The sad thing is that King isn't even the worst of today's pack-mentality press corps. These guys have become so co-opted by the system they don't even realize how compromised they've become.

At what point in time did journalistic "acce$$" finally trump "the public interest"?

Oh, poor Mr. King, Mr. Greenwald was somehow unfair because he did not post to the unpublished portion of your interview with McCain? (Of course, he could not do so--so how is THAT unfair?)

Mr. King, I noticed that your email did not "correct" the situation by posting to the entire interview transcript. I wonder, why not?

Perhaps because a complete transcript of the interview, including the omitted portion, would only reinforce Mr. Greenwald's original point by showing even more effusive fawning by you.

If that is not the case, go ahead, post the entire interview transcript. And I do mean, the ENTIRE thing.

I dare you.

As we learned from the Libby trial, the Beltway reportocrats value access above all. Judy Miller had access to the war (vice) President's office, which trumped any common sense examination of the war mongering spewing from OVP sewer and made her a star at the NYT.

King's beloved, multi year access to McCain is just a visible manifestation of the same disease which makes him a star at CNN. King confirms his status as a journalist/star because he has this access, because he's so good at getting access, as well as keeping access, which has everything to do with not getting access taken away. Maybe the vision of him getting accessed by McCain from the rear, as seen in the interview in question, would give Mr. King some pause. It hasn't.

The debasement of the 4th Estate disclosed in the Libby trial caused absolutely no change in behavior of the reportocrats. Declining ratings from years of access pseudo-journalism be damned, they've been doing the same pandering act for years and aren't about to change.

It is a credit to Glenn G. that he has the stomach to keep an eye and ear on this bunch. CNN slowly went to hell after Brother Ted sold out (remember the glory days of the boys in Baghdad?)and they are about at rock bottom. I don't even watch their election night stuff. Fox (gag) does it better. And I have to live with myself for saying that.

Call it a personal quirk, but I have always had issues with people who refer to themselves in the third person. (Even parenthetically.)

At the risk of using too many movie references in one sentence, the angry villagers with pitchforks are mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore.

There was video last week from New Hampshire of "angry villagers" (actually Ron Paul supporters) chasing Sean Hannity from a restaurant to his hotel. At the time I thought the only thing missing was torches; I forgot about pitchforks. I don't think everyone who wanted to, got to see it. Your post reminded me of it...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/07/sean-hannity-flees-from-ron-paul-supporters/

Eventually Fox caved, and Paul was included. Of course, this incident probably had nothing to do with their change of heart...

Here is an example of the same type of confrontation,

though a little nastier, from the Sports section.

http://crashburnalley.com/?p=47

Too good. Reading through King's email, knowing in advance how Glenn would publicly dismantle it, I almost felt sorry for him. You want to warn these guys off, like soon-to-be-victims in horror films: "don't go in there!" And yet they do. They always do.

It's easy to see why John King asks such soft questions: he's incredible thin-skinned and clearly suffers a lot from any sort of disapproval. What he must be looking for in his interviews is not information but approval. That would explain a lot.

...people actually have to use facts and logic before making judgments... -- slagathor

No, that's not the Rule being proposed here, though I'm sure it's one that would make some people very happy.

The problem phrase is "have to use." No, in fact, don't you agree, people don't have to use any rational element at all before offering opinions or making judgements. It would be nice if they did, and we might want to encourage it. But require it? No.

How would that Rule work?

Everyone would have to withhold opinions and judgement until, what?, there had assembled sufficient facts and logic to pass somebody's muster? Decided by whom?

On the other hand, the Rule I propose stipulates that if you are unsatisfied with x, y, or z opinion/judgement, you have every right to say so, and, if you choose, to say why.

But should there really be a strict "fact/logic" limitation on one's right to opine?

Glenn got close to that line yesterday as King is shown to be close to it today.

But what's this really about? "Facts and Logic" or Membership in The Club?

I don't know a darn thing about medals. I just threw in the Congressional Medal of Honor thing because it sounded all high-falutin' and important, like the kind of stuff they pass out to people who have done something right for a change. But then didn't they give one of those to George Tenet? Maybe that was the Presidential Medal of Honor. In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what the difference is between these scraps of iron. I just want Glenn to have one, something to show our appreciation for all his hard work. Should we send cash?

the horror

"don't go in there!" And yet they do. They always do.

-- studio2054b

That was funny!

If I had a customer-facing job and I replied to one's criticism in the way John King replied to Glenn Greenwald, I imagine I would be fired. At least, I hope that I would be fired.

W.T., if it is Rosh Hashanah day or any day...a 'yenta'...WOW!

I will declare loudly (comic gossip-busy body), and do say publicly!

If ya's desire to solve that problem of sand in the panties:

~@ 8:11-W.T.,

Oh ah, and O, heh, "How to fix the scratch irritation of sand in the underwear"...[?]...

Just don't wear underwear on Easter Day, either!