Very sad news, Peter Jennings has died of lung cancer at his home. He was 67.

Jennings first became a news anchor at 26. At 29, he became a foreign correspondent, at which he excelled.

He established an ABC News bureau in Beirut, and became an expert on the Middle East. He won a Peabody Award for a 1974 profile of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. On the scene at the Munich Olympics in 1972, Jennings was perfectly placed to cover the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes by an Arab terrorist group. He and a crew hid in the athletes' quarters for a close-in view of the drama.

Ten years later, Jennings returned to anchor duties at ABC. His New York Times obituary is here.

Peter Jennings was the face of the ABC News. He will be missed by millions. Our condolences to Mr. Jennings' family, and may he rest in peace.

Update: Crooks and Liars has reposted Jenning's last broadcast of April 26, when he announced to the world he had lung cancer.

Eleanor Clift profiles Markos of Daily Kos and the Hackett race in Newsweek... an inspiring article, go read. [Via Skippy]

One of Markos' great points:

“It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine … We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.” He pointed out that bloggers backed Democrat Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota, who, he says, ran a Republican Lite campaign. “We’re pragmatic,” he says. If candidates aren’t 100 percent on the environment or they’re kind of iffy on choice, progressives should overlook these differences for what Moulitsas terms “the greater good,” which is restoring the Democrats to a governing majority.

[Thread hijacked, comments closed]

I got to watch NBC's The Law Firm tonight. It's an Apprentice-type show with young aspiring trial lawyers, presided over by one of the profession's best, Roy Black. Roy plays the part of The Donald, letting two associates go each week.

My review: The contestants were entirely forgettable, except for Olivier who cursed the judge when he lost the hearing, and Deep, whom I predict is destined to be fired along the road, but who in personality, reminded me so much of Federico of Six Feet Under - with that macho bravado one moment coupled with desperation and humility when he fails in the next.

The only shining star in the show, to no suprise, is Roy Black. He totally plays himself. Roy is great at legal commentary, but you don't really get a sense of him in those 30 second soundbites. On the Law Firm, you get to see him as he really is, and he's great. (Disclosure: Roy is a personal friend of mine as well as a colleague.)

The other great moment of tonight's show went to Burt Katz (another friend, former judge and prosecutor, MSNBC legal analyst and show anchor - definitely with a conservative bent )who played the judge in one of the segments. His delivery of the verdict was priceless, and pure Burt.

Bob Novak, unhappy at being interrupted by James Carville, who then made fun of Novak, said to Carville on the air, "This is bullsh*t" and walked off the set. Crooks and Liars has the video.

The segment began with Novak joking about the Katherine Harris make-up flap. Novak proceeds to political analysis of Harris's chances in the Senate race. Carville interrupts him, and he asks to finish. Carville responds:

Carville: "You've gotta show these right-wingers some kind of backbone, you know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you show them you're tough."

Novak says "that's bullsh*t. Then he says "Let it go." But, the segment host, Dan Harris Ed Henry, threw the next question to Carville instead of letting Novak finish his answer. So Novak walked off the set.

Media Bistro reports a CNN spokesperson later said:

"Bob Novak's behavior on CNN today was inexcusable and unacceptable. Mr. Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to its viewers for his language and actions. We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," a CNN spokeswoman told us.

The AP now has the story.

Two of Michael Jackson's jurors are going to write books saying they believed he was guilty. No surprise here, the way guilt sells in America.

There ought to be a constitutional way to pass a law prohibiting jurors from writing books profiting off their experiences. Who will speak their mind during deliberations knowing their fellow jurors may pen a tell-all afterwards?

What happens inside the jury room should stay in the jury room. It's none of our business. The verdict is all we need. If something improper happened, like extraneous evidence was introduced, the jurors should tell the lawyers in the case or the Judge who will then decide how to deal with it.

Say Hello to Scotus Wire - a continuously updated wire with both blog and MSM news on Judge John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. [Via Instapundit.]

Arianna has some more info on Judith Miller, accumulated through a variety of sources. Most interesting is the details of her accomodations while on assignment - as compared to those of her fellow journalists.

A recurring theme in many of the conversations and e-mails is how Judy, to the dismay of many of her colleagues, never played by the same rules and standards as other reporters. One source e-mailed to give me some examples of this pattern: "In Feb 2003, Judy was in Salahuddin covering the Iraqi opposition conclave. Iraqi National Congress spokesperson Zaab Sethna told a reporter who was also there that Judy was staying with Chalabi's group in Salahuddin (the rest of the reporters had to stay 30 minutes away in crappy hotels in Irbil), and that the I.N.C. had provided her with a car and a translator (Did the New York Times reimburse them?). The I.N.C. offered another reporter the same, but he turned it down. Judy had just arrived in a bus convoy from Turkey, big footing C.J. Chivers, who was also there covering the story for the Times. While everyone else on the buses had to scramble for accommodations, she was staying in a luxurious villa loaned to the I.N.C. by the Kurdish Democratic Party...

I've heard some good buzz about The Aristocrats. It's opening tomorrow in L.A. and New York, and then going national during August. The AMC movie chain has banned the film.

If you want to hear the dirtiest joke ever told ... don't bother heading for your local AMC megaplex. The theater chain has decided not to show the buzzed-about documentary "The Aristocrats" on any of its 3,500-plus screens, and the filmmakers aren't laughing. The $20,000 unrated film features 102 comedians, each telling the same infamous joke—involving a XXX stage act—passed down from comic to comic since vaudeville. (The punch line is the film's title.) Despite great test screenings—and a cast with figures ranging from Jon Stewart to Phyllis Diller—AMC's film group chairman, Dick Walsh, decided, according to a company spokeswoman, the film "would have very narrow appeal."

by TChris

Editors who don't share Garry Trudeau's sense of humor have, from time to time, edited or refused to run Doonesbury strips they find offensive. It's happening again, and the controversy centers around Karl Rove.

In the strip, Bush and an aide are lamenting the problems the administration has had over allegations that Rove leaked the name of a CIA officer to reporters.

Bush says, "Karl's sure been earnin' his nickname lately."

The unnamed aide says, "Boy Genius? I'm not so sure sir ..."

Bush then says, "Hey Turd Blossom! Get in here."

"Turd Blossom," CNN reports, is "one of several nicknames Bush uses for Rove" (clearly the most appropriate), although "mainstream U.S. media have rarely mentioned the nickname." Gee, they slavishly report every other gem the president utters. What's so bad about Doonesbury quoting the president?

Dan Froomkin just finished an online Chat on RoveGate over at the Washington Post. His newest column, Deflecting Responsibility, is up.

Democrats are unveiling the Rove Clock today

Mark Feldstein in the New York Times has an article on the Washington Press Corp's affinity for anonymous sources.

Despite the widespread fixation on this political scandal, there is also an important journalistic one: the conflict of interest that reporters routinely have with high-level sources who leak sensitive information. It is the dirty little secret of the Washington press corps, a kind of unspoken conspiracy in which reporters conceal not only their sources' identities but more importantly the underlying motives for the leaks. This Faustian pact can be a disservice to the public, which learns only a part of the larger truth, a version that may be accurate as far as it goes but is by definition deficient.

Kevin Drum makes some good points about it, and has a recommendation: