would tell you something and say, "Go ahead and use it, but don't say it came from me." Then there are other times when they would say "This is strictly off the record," meaning they weren't giving you permission to use it at all.

Of course, if someone says that, you can always try to confirm the information from other sources.

To Bruce's point - Obama is in charge.  I think a good leader who will, in Obama's words, "listen ... especially when we disagree" is served well by having different personalities/perspectives in his cabinet to get as many insights as possible.

We need to wait and see how Obama actually synthesizes and acts on those insights.

Thanks for that insight, Bruce.  Do you think that's how other news outlets were able to "break" the story?  (I realize this is just speculation.)

Out of curiosity, with your background, what do you think about the state of journalism these days? 

I recall an interview with Dan Rather, a couple of years back, in which he said that with the rise of CNN and Fox News, the networks' news divisions had been reshuffled under the entertainment divisions, thereby becoming profit centers rather than cost centers ... a move which effectively transformed them into The National Enquirer, embracing sensationalism and abandoning the who, what, where, when of objective reporting.

Any thoughts on that?