He is articulate, informed, and extremely intelligent. He was blessed with an inherited fortune (he doesn't have to work) (at all) yet he spent his time in war-torn countries for many, many years -- for no money whatsoever at first -- documenting what he saw. The phenomenon of Angelina Jolie-Brad Pitt's inappropriate level of attention for all the wrong reasons is an unfortunate media "moment"; but Ms. Jolie asked Cooper for the interview, not vice-versa. Far from being sycophantic, Mr. Cooper let Ms. Jolie do a lot of the talking (at least in the edited portions which made it on-air -- which most people who've worked in journalism know was probably not Mr. Cooper's call) even though he himself (Cooper) has spent many more years in the trenches, documenting the horrors of war and the lives of displaced persons than Ms. Jolie (who has also behaved admirably in that regard). Cooper was (why not) (who would not be?) delighted that she, with her own advantages (and again, no need to do any of this) has chosen to spend time helping people in dire straits. What's the problem? The majority of the broadcast focused on the actual refugees, how severe the need is to help them, and at every station break, "How to Help" (clearly the reason Ms. Jolie gave the interview -- despite being good looking and famous, she was tired as hell, had flown many hours and just given birth -- but knew the moment was right to maximize her (mostly unwanted) attention -- or as she put it, attention for the wrong reasons -- to bring the spotlight around to the plight of millions who need help, who are starving, being raped, tortured, killed, etc. while the rest of us sit around reading and writing for Salon).

What is evoking all this derision? Is it Cooper's intelligence, or his compassion? Is it the fact that he's successful, or the fact that he doesn't have to be and is doing it anyway?

I've lost a family member in a similar way to Mr. Cooper. He is not "exploiting" his brother's death. He is trying to make sense of it. I found his book honest, and (duh) self-revelatory, it's a book about his life. It says right there in the subtitle that it's about his own experiences, in his personal life as well as his profession, and how the two have intersected. I'm sure he's glad if it helps people (as it did me, for instance), and it's fine (he's not going to go broke) if they don't.

Anderson Cooper has become popular because he is damned good at what he does, because he has no agenda except to talk about what he sees, and he does so with focus, awareness and compassion.

The clear desire of CNN to "cash in on" Mr. Cooper's popularity and shoving aside Aaron Brown was very unfortunate. But this was not Mr. Cooper's fault. Mr. Cooper didn't say, Hey, I know, I'll be really smart, and brave, and good at my job and that way I can screw some other guy. He did not say (I strongly doubt that he did say) to himself, I know, I'll be the very best journalist I can be, and that way I'll get lots of attention.

Quite the opposite. As anyone who would take the time to read his book or anything else he has written (no, I don't read all his stuff slavishly but I've read some of it), Mr. Cooper did not do any of this to get famous. He became a journalist to try to make sense of the horror and chaos he sees around him in the world, and that he felt in his own life. As who of us does not (make choices based on our needs and desires). What seems to be plaguing Mr. Cooper now is that inevitably other people, like Mr. Scherer, can't stand the fact that he is good at it.

Which is a shame, because journalism would be a better place if more reporters were as gracious, smart, on the ball and yes, caring -- but in an objective and very appropriate way -- as Anderson Cooper.