Live Q&As

  Not in my book. I'm something of a purist on this issue. What the News of the World's "Fake Sheik" did would be a firing offense at nearly all American newspapers. I know some television programs, and not just 60 Minutes, have used that kind of deception in the past. And there are those who justify such tactics based on the importance of the information (maybe Fergie was a bigger threat to British society than we knew). But you're still talking about journalists taking it upon themselves to lie and deceive in pursuit of a story.

  I think it's a great idea, but I don't see any sign of it happening. When CBS got into trouble over Dan Rather's Memogate mess, it had to bring in an outside panel because it has no ombudsman.

  Neither did the New York Times, by the way, until the Jayson Blair scandal of 2003. But Clark Hoyt's fair-minded critique showed yet again why it's an important position. I agree with most of what Hoyt wrote--that the Times story, despite some flaws, was basically good journalism. My biggest criticism is that the paper should have disclosed that Richard Blumenthal's Republican opponent, Linda McMahon, had some role in providing oppo research about the attorney general's false claims of having served in Vietnam. She was hardly an off-the-record source; in fact, she couldn't wait to start bragging about her role.   Readers could then have made up their own minds about an article that the Times obviously researched extensively beyond whatever the McMahon campaign contributed.

 But most news organizations do cover the White House with just one or two reporters (or three or four, in the case of the biggest newspapers). The fact that 2,000 people attend the WH Correspondents Dinner is no indication of the size of the press corps. That mob includes not just guests but editors, advertising executives and the like. So while there's plenty of pack journalism involving the White House, there are fewer media outlets with fulltime reporters there today than there were five years ago.

 Well, Blumenthal finally apologized this morning, so you don't have to take my word for it:  "I have firmly and clearly expressed regret and taken responsibility for my words. I have made mistakes and I am sorry. I truly regret offending anyone." Look, the guy repeatedly said he served in Vietnam, and he didn't. One such quote: "I wore the uniform in Vietnam." The fact that he didn't lie about it every time is not much of a defense. And he and his staff were perfectly capable of correcting the false accounts that kept popping up in Connecticut papers. Blumenthal has a long history as an effective attorney general, but this is a self-inflicted wound that is hard to understand.

  It was mostly a look at how the multi-tasking Chuck Todd does his job. I was more than happy to include Savannah because she's the co-host of  "Daily Rundown," shares the beat with Todd and also works insane hours juggling multiple responsibilities. But it was conceived as a piece about Chuck, the non-TV guy who's suddenly all over TV (and Twitter).

  It may well be outrageous; treasonous is a little strong for me. The practice is more common in Britain, for what it's worth. But I'm not letting the Duchess of York off the hook, however questionable the tactics used against her. This was not a "weak spot"; this was an appalling attempt to make big bucks by selling access to her royal ex-husband.

  Anyone who thinks Rachel Maddow was unfair needs to go back and look at that interview. She gave him 20 minutes; she asked him to explain his position again and again; she challenged him but didn't interrupt much. Now there is no doubt that she is an unabashed liberal who disagrees with Paul on most things (though he did announce his candidacy on her show). Republicans are saying it was a bad tactical move for Rand Paul to go on her show, but he's the one who talked himself into trouble on civil rights law (and backed off with a statement the next day). What's unfair is to portray the interview as some kind of hit job. Plus, he said essentially the same thing to the Louisville Courier-Journal a month earlier.

  You're judging the media's fairness on whether or not Saturday Night Live does a skit?

  Well, I didn't mean to suggest that he'd NEVER been on television. But Chuck Todd was a classic behind-the-scenes guy, and three short years later he's a cable anchor and a go-to guy for Brian Williams. That's quite a transformation.

  Not sure I see the problem. Political director merely means that he guides NBC's campaign coverage. A better analogy would be a player-coach. There is a broader question of how much analysis a White House or political reporter should do, and I've always found Chuck Todd to be cautious about engaging in pure opinion. But Jake Tapper, Chip Reid, Ed Henry--along with the likes of Bob Schieffer and George Stephanopoulos--all offer analysis as part of their jobs.  That analysis is supposed to be rooted in their reporting and what sources are telling them, as opposed to just popping off.

  Excuse me: who told the world about Richard Blumenthal's misstatements on Vietnam? The New York blanking Times. Is there another newspaper that's more at the heart of the MSM than that? And most news organizations have taken the story seriously. Other than a pundit or two, I haven't seen anyone giving Blumenthal a pass.

 It was going to be him or Gregory, but David Gregory was always the heavy favorite. Chuck was disappointed, but seems to have done all right for himself.

  I think they are rightly regarded as fair reporters and analysts and not lumped in with the highly opinionated hosts.

  Stop Fergie before she strikes again? That would be the justification, I guess. Although this was something of a scam, in that not even the News of the World suggests that Prince Andrew knew anything about it.

  Well, no one "controlled" the media coverage after the two reporters were jailed in North Korea. What Lisa Ling told me is that she asked media outlets to be sensitive to the fact that two lives were at stake, and I hardly think that's unreasonable. Most news organizations wanted to tread carefully because they either have had, or could imagine having, their reporters arrested or taken hostage by hostile regimes. I was simply trying to provide some insight into how it worked, and thought Lisa Ling was quite candid on Reliable Sources in describing her efforts to win her sister's freedom.

  Drilled down, so to speak?

  I didn't see it, but one of the things you try to do on a roundtable is have people of different opinions and experience share their views. A free-flowing discussion is often more illuminating than trying to force everyone to stick to a narrow aspect of the discussion.

  Which, if it happens, underscores the wall between the newsroom and the editorial page. No one is saying the NYT doesn't have a liberal editorial page. But the newsroom has done plenty of important digging on Democrats (as well as Republicans).

  I think the reason the story hasn't gotten more traction is that Sestak has refused to provide any details. Now that he's the nominee I think it's not going away. Still, there's a huge difference between "get out of the race and we'll give you X." and "you know, if you decide it's in your best interest to pass up the race, we'd be interested in you for some opportunities down the road." The latter is called politics.

  I haven't studied the Connecticut press closely enough to say, but if I worked there, I'd certainly be embarrassed to be scooped by the Times. It's certainly worth noting that the state's largest paper, the Hartford Courant, is part of the Tribune chain that has yet to emerge from bankruptcy.

 Now there's a bit of information I didn't have!

Chuck Todd: closet Marxist?

 I don't think SNL has been real soft on Obama lately. And do you remember some of the Hillary skits? It's certainly true that Richard Blumenthal, as a state official, is hardly a national name at this point.

  I thought it was a classic case of a CEO playing defense after his company has gotten hammered. (Time's cover last week was on privacy concerns about Facebook.) Whether it was an effective pitch is up to readers. The paper had to disclose, as it did, that Don Graham is on Facebook's board, but I don't think that should stop the op-ed page from publishing a timely piece from Zuckerberg.

  I think you raise a good point. There's been some good reporting on lax regulation in the past and BP's track record--reporting that would have been far more helpful had it taken place before the accident. But time and again, the media give scant attention to regulatory agencies until there's an oil leak, a mining collapse, a Toyota acceleration problem.

  On this current question of why the government isn't doing more NOW, I agree. Like everyone else, I wish the administration had moved more aggressively to get a handle on the problem, but I don't know precisely what federal officials can do at this point, when most of what BP has tried has been ineffective.

  Seems to me you're talking mainly about television. Most newspaper and magazine reporters are trying to do their jobs the old-fashioned way in an era of shrinking resources.

  Thanks for the chat, folks.