Online interests

Yesterday I was reading Keith Olbermann's online meltdown about the Bush Administration. It's pretty good, I guess, for what it is.

Then on the ride home from work, I was listening to an NPR piece about a NY Times journalist who was vocally critical of the government (with specifics) at a Harvard event.

And I wondered about all of this. The voices are growing in volume and prominence. So what gives? I thought that journalists were supposed to be behind the smoke and mirrors of their words. I thought that there were ethical issues associated with voicing opinions anywhere but the Oped page. I never went to journalism school, but these are the assumptions that I am working with.

Not that I don't agree with both of these people. But it makes me a little uncomfortable. Because if they agree with me this week, when will they lockstep with another group? Is this kind of like when Cronkite turned against the war in Vietnam? Will it have even close to the same effect? Or is it just a couple of lone voices in the wilderness- about to be slammed to the pavement by corporate interests beyond their ken?

I hesitate to call their openly expressed stances brave. Because it's kind of johnny-come-lately in Olbermann's case, and the other lady just seems like she's been mouthy all along. One hell of a journalist by all accounts- but not the most wallflowery of the bunch. Is this the beginning of a backlash against the corporate hacks at Fox, et al?

Dunno. It'll be interesting to watch. I just wonder when they'll get fired. Because I'm paranoid that way.