" 

 :::As you know, I have asked for third-party help in mediation or arbitration. In the meanwhile, let me throw out something to treat as food for thought. To quote your observation on the source of some materials that are critical of Code Pink, ""it is coming from conservative websites and talkshows.""  I'm going to concentrate a bit more right now on the talkshow. Unfortunately, even the mainstream electronic media rarely do much in the way of objective reporting  it's much more focused on the sensational, because that's what the advertisers believe their audiences want. 

 :::For example, Jeannie Moos of CNN did speak with Midge Potts after the Waxman hearings. Immediately, one wonders if the producer is interested in anything more than fill, as Moos appears to specialize in the quirky and humorous. CNN does have some reporters that are known for hard questions and doing homework. If Wolf Blitzer had interviewed her, I might very well have expected him to ask some of the questions I would have like asked: ""Do you believe that the Waxman Committee, perhaps much as did the Ervin Committee during the beginning of Watergate, is investigating things that might lead to the impeachment demanded on your T-shirt? Why? Why not? If they are, do you think that your actions help the movement to impeach? Why?"" 

 :::Once upon a time, there were news shows that dug for content, such as Murrow or Cronkite. They gradually moved to a very polite set of talking heads, such as ""Meet the Press"". The advertisers apparently didn't like that  and I'd note that Murrow, etc., was considered a service of the network, not driven by advertising  and we soon had yelling matches such as McLaughlin and ""Point Counter Point"", the latter immortalized in parody with ""Shana, you bitch."" 

 :::Where are the news shows that have a tough and neutral moderator, say, between Benjamin and Tierney? I'm not sure they exist any longer. Unfortunately for the country, the radio talk shows are almost universally angry right-wing.  

 :::So, we have websites. Frankly, I find a website that does financial analysis of group relationships to be fairly serious. But, let's assume Perazzo is completely tainted. Is there a website anywhere in which Code Pink puts out a thoughtful analysis of issues concerning them, ""Codepink.org"" doesn't have anything on politics; it's a travel site for women, someone probably having snapped up the domain name. 

 :::How is Code Pink  and I'd really like to find the source if it exists  putting out anything besides sound bites at demonstrations? They do have some news releases at things like the Walter Reed demonstration, which perhaps are a page of accusations. 

 :::In other words, where are the reputable sources, on either side of this issue, that address substance, not sound bites? I don't see any. Code Pink is good at dramatic confrontations, but not as good at working in the political process. What objective sources exist that will give a reasoned account of a Code Pink position, which could then be matched against a reasoned position at the other end of the political spectrum? 

 :::The sad reality is that you aren't seeing either reasoned charges from Code Pink or reasoned responses from the right, or I've missed them if so. Tucker Carlson's charges about Chavez are less dramatic than Tierney's, but certainly marginal when it comes to the U.S. political sphere. 

 :::So I ask, Daniel, what to do in such situations? Just copy Code Pink's news releases? I would be delighted, in this or any other political exchange, to see ideas, not slogans, on both sides. In the Democratic presidential primary campaigns, there are a few issue papers, but all sides, Republican and Democratic, also go for smears. There are a few candidates, not all in one party, that I believe don't want smears and stop them when staff issues them, but, sadly, most candidates are indulging in attack politics. 

 :::Again, I ask, how does one provide balanced, encyclopedic coverage of an organization that self-describes itself as using confrontational tactics? Do they get a free pass on criticism if there is no one that criticizes them in a calmer way than their own ""stunts"", to use your word?   "