Anyone who sees the young journalist's earnest appeal to Gordon as snide and whiny is motivated by contempt, which Gordon himself exemplifies. Gordon's not only defensive, he can't stand criticism from someone in his own field, even a tyro. That's very sad. If he were solid in his facts and felt no doubt about what he was doing, he could reply calmly, thoroughly, substantively. Instead, he blasts the critic, which is a sure sign of insecurity on many levels.

And now the question remains: will the NYT wait until the war with Iran is a year or more old before kinda sorta apologizing for Gordon's reporting?

There are numerous explanations for that, but one that ought not be overlooked is simple arrogance. Some national journalists simply believe that they are immune from criticism because they are more knowlegeable and wiser than their critics.

I agree, although I'd probably say "most" instead of "some" -- part of what's gutted journalism in this country is the emergence of journalists as a political class unto themselves (and probably fuels their sniping of Internet information gathering -- whether blogs, or YouTube, etc. -- anything that gets information out there in ways that they're not a part of is "bad information").

The Press has become a uniquely-situated institution, straddling three arenas: Businesspeople, celebrities, policymakers (indirectly, in their ability to draw attention to things and get people to think about whatever it is they cover -- and what they don't cover gets ignored). I don't think we have journalists in America anymore; we have commissars. "Pravda-like" is right.

The celebrity angle is probably the most recent and startling corrupting influence. A celebrity journalist is eventually going to have to choose which they value more -- their journalistic integrity or their celebrity; the former path is thankless drudgery, the latter brings fame and fortune.

No wonder we have so few journalists, anymore.

Welcome Glenn! I too have enjoyed your writing in the past and I am glad you are going to be contributing here at Salon.

In regards to Michael Gordon, he quite clearly represents fully the stereotypical American attitude that fuels anti-American sentiment around the world. It seems that in this world of stark black & white perspectives the only fuzzy or gray area that he and his ilk seem willing to embrace is that between fact and opinion. Mr. Gordon (like far too many others) certainly seems to have the two confused. In one of the most dangerous trends of our time, fueled by cable TV and the internet, opinion in now far too often posited as fact. And amid the cacophony of "news" sources, paid for experts, think tanks and blogs all fueling the "news cycle" there is little time or interest given to attaining any real facts.

The parallels between Gordon's hubris and that of the president and his administration further illustrates his (and perhaps the media in general) real purpose which is to prop up those opinions in order to justify a predetermined agenda. Gone are critical questions and debate. Here we are 4 years into the Iraq debacle, into which the media and Mr. Gordon played no small part, and our representation in Washington is just now debating debating it. Debating to debate?! Combine these conditions with one of the most secretive administrations in our countries history and the dangers become alarmingly clear to anyone willing to see it. There is no oversight or debate. Without those there can be no accountability just blind haphazard actions. And with this administration's much professed belief that only "history" has the authority to judge them and their actions, I suppose we should all just sit back and wait for them to finish writing it.

Not only does he violate Dan Froomkin's rules (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/10/iran/index.html), he forgets his profession's Code of Ethics. Here are a few relevant statements (Full text here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp?):

Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Act Independently Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

(Congratulations, Glenn!)