What's with Martha Radditz..

She doesn't generally "overtalk" her interviewees..Tonight, however..she asked McLellen questions and then "overtalked" while he was answering.(ABC News)

Maybe she has a particular problem with him based on his past
behavior with her (maybe he didn't call on her frequently enough)?

WRT Powell's lie-fest jin front of the UN five and a half years ago

http://dean.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/gibson/print.html

On the same show, Diane Sawyer introduced Martha Raddatz to talk about the Powell speech, and Raddatz promptly said things like this: "Good morning, Diane. Secretary Powell laid out a strong case against Saddam Hussein," and like this: "Powell said Iraq moved weapons to avoid detection. Satellite imagery, he said, shows a storage area for chemical weapons," and like this: "Powell also said evidence indicates that Iraq may have 25,000 liters of anthrax, has two of three components needed to build a nuclear bomb, and has ties to and harbors al Qaeda."

They then cut to Condoleezza Rice saying: "The Iraqis know what they need to do. And a little bit here and a little there is not going to get it done." Raddatz concluded: "Powell's presentation walked a delicate line between revealing new information and protecting methods of intelligence gathering." There was not a single syllable uttered that questioned any of this and, needless to say, no dissenting voices were heard.

But this morning, Charlie Gibson specifically points to the tough, skeptical reporting he did with regard to Powell's U.N. speech to prove what a great job the media did. Worst of all, that they think they did a good job means they'll not do anything different in the future.

she seems to be one of the more aggressive questioners. She may not
be Helen Thomas, but she's been persistent when her questions don't
get answered. I don't think she was in the WH press corps at the time
the war started, though -- ABC had a guy who was really good -- I
remember being mad when they replaced him with Raddatz because he
was MUCH more effective than she was.

the runup to war.

if they did (Ashleigh Banfeld), they were either marginalized or fired, as was Bob Perry for daring to commit journalism during the inception of Iran Contra

they're ALL stenographers. once the tide turned a bit, as a result of undeniable reality unfolding in Iraq, some faux journalists began to play their roles more agressively, but they STILL choose not to deal with the crux of the matter: that they are most stenographers who refuse to admit their role in pounding the war drums, and continue to REFUSE to report on the myriad depredations being committed by this regime, from the blackout of the pentagon 'experts,' to the Siegelman fiasco.

and WHEN is Russert ever going to be taken to task for this:

''about whom Cheney press aide Cathy Martin said: "I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format, as it allows us to control the message." That's the same "liberal" Tim Russert who confessed that he operates by the defining law of the Government propagandist: "When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy -- our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission." Those are the examples proving that we have a 'liberal media.' ''

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan/print.html

She was THE hot reporter from 9/11 through the beginning of
the war and then ... poof! I'd thought she got married or
had a child or something and only in the last few days has it
been brought up that her criticism of the war was her undoing.
I really thought she was a good reporter and wish she'd get
back into hard news (as opposed to just doing Court TV
crap).