Yes, these folks are narcissistic sycophants, as many here have described. Glenn is absolutely right to highlight and call out this absurd coddling behavior. But ... the "editor did it" argument holds some weight, to me. And, there’s more. I've never been a reporter, and never will. But I /imagine/ being a reporter is, in some ways, just like being in most other professional/office jobs. I imagine that these reporters are asked to cover more events/candidates with fewer staff, and in spite of this cut in personnel (to keep the media co. stock doing well ... or recover from blah blah blah). Also I imagine that ratings or readership is of paramount importance ... and sometimes one's audience wants vitriol (if that audience hates the Clintons, for example) or maybe that audience wants a love-feast. None of this makes it right, but it seems to be how things are. Maybe the news rooms are just like most other office situations, where internal politics and ass-kissing and such are FAR more important than actual competence. And "rocking the boat" ... even in a little way ... can mean being fired, being unable to pay the mortgage, cause marital or family distress. So, my point is this: how in the world will reporters change their behavior if the system that we all are part of seems to strongly pull us and them in the direction of either complacency, or "loose cannon" status?

well ... not /entirely/ to blame, is this ...

given what i just wrote re: the state of business and those that work in the field (including reporters) ... i forgot to mention that i imagine these reporters can easily be "blacklisted" by candidates who don't approve of the questions. is this career suicide for them, i don't know ... but it seems like an unfair proposition to ask working men and women to continually risk their job to do it well.

as a side note ... is it /possible/ that the "unfair" treatment the press gives the Clintons is a direct result of their blacklisting practices? i cite the GQ example in making this point.

my point is that many "good" reporters ... those that wish to follow ethical guidelines, those that wish to do their jobs well (their jobs being serving the public good by investigating facts in an unbiased way and disclosing them for readers to form an opinion) ... these good reporters are a dying breed. you are both right, especially baldie, with asking "so what?" but ... it strikes me we (as a country) already have enough callousness and lack of sympathy. i don't encourage emotions and understanding to take anyone off the hook for being a sham ... but i think there are larger forces at play.

complicating this is the notion of "what s reporting" and "who is a reporter?" i've asked glenn to respond to this, and haven't seen him do it. most "reporters" on tv are really talk show hosts or opinion pundits. they do not "report." the talk show thing ... sometimes with near jerry springer-like fights ... seems to grow ratings. vile opinion making ... the more extreme, seemingly the better ... seem to drive ratings. is this the fault of the "reporters"? or the consuming public? if the consuming public seems to love fights ... how does glenn's confrontational style actually add to this problem? how do our concerned comments, when they turn personal or mean, add to this?

this is the only thing i've ever seen on reporters "ethics" and it is voluntary, i read:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

hi bystander ... this is a good discussion. thanks ...

you wrote:

The point I want to make is, what constitutes professionalism? Lots of occupations make a claim to having a professional status, and it means little more than the sports distinction between being a paid or unpaid player. Profession isn't tied to having an employer. It is tied to those endeavors for which a code of ethics, and an accountability to that code, is not voluntary. There are standards of practice which you breach at your peril. If John King wants to be considered a professional journalist he doesn't get to point to a voluntary code of ethics when he defends his occupational status, and then ignore it when it interferes with his reporting style.

What I get from the John King personalities is their deep desire to be opinion makers. I'm not smarter about a thing when they get done with me, I've simply been manipulated. No professional worthy of the distinction ever manipulates you. That's one of the first items in any profession's code.

i actually agree with you on most of this. what i'm calling for is some understanding of the work/business environment that "reporters" and all of us operate in. this isn't to claim that the ethical standard should be attached to an employer ... but to hopefully evoke some sympathy to our colelctive plight, and to elicit brainstorming from this smart group. to simply say "john king is an idiot" is perpetuating a blame syndrome (who is bad now? ... bush is bad! ... now clinton is bad! ... now reporters are bad! ... now jeff olson is bad! ... now glenn greenwal;d is bad!). it is this blame syndrome, and it's intitutional context that seems to be eluding many here.

take, for example, the idea that you are a young, eager doctor. accordingto the ama, these are some of your ethical guidelines:

Principles of medical ethics

A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

(snip)

A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

(snip)

A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.