Perhaps before Mr. King critiques you for your lack of "fact checking" he should use "spell check" on his own emails. Or perhaps even proofread them before he sends them out. Oops. How dare I critique a Journalist in this country.

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?

Glenn,

I didn't read all of the comments, but it seems to me that John King was implying that the "rest" of the interview aired on a different program, and that's where the "hard" questions were. Maybe he would like to let us know which program the rest of the interview aired on and what the rest of the questions were. I'm a pretty avid news watcher and I haven't seen it on any of the other shows .

For what it's worth, CNN to me is no longer the "most trusted name in news". They seem to be trying to out fox Fox, for the trashiest most tabloid station around. John King the epitome of objective journalism compared to John Roberts, who seems to have all of the current Republican talking points every morning.

The way King responds, you'd think CNN is a bastion of journalism. Few questions:

- Why is CNN's Chief National Correspondent so thin skinned? His response to Glenn was all personal insults. Never made a journalistic defense (unless you count claiming to be a SERIOUS journalist, journalism itself);

- Whatever happened to real journalists at CNN like Christian Amanpour or even Aaron Brown?

- Are all those blond or square jawed anchors on CNN Magna Cum Laude graduates of Columbia School or journalism, or are they there because they look good on TV?

- Explain Glenn Beck.

Why does King assume Glenn agrees that a "respectful" press corp/media is a good one? Especially after "reading" the post in question?

I understand the response "I'm not a bootlicker, I'm just respectful." Certainly we should not be rude to our elders as we grill and interrogate them.

But for "fair" and "respectful" to be the twin measures by which King believes a reporter---and the entire fourth estate---is to be judged? And to assume everyone else agrees?

Bloggers bring a little unfairness and disrespect back into our political discourse. Of course King feels defensive.

King's response reminded me of Bill O'Reilly's continual dismissal of Media Matters' criticism. Sounds more like just a reaction rather than an actual response to me.

I have, in the past, had people try to convince me of something I had been dubious about by telling me how much training they've had or how they've worked with so and so. I just laugh and laugh--sometimes outwardly. Apparently, they don't like that.

It's striking how much John King's e-mail sounds like the posts of some of UT's more contentious commenters. On both the macro and micro levels, Glenn has identified, I think, one of the saddest consequences of the kind of society ours has become -- or devolved into, if you prefer. With meaningful dialogue curtailed everywhere, particularly where we work, we read much of the night, and go south in the winter.

In our public manifestations, we may be what Acharaych calls us -- a nation of pissers in cups, but we're getting angrier and angrier about it, and we spend a lot of time inventing weirder and weirder reasons for our disenfranchisement,. When someone like Glenn provides us with a forum, we let fly.

Call it democracy in action, or call it the return of the repressed. Either way I think it's healthy, although it's sometimes painful to endure. As for the estimable Mr. King himself, the more sand in his underwear the better, as far as I'm concerned.

That one has a right to opine about anything under the sun, whether or not one "knows anything about" the subject.

Yesterday, Glenn offered righteous denunciations of so-called "legal experts" opining on things they obviously know nothing of, and having their ill-informed opinions paraded around by wingnuts as if they had found the Holy Grail.

Today Glenn posts John King's denunciation of Glenn for daring to opine on media/journalism matters (specifically one of King's "interviews" with John McCain) he obviously knows nothing about. Glenn's opinions about King and the Media, of course, are then paraded around by Left Wing Agitators as if they had found a previously unpublished version of Das Kapital. Or Rush's Oxycontin Diaries. Or whatever Socialists get sticky-wet over.

BUT, the Mediator in me (following on the Democratic candidates Burying the Hatchet on the Race Wars the other day) says, "Hold on! All y'all need to sit down and take a deep breath. What would you think if, by some chance, there were a Rule that said, 'Anybody gets to have an opinion, and state their opinion, about anything or anyone, whether or not they are fully "informed" about the Facts and the People involved'? What would a Rule like that look like? Could you live with a Rule like that? Would it even be all right with you if people had wrong opinions about this or that, and if you thought they were wrong, you could actually, well, say so?"

But everyone has the right to mouth off?

Would that be OK?