I'm delighted to hear more views from those with work experience in the fourth estate. But your acceptance of Mr. King's poorly written, sarcastic and highly emotional e-mail - which he knew would be published - seems credulous for anyone who's accumulated twenty years of worn shoe leather and full notebooks (spiral and digital).

Mr. Greenwald, whose background is in first amendment litigation (rather dear to the hearts of most reporters), is a passionate liberal. He also has passion for debunking sloppy reporting by the MSM. Slants, bias, factual errors, omitted coverage, unattributed or misattributed quotes, the list goes on.

Your questions suggest that only reporters should critique their own, an outcome as likely as getting top lawyers or medical doctors to disbar or strike off a colleague. That's considered "unprofessional", and not in the spirit of harmony in the Village.

Given the importance of a free and challenging press to maintaining a credible democracy, and the assaults on both from the Bush administration and the entertainment conglomerates that now determine much of what passes for "news" reporting, I should think a professor of journalism would welcome critical dialogue.

Don't over 200 letters convince you that it isn't just Glenn Greenwald who is complaining about journalists? We, the people who read/watch/listen to the news are appalled at the state of modern journalism! It's not just King, although the interview cited by Greenwald is a prime example of exactly what is wrong!

I understand that it's probably going to be difficult for journalists to take an objective look at the state of their profession, but it needs to be done. I think that journalism can be one of the most noble of professions. The people who teach it should be looking for ways to make that true once again.

BTW, I am a proud alumnus of KSU (B.S. - 1984). How are things in Taylor Hall? (At least, that's where Journalism used to be located.)

Glen, You win by itemized demolition. King's letter comes across as so much wind. How do these people get (and keep) their jobs? Thanks for the good work.

Saying Glen Greenwald is unresearched is insane. It does kind of prove he doesn't read your work. Glen's biggest weapon in all his posts is the mountian of research he's done.

Give 'em hell, GG!

I thought CNN was the epicenter of the media's liberal propaganda machine? I guess not.

"But his response raises a point that your reply dodges: what reporting did you do?"

Glenn reported on the lack of substance in John King's interview of a candidate for President of the United States (it doesn't matter who that candidate is). His report was factual, concise and apparently non-refutable.

Doesn't that count?

Welcome.

It's the height of blind arrogance to believe "shut up!" is a strong argument.

LOL, one of O'Loofah's favorite lines on the "all spin zone".

Ever notice that *zero* right winger commentators can hold their own when they do not control the microphone?

I recall hearing one of our local radio personalities weasel her way past Limbaugh's phone screeners and basically reduce him to a quivering, spluttering, blubbering lump of lard on the air.

the system problem is this: we, as a country, are responsible for creating the environment where confrontational/sensational news dominates, so inflammatory confrontation adds to this problem. fanning the fire only makes it worse. we're all responsible.

No. I don't feel at all responsible for creating an environment where sensational news dominates. As a responsible consumer of news I gave up on the teevee altogether after 9/11. I was, at best, a highly infrequent consumer of television news before that. Shoddy, sensationalistic reporting drove me to the internet. That goes for most print media, with the exception of some specific bylines in some specific print media outlets.

I expect someone who claims the mantle of professional to act like a damned professional. And, that means their values are intrinsic; those values don't arise from some system in which they find themselves. As a professional, you do NOT get to shift the blame, AND call yourself a professional. If those left in the mainstream media want to call themselves entertainers, I'm fine with that. I don't have any sympathy for those who find themselves in an entertainment environment, who produce entertainment, whine that they should be considered professional journalists, and be treated with all the due deference that was once afforded Walter Cronkite.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but let 'em get a blog and find another way to pay the bills. Glenn is infinitely closer to professional journalism than John King by most measures of which I am aware. I'm certainly willing to let you have the last word on this. I think I've chewed up enough of Salon's bandwith and Glenn's threads with my take on your appeal for compassion. I don't have any more compassion for journamalism than I do for medical quacks.

I am curious as to why Mr. King fells credibility makes him a good journalist. He believes it has allowed him to cover six presidential campaigns and be viewed as fair and respectful by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, any profession, be it backhoe operator or brain surgeon, is bettered by a person who is believable and trustworthy. Credibility does not necessarily make you good at your trade. You can be credible and still be a rotten journalist, backhoe operator or brain surgeon.

For a 20 year journalism veteran to say that credibility is what qualifies him as a serious, professional is revealing of the culture from which John King comes. How mannerly and placid our press has become in response to corporate grooming. They are so mesmerized in their positions of power they've forgotten they are journalists.

If only the press could comprehend how we scorn them. They bought the lies about BushCo and the lies about Iraq. They did not investigate - which is what their job is... They are patheic! We do not TRUST any of them. Suck it up John!

Glenn has received this kind of dismissal from People of Importance (like John King) many times, and he's reported on them here, to much mirth and merriment, and they all follow a similar pattern, because they are about the same thing:

You're obviously Not One Of Us, so therefore You Don't Count. You don't know what you're talking about. You didn't do any research, because you didn't call me. If you'd called me, I would have set you straight [Glenn has a whole subfolder of "calls made, insults and denunciations obtained, contact hung up"]. Since you're obviously not worth any more of my time or trouble, you may go. But don't cross me again."

Being One Of Us -- a courtier to the Palace -- is the most important thing in these people's world, and when they are challenged by someone from Outside like Glenn, they all respond exactly the same way, like some petty dukelet at the Court of Versailles who got his breeches in a twist by the questions of some sans coulotte peasant who must now be disposed of.

It would be hilarous if Glenn posted all of them one after another so everyone could see not just what complete assholes our courtier media and its government adjuncts are, but to see how they really haven't got an original thought between them. Do they all go to the same Dismiss-the-Peasant-Academy?

King thinks he's being so clever; but we've seen and heard it all before. So many times.

Who wants to be next??