Hi Glenn,

What you really witnessed is John King's attitude of cultural entitlement. He's at the ostensible 'top of the heap' and his comments implied that YOU should work to take care of his reputation. YOU should have called him to ask about his work. YOU should have checked to make sure that his editor didn't cut any important questions-- because he's from the entitled class.

You're supposed to help him live in his fantasy world-- and if you don't, you're the bad guy. You're not civilized. It's just more class politics.

After watching the whole Clinton impeachment debacle, I'm convinced that most of the politics that matter in America are class-based. Though I'm no huge Clinton fan (it was nice to have a Prez that was actually intelligent, though) the fact that he came from a lower class, one-parent family doomed him to obloquy from the upper class. There's no other explanation for the silence about W. from the people with money other than that-- because even they are starting to lose money.

I sure wish someone would ask John McCain how he can justify so much human misery by bombing yet another country back into the Stone Age. That would be a good question.

With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound

He pulls the spitting GOPer lover down.

Clueless reporters in the Situation Room

Scream "No Fair" as he locks in on them.

He picks up John King and he throws him back down

As he wades through the "village" toward the center of town.

Oh no, they say he's got to go

Go, go, Glenzilla . . .

Oh no, there goes King's blow (job)

Go, go, Glenzilla . . .

They don't care if what they say is bullshit

as long as they get on camera with it

CNN may say it's searching for candor

When the truth is it's ratings for which they pander

Oh no, they say he's got to go

Go, go, Glenzilla . . .

Oh no, there goes King's blow (job)

Go, go, Glenzilla . . .

History shows again and again

How Greenwald points out the folly of selfish men . . .

Glenzilla!

Glenn, You didn't need to post a single word of your own. Just let that baby lie.

Wow. Setting aside the actual content (like the viewer is supposed to know that there was some other, substantive, thoughtful, real journalism going on THAT JUST WASN'T SHOWN? I wouldn't even know where to begin deconstructing that kind of logic), his immature, snappish sarcasm speaks volumes about him. I had no opinion of this man, none whatsoever, before you wrote about him, and to be perfectly honest, I even thought you were a bit hard on him. Not that what you said wasn't true, just that it's so commonplace among so many others that it felt like cherry picking. Well, you can sure pick 'em: King's defensive response is a transparent indication of his shallow work and fragile hold on it.

For the record, Mr. King, if you're reading: Just last Saturday, the communications/journalism professor of my master's level class on globalization was bemoaning the current "journalistic" practices in the United States--the practices that either promote or support a particular ideology or storyline or, more commonly, skate the surface and avoid delving into substantive issues at all--just sexy, lazy, sensational, horse-race kind of coverage. I asked her to name a few journalists whom she considered credible, and Glenn Greenwald was on her list. She said he represents a fact- and substance-based kind of journalism that is regretfully in decline. I just think you should know that about the person you're accusing of knowing nothing about journalism. Trust me, you are on no one's list of good journalists. In fact, I don't consider you one at all.

PS I'm just curious, Mr. King: If you don't read Glenn's column, how do you know he's biased? Is that just because he wrote something critical of you?

1) It would have been a plus if Glenn had gone through the motion of contacting his office before publishing -- but I don't see it as required in order to critique a published piece of work (all of which have editors, eh?).

2) I'd like to see the uncut transcript he's referring to. CNN could put it up on their website, somewhere, if they chose.

3) I suspect the man was angry with himself or his management at some level -- I couldn't explain the level of venom in that missive without thinking that. However, judging from what sysprog dredged up, he's been a Mardi Gras parade float princess for some years now. (Or just a 'lady' in her court!). Jebbie -- you explain. I have to go to work.

4) I wonder if MSM insiders & deciders understand how long much of the news-consuming intelligentsia have loathed their 'product'. I am not especially inclined to turn to Mother Jones or The Weekly Standard for my news -- if I had any 'mainstream' alternative. The implication in his email, and in many of the other pieces of correspondence Glenn has received from his insider targets, is that Glenn is a freakish fringe creature, with a freakish fringe following.

Not. Quite.

Glenn,

You nail another one! It just gets easier and easier, doesn’t it? It’s painfully obvious that John King isn’t even aware of to what depths he and his ilk of television “journalists” have sunk. There is no credibility left. All they have is their “kewl kidz” club mentality to defend. If he really thinks that he can look himself in the mirror and not cringe, because he knows he’s “tried to be fair”, then he’s in complete denial of what a hack he is. Everyone should pass around a link to this article. Maybe public shame will bring King around … not!

I understand the point you want to make about the distinction between what constitutes reporting vs what constitutes entertainment. And, that would be a good distinction to make.

The point I want to make is, what constitutes professionalism? Lots of occupations make a claim to having a professional status, and it means little more than the sports distinction between being a paid or unpaid player. Profession isn't tied to having an employer. It is tied to those endeavors for which a code of ethics, and an accountability to that code, is not voluntary. There are standards of practice which you breach at your peril. If John King wants to be considered a professional journalist he doesn't get to point to a voluntary code of ethics when he defends his occupational status, and then ignore it when it interferes with his reporting style.

What I get from the John King personalities is their deep desire to be opinion makers. I'm not smarter about a thing when they get done with me, I've simply been manipulated. No professional worthy of the distinction ever manipulates you. That's one of the first items in any profession's code.