The photo 'should' have been of CNN's King sitting on John McCain's lap?

Why not a red suit, a hearty Ho, huh, Ho, a white beard, and hands cupped like one was bellowing forth a vital message to protect all humanity?

The tv-boob-tube is to awaken us up, not 'suck' brains outta teevee viewers. The first picture just appeared it was a fake 'photo-shop' and contrived one to bring shame to John McCain. It has to be a photo-fraud? I'm convinced the photo

was doctored up,

by his best or worst

poor darn psychiatrist?

A suit, coupled with,

a pose such as that one,

has got to 'be-no' Honest,

and it is a wee bit tampered with?

Who can trust the devious, scurulous, dazedly,

anti-John campaign committee for that politico's

trick? After the interviewed were happy..did they

I'm just wondering, exchange under garments for souvenirs? Maybe? Who knows anything for certain? Anything can happen.

"Did you think to ask me or anyone who works with me whether that was the entire interview? No. (It was not; just a portion used by one of the many CNN programs.)

Did you reach out to ask the purpose of that specific interview? No.

Or how it might have fit in with other questions being asked of other candidates that day? No."

I think King has just told us that CNN isn't reporting the news but producing entertainment.

Maybe he just forgot to reference when and where CNN ran the full interview.

the next time they have to interview Hillary Clinton.

Don't forget the rules: "hard hitting journalism" is for the uncool politicians; shootin' the s**t is for the cool ones.

Perhaps John King could use some legal training?

After 20-plus years of journalism, he should realize that when CNN broadcasts these clips the PUBLIC can't "research" all of his back room background journalistic context-in-which-it-was-framed

vision either. We only get to see the crap they put on the air, which is precisely the crap you wrote about.

We don't get to ask him about anything, including why CNN didn't broadcast all the "portions" at once. We have to assume that his "purpose" is whatever we can deduce from the dopey questions he asks. I'm so iggorant; I guess I need a crystal ball (SPJ recommended).

Nice work, Glenn.

John King claims he was contentious with McCain in other parts of the interview and in the past. Can he get CNN to post those segments online?

It really hurts his case that he makes these claims that he did ask McCain hardball questions - not just the softball ones seen, but gives no evidence for it.

It makes it seem like he's full of bullshit.

Good morning. Finally a slow steady rain this morning; we really need it. I saw an ad in my paper this morning for a bottle of wine. It has a name that you could have come up with: Pinot Evil.

and you're no one who writes drivel" approach he lost the argument to you.

Eh, it's all a game, the only way they keep their jobs is by having access to A-list politicos, the only way they have access to A-list politicos is to do "kid glove" interviews and become funnels for each candidates PR message...the fourth estate was bought and sold on June 1, 1980.

Ponder how much better things would be if establishment journalists -- in response to being endlessly lied to and manipulated by political officials and upon witnessing extreme lawbreaking and corruption at the highest levels of our government -- were able to muster just a tiny fraction of the high dudgeon, petulant offense, and melodramatic outrage that comes pouring forth whenever their "reporting" is criticized.

Can reporters like King recognize lawbreaking? Can they make simple distinctions between fact and fiction? Are they capable of coming to conclusions about what is true and what is false?

A month ago Glenn did several posts on Joe Klein's stenography for the GOP over what was and was not in a bill having to do with FISA. Lately he has pointed out the utter vapid and empty nature of political commentary among mainstream reporters and pundits.

My question at this point is if King is even capable of doing what Glenn asks- asking germane relevant questions to issues of grave importance (like freedom and liberty- torture and tyranny- war and peace- lies and treason). Are King and his "professional" colleagues smart enough to assume the role of real journalists? I think the answer to that is, sadly, no.

he would direct you to a transcript of the entire interview (where we would see those questions about the government's role in the economy he claims to have asked). Or he would tell you which CNN programs those questions aired on, or will air on.

Probably he asked those questions like he says, but McCain's answers were so useless and uninformed that CNN couldn't show them because that would hurt his campaign and we can't have that!

Do these people in the media realize that blog readers also watch the news? Between all the blogs on the right and left, I would bet that a sizeable portion of their audience regularly read at least one blog. When they insult blogs and by extension blog readers, do they stop to think that might be pissing off a little bit more of their audience? I realize that this would take some serious dot connecting skills, but it might be in their best interest to figure out a way to embrace the blogs rather than hurl childish insults at their audience for daring to listen to someone other than them.

Jon King cries foul because CNN aired his exercise in sycophancy with Mr. Straight Talk Express.

That's too rich.

It's fascinating how, in the midst of his sputtering, whiny tirade, King doesn't remotely address Glenn's article's central contention about the adulatory, sycophantic, content-free nature of the questions he asked. Does he regard the interview, as presented on CNN, as quoted in full by Glenn, as a legitimate exercise of his journalistic credentials & access? What possible value, other than as cringe-worthy hagiography, do any of his actual questions have?

While beating his chest about his 20 years in the business & his lofty status as a Real Journalist, he leaves these central questions about his own performance glaringly unasked & unanswered. Therein lies the problem. Even when the subject is his own work, despite his professional training & experience, he fails to address the basic & compelling issues raised. Small wonder then that his questions of McCain, the Serious Media's BFF, ranged from the fawning to the fatuous.

I've got a question he could have asked:

"Senator McCain, you've recently stated your intent, as President to raise the level of civility & discourse between the parties. In a 1998 speech, at a Republican Party convention you said, and I quote :

'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!'

"Do you still feel that attacks on the President's, or another candidate's, child are appropriate and humorous? Isn't your own history littered with examples of precisely the type of viciously partisan incivility you now claim to deplore?"

Now that's a question I'd really like to hear asked and answered by McCain....