(dammit, i wanted to preview instead of post)

to continue ...

what is you are a doctor and bound by these ethical guidelines. what is most places to gain employment as a doctor are at hospitals or insurance companies. what is these companies ... as a result of public demand to keep costs down ... create rules and structures that you feel comprimise your ethics. what do you do? if you blow a whistle, you may be fired or blacklisted. if you try to change the system from within you will be met with resistance and/or dismissal. of course these things aren't always the case, but the /system/ is as much or more to blame than the individual. blaming individuals, without examining the system, is wrong and spreads more of the problem.

hi ...

you are right, bystander. i don't think we're arguing your point, which i take as a call for individual professionalism. you also state that this straightforward chrage is, in fact, very difficult.

my point is, as you wrote, to evoke compassion for those of us who fight "systems." i don't think john king is one of those ... and as a result he is being rewarded with a tv news salary. his letter to glenn is so defensive, because glenn is calling his fraud a fraud.

we agree, i imagine, with all this.

my point is this ... calling a fraud a fruad is one way to make change. if the person exposing the other, in this case glenn, calls out the frauds in an inflamatory way (i'm not saying glenn did, but many commenters here are quick to name call) ... that ADDS to the system problem ... the opposite of an assumed intention to make change. glenn is making the point that reporters can be too coddling. sometimes they are. sometimes they are the opposite. the system problem is this: we, as a country, are responsible for creating the environment where confrontational/sensational news dominates, so inflammatory confrontation adds to this problem. fanning the fire only makes it worse. we're all responsible. i am inviting commenters to not only show empathy to "reporters" in general, but also reflect on how their specific actions of inflamed outrage ADDS to the news/reporting problem. outrage is justified sometimes ... but if we are asking these reporters to have balls and change the systems that they operate in, shouldn't we do the same?

i don't really feel like i'm arguing with you bystander, so "last words" don't matter to me.

i'm simply making the (perhaps mute) point that ...

you are what you eat

be the change you want to see

those with glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones

"you" the person, bystander, may excel in your ability to be transparent and aligned in how you ethically address corporate/institutional corruption. god bless you for it. others, like john king, clearly have failed in this regard. there are hoards and hoards of folks like me who are in the middle. having standards and demanding change can work sometimes ... but there are other tactics that don't get people's reactivity (and therefore defensiveness) on alert. inflammatory e-mails, comments, radio programs, etc., etc. tend to get more attention. sometimes those who decry journalistic failures embody the exact some problem they decry. sometimes people are addicted to reactivity/turbulence and don't even realize it.

people who like to or need to fight tend to need enemies. sometimes those enemies are manufactured, with severe consequences. sometimes being confrontational and direct, with compassion and understanding, can be very healing for all involved. i'm inviting you and others here to be self-reflective. maybe you don't need that. if so, i applaud you.