"The problem isn't whether the NY Times covers Palestine correctly."

Actually, every single Jewish person I've spoken to thinks that is a major problem.

"The problem is that most people are getting their news from Fox or from daytime AM radio."

As opposed to say, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC?

Or AP, Reuters, UPI, the Guardian, etc.?

So the problem is that people are choosing two media outlets over, um hundreds?

Or is it the problem that those two exist at all?

I think the fact that Fox News and AM talk radio generally run contrary to the grain, something people swear they want more of (more freedom of speech, more diversity in ideas) galls some people to the point where they would rather there be no free discussion at all.

Wow, that is quite a logical leap you take from criticism of two media outlets to the proposition that he would oppose any free discussion at all.

It's not a leap. The same people who want open discourse are the same ones throwing stones.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not count when the speech is conservative. Daschle proved it. CNN proves it daily as do all the other outlets, and this guy painting all AM talk radio and Fox News that way proves it.

I don't think it's a leap when the conclusion is drawn from the words coming out of people's own mouths. I'm not drawing an inference based on a vague statement, I'm pointing out where their statements lead.

"galls some people to the point where they would rather there be no free discussion at all."

Lets see the evidence for that statement. Perhaps you can find a quote from one of those you condemn saying they don't think there should be any discussion at all.

"The same people who want open discourse are the same ones throwing stones."

Open discourse includes "throwing stones" I'm assuming you're speaking figuratively not literally.

"I'm pointing out where their statements lead."

Simply making the statement isn't evidence it is true. Lets see some evidence. I don't believe that is where their statements lead. Give us some examples .

Let me ask you one question instead:

Why is getting news from AM Radio or Fox News a problem? The fact that this guy sees it as a "problem" is the clearest demonstration of my point.

The problem is Fox and AM Radio generally don't fall in line with the establishment media, hence they are not mainstream. They are an alternative point of view, and one that's repeatedly demonized for being such.

I can't speak for David Rieff, but I think the implication is that AM Radio and Fox News often distort, misstate, and in general paint an inaccurate picture of world. If true we are doomed, since one needs accurate information to make informed rational decisions. He is expressing an opinion. Nowhere does he say that they don't have a right to print or say whatever they want. Nor does he argue that they should not be allowed to broadcast or print those views. In my opinion he is simply participating in a free discussion. Of course he is galled by the Foxes and Limbaugh's but that is a long way from not wanting any free discussion at all. Free discussion includes criticism of both views we agree with as well as those we oppose. If you have evidence that he is opposed to free discussion present it, having an opposing opinion to theirs isn't enough.

There's a huge difference between criticizing the media and calling it a problem. He specifically singled out two mediums where conservatives generally have their say.

He didn't criticize CNN. He didn't criticize any of the others.

It's not a coincidence. It's the age-old case of one point-of-view is okay, and the other is chided and criticized. He didn't make the case that all media was at fault.

What he didn't say, and who he didn't take to task is a lot more important, in this case, than who he did. Certain people, (Gore, Daschle, even FAIR) cannot find it in their hearts to criticize any of their pals in mainstream media for being overwhelmingly liberal, while they take to task Fox News, AM Radio, and Rush Limbaugh for being conservative.

I never hear anyone who criticizes FOX, AM, or Rush criticize any mainstream media outlets. Why? Because they agree with them. God help he who crosses the NYT.

I'm surprised that you don't see this as stifling free discussion. When you openly criticize only one point of view, everywhere it presents itself, and call it a problem, you're not interested in free and open discussion.

By the way: "I can't speak for David Rieff, but I think the implication is that AM Radio and Fox News often distort, misstate, and in general paint an inaccurate picture of world. If true we are doomed, since one needs accurate information to make informed rational decisions"

That's the exact point. To say you can't get an accurate picture from Fox or AM Radio is flamebait. Does that also mean you can only get such a picture from CNN, etc.?

Give me a break Vinny the conservative press seldom criticizes conservatives. I see you criticize FAIR in one of your posts. I don't see in the same post that you criticized Fox or Limbaugh does that make you guilty of what you are accusing Rieff of doing. He is simply expressing the opinion that he thinks those who get their news primarily from Fox and AM Radio are getting a distorted picture and that society is worse for it. I will repeat one more time show me where he says that they shouldn't have a right to publish or express their opinion, which was your original point that he would rather there be no discussion at all. You simply haven't provided any evidence of that. There is no difference in criticizing the media and calling it a problem calling it a problem is criticism, it is simply criticism that you dislike and apparently disagree with. He may not think all the media is at fault so what that's just an opinion. He may not meet your standards of fairness so what that's his opinion. The idea that if a person criticizes one problem Israel for example and doesn't in the same article criticize the Palestinians that proves they are anti-Israeli and pro Palestinian it doesn't prove that at all.