However, I can also understand the need for him to remain professional and unbiased as a journalist. I also don't view his lack of enthusiasm as a reflection of his character (or lack thereof).

Was there something that he did/didn't do that prompted this thread?

his coverage of Libya, Eygpt, Iraq - need I go on.
He is a corporate hack.

Which makes a certain amount of sense, as he exclusively covers foreign news, and not US domestic news.

He is in a dangerous job and some discretion is necessary. If I remember correctly, he was even held hostage at one point last year.

While he isn't as liberal as Rachel Maddow, I also don't think he is a raging right-winger. He didn't comment on the Occupy movement protests because he is a foreign correspondent rather than an expert of economic policy or domestic affairs. Is he a corporate hack--well that is a question that could be asked of anyone that has worked for a corporation, myself included. However, I'm not aware of any incidents where he has shown an alliance with corporate causes (other than the network that provides his paycheck) and as far as I can tell he is doing his job.

You'll need to be more specific for me to arrive at the conclusion that you have made. I haven't seen anyone else on DU make that conjecture either, so I'll bid good night and check the thread tomorrow to see if anyone else weighs in.

Take care malaise.

they are addicted to conflict. Martha Raddatz is another of this group who comes to mind too. I always get queasy when watching them because they seem to live for getting to the fight and making certain that the drama and romance of the warrior is the story that is told. Perhaps it is just me but I don't like the way they convey the story of conflict. And, I might add, I think they are fine examples of the success of embedding journalists with troops.

who eventually self destructed. I think they all served and continue to serve vested interests.

and he only covers foreign news.