Dirigo?

You'd have fun in a research of a modern day troll Cleopatra story?

Maybe it's too early? The neocon minors read now? O, Later.

I've not taken a warm-bath in eons-it seems. I'll go on a vacation?

Rose from W.V.?

Mitzi? Oh Au's huh?

Please forgive me!

JK: So you were an active young lad. What was your favorite food growing up?

AH: Anything char broiled.

John King should fact check better. Doesn't he read Jonah Goldberg at NRO? Hitler was a vegetarian. Ergo, he was a liberal. Char broiled vegetables? Maybe. But I hear he preferred them steamed.

It's amazing how similar King's email is to the ones General Petraeus' spokesman, Colonel Steven Boylan, sent to GG back in November (I don't know how to link in these comments, but one can search Salon for "Boylan" to find them). Their tyrannical, snobbish whine, "You're not allowed to speak of these things -- be gone, peasant!" is overwhelming. What public figure can't foresee their own despotic writings (to a columnist/blogger!) published on the internet? It's the height of blind arrogance to believe "shut up!" is a strong argument.

King opens himself up to criticism for asking "softball" questions not only by 1.) asking "softball" questions, but 2.) in setting up his question. Whatever happened to the interviewer who can simply ask a question without needing a lengthy preamble, one which inevitably reveals inherent biases and serves to direct the answer? Just ask the damned question, King. If the subjects aren't smart enough to understand how to answer it, without guidance, then that's their problem.

I'd be curious as to the "tough" questions one supposes King asked McCain which wasn't used by CNN. In his initial e-mail, he alludes that there was more to the interview, but doesn't offer any details. I suspect that the rest of the chat was much the same.

King's been on the White House beat for a long time, but wasn't one of those grilling Bush Administration during the run-up to the Iraq invasion (in that, of course, he was not alone). The failure to demand proof to the Administration's contentions on the alleged "threat" of Saddam Hussein, or -- in its absence -- to actual investigative journalism, was one of the most grave disservices done to America by members of the mainstream media. King gets no credit for years of service under this scenario.

King is a member in good standing of media stenographers of which Glenn recently wrote. His idea of balance has always been tit-for-tat, quote one side then the other, and let it stand as though the relative merits of opposing positions are identical -- without the extra work of digging for the truth (or as much of the truth as one can reveal). Instead of appearing in countless "stand-ups" and as guest panelists on TV chat-fests, the White House press corps would better serve the nation by spending more time wearing out shoe leather seeking to confirm the information they receive from official sources, rather than being a passive conduit for propaganda -- as the "objectivity" is wholly unrelated to "truth."

My opinion of John King was solidified when he appeared on The Daily Show. He will never be fired for saying anything his trainers object to. He will never, ever have an Imus moment—because he will never be hired as a journalist by anyone but a media conglomerate corporation.

King is to journalism what margarine is to dairy products; it looks similar and appears when the real thing should appear, but it just is not made from the real stuff.

When a rattle-snake raises up and hisses at you, you're not supposed to kick it!

Now you're gonna get bit.

Condescention like this is exactly why your white MSM tower is crumbling- maybe it's not such a good idea to publish the blueprints of the foundation?

You're bumbling, your network is stumbling- feel that rumbling?

That's America's hunger for change rumbling.

You've stepped off the ledge here my friend,

We're not sad to see you go.

King's logic is exactly that of the administration, "there are things you don't know, didn't see, and you will never know or see, but you should just trust me that I did everything right. How dare you even question me!"

It scares me that we rely on him to question the poor logic of the administration when he has just demonstrated that he too believes in that logic.

His response was akin to an author countering a bad book review with something like, "But I've written all sorts of other things that have never been published and its unfair of you to base your opinion of my book solely on the book itself."

I am the one that mentioned Newsbusters upthread. I broke the story. It is my scoop. This is about me, got it? It's not about you or the other guy's biased uninformed drivel, you nobodies. I'm a professional reporter. Did I mention that I'm a reporter? I'm a professional. I have McCain on speed dial, punk. Don't try this at home.

Long Live Reed Irvine!

Accuracy In Media

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_In_Media

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/aim.php

Just think how much better Mr. King would come across if he answered Glenn Greenwald's critique in a serious dispassionate manner. Instead of an adult cross talk, we wittness petulance befitting an adolescent.

Excerpting what I think is the crux of your plea for compassion,

what i'm calling for is some understanding of the work/business environment that "reporters" and all of us operate in.

create rules and structures that you feel comprimise your ethics. what do you do? if you blow a whistle, you may be fired or blacklisted.

The preamble for the journalists code of ethics reads,

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

which is pretty analogous to the AMA's,

The medical profession has long subscribed to a body of ethical statements developed primarily for the benefit of the patient. As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost, as well as to society, to other health professionals, and to self. The following Principles adopted by the American Medical Association are not laws, but standards of conduct which define the essentials of honorable behavior for the physician.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html

The basis in each is to put the recipient of the service first. Then, your question is, what to do if your ability to put the recipient of the service first is undermined by your employer? The answer, for a professional, is the degree to which they have internalized their code of ethics. If your desire is to adhere to the highest ethical standards, the answer is to confront your employer.

It shouldn't be the case, that the professional's desire to maintain their integrity should be at odds with their employer's; they ought to be coincident for good business reasons. Loss of viewers/readers or loss of patients. Do you really want to entrust your medical care to a physician who offers you substandard care (which is potentially life threatening) for the sake of cost containment? I suppose it could be argued that the medical profession might be more sensitive to the issue because someone could die. Of course, would we want to count the number of military deaths because it was widely and uncritically reported that Saddam had WMD?

In both cases, the assumption of the code is that the needs of the client come before the practitioner; the employer isn't even mentioned - the profession is. The first responsibility of the professional is to the client, and secondly, the profession.

It's really very simple. I never said it was easy. That's what makes a professional, a professional.