But the idea that you can't critique someone's work product until you first speak with them is ludicrous.

-- GlennGreenwald

The same could be said of the quality, or lack there of, of the work John King exposes in his email. If an editor or proof reader or, better yet, someone with a fine eye for creative writing, were to take The Red Pen to King's email, it would be a bloody mess.

The last sentence of King's response is so revealing:

"I tried to be fair and didn't call into question someone's credibility just for sport, or because I like seeing my name on a website or my face on TV."

Since he doesn't know Glenn Greenwald even slightly (and consequently what Glenn's motives in blogging might be), this attribution of egotism to Glenn says a lot more about King's psychology than about Glenn's. Or, "My own self-serving reason for practicing journalism is something I cannot admit to myself, so I must therefore project it onto others, to ward off any potential, inadvertent flicker of self-awareness."

My comment should have read," I saw the interview", not "I was the interview".

I wonder if these guys who always blow off the blogs and try to act so dismissive of their influence ever connect the dots between the dwindling of their readership/viewership and the rise of the internet? Do they have a frat boy oath to always give the same response to criticism? They are surprisingly thin skinned for people who love to peel the skin off anyone the group does not like.I really don't think we have a functioning 4th estate anymore just a vast entertainment industry. This was brought into stark relief during the New Hampshire primary when they were all having so much fun dancing on Hillary's grave. It is too hilarious that she rose from the dead and bit them in the butt!

gee, ain't it funny how revelations of see eye ehh and other alphabet soup spooks BUYING, FINANCING, PUBLISHING various journos, pundits, and other mediawhores kinda/sorta went nowhere ? ? ?

hee hee hee

*wouldn't* an ethical, self-policing (yeah, that always works *snicker*), profession *want* to investigate such truths, charges, and allegations to 'clear their name' ? ? ? *wouldn't* it be kinda/sorta a 'big story' ? ? ?

ho ho ho

it *used* to be that gummint agencies and the military involved in exercises in propaganda were kinda/sorta against the -you know- law... (one of those archaic, quaint strictures that just don't make any sense in a -you know- korporatocracy...)

ha ha ha

*wouldn't* a sincerely contrite profession *want* to -you know- investigate the who/when/where/why of fellow mediatools being corrupted, and just WHO are the THOUSANDS of unnamed 'others' who supposedly took payments/etc, as well as the few (STILL NOT DISCREDITED!!!) outed mediawhores who were willing sockpuppets for the gummint's evil minions of doom ? ? ?

ak ak ak

i give you exhibit 'A' in the case against the mainstream media, kampers... they don't give a shit, don't want anyone to question their 'integrity' (much less investigate it themselves), and have totally abandoned their VITAL role of OUR PROXIES in afflicting the comfortable, and comforting the afflicted... The Bastards! (tm)

(oh, and just to remind kampers of how 'your' spook agencies work: they can and do plant stories in the foreign press that they FULLY INTEND (if not point out to compliant mediawhores) to be referenced or picked up by 'our' domestic media; thus skirting one of the pesky restrictions on their propaganda efforts... your tax dollars at work; i'm sure it is for our own good, i read an article where the gummint said so! *snort*)

come the revolution, mediawhores will be excoriated by the truth commissions...

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof

John King actually may have asked the toughest question at that press conference.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

THE PRESIDENT: Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.

The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.

[John King raises his hand.]

THE PRESIDENT: We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted -- (laughter.)

Q [John King] Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

THE PRESIDENT: My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.

The rest of your six-point question?

Q [John King] The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.

THE PRESIDENT: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John.

[The president finds the next name on his list.]

THE PRESIDENT: Terry Moran.

Q [Terry Moran] Thank you, sir. [...]

- - whitehouse.gov