King's response is ill-tempered and overly defensive, to be sure. It is certainly another example of old media arrogance.

I don't think, though, that Glenn really addresses the substance of his response -- that this particular interview was much longer that the edited portion Glenn viewed, and King has asked McCain and other politicians tough questions in the past. Glenn's strength is that he demonstrates, in detail, with facts, how our major media figures are too often lazy conduits for misinformation, or more interested in the political horse race than substance. I don't see that detail here. (Although having followed Glenn for a while, I would guess he's probably working on it right now).

Having watched King and the other CNNers operate, I wouldn't be surprised if King is a McCain sycophant and otherwise guilty as Glenn has charged. I would love to see other examples of King's McCain worship or lazy journalism.

I'm puzzled.

If Walter Reed had no way to treat the troops who were the focus of the WaPo reports - as "active duty soldiers who had need for intensive, acute outpatient rehabilitation care" - why weren't they discharged for treatment by VA or civilian health facilities?

Was this, bizarre as it sounds, some sort of retention policy at work? That went wrong?

You seems to suggest that, in other eras, such out-patient troops, though still listed as active, might have been discharged more quickly, or more efficiently.

Svensker, I got this email from him today:

No, I'm not retiring from the Senate - I'm working hard as ever, to restore the Constitution, stop that terrible FISA bill and put a Democrat in the White House.

But after our incredible journey campaigning for the Presidency, there is something that does need retiring: our debt.

My internet team tells me the campaign inbox was flooded with messages of thanks and inquiries about how you can continue to help now that the presidential campaign is over.

Today, you can help by contributing financially to our effort to retire the campaign debt.

http://www.chrisdodd.com/contribute

Another good way to support and encourage him.

What makes you think the interview was edited? If it was, do you know what the other questions were?

Of course you don't. As far as any poster here can ascertain, those other questions have not been published. Anywhere.

If they do exist, and they do hi harder than the published questions, then why were they suppressed? To make King look like an ass? Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy afoot to make King look like an ass, and King is in on it?.

Back to you, Slider et al.

It must be the upcoming wedding plans with Dana Bash that has you so keyed up!

Seriously, one would think that the Boss-man National Correspondent for the Best Political Team on TV would have at least a passing acquaintance with Glenn's work, and the inadvisability of melting down via email reply to Glenn. Betcha Anderson would know better.

Before I go, I wish I could share a pomegranate with you and Arne etc., We could spit seeds at each other? Thanks for digging up the info?

Can a reddish pomegranate be split into infinite slices, not counting the dormant pomegranate orchard inside the delicious pomegranates?

For fun? I tell tomorrow how many seeds are within one pomegranate, not counting a bunch I just chewed into mush before I spit them into a tea cup. That's so important for the White House Press to pass onto the public for just one pomegranate's security.

Pomegranates are good.

those with glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones

Me, I don't live in a glass house. Fortunately!

Then again, I'm not paid 6 figures to go on TV every night.

So throw stones I shall.

[to Glenn]: But you do remind me of the airchair quarterbacks who rant about the ones on the field, even though they themselves couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a forward pass from the inside.

Glenn's never claimed to be a journalist. Neither has Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, for that matter. Dunno about the proprietors of the sadly defunct MediaWhoresOnline.com or Bob Somerby of DailyHowler.com

The question is not whether Glenn is a better "journalist" that they, but rather whether journalism is in dire straights and/or falling down on the job that they're nominall.... -- ummm, waiddaminit, missing white woman in South Carolina ... and Paris Hilton's carrying a dog ... <*BREAKING NEWS!!!*> John Edwards cut his hair again!!! ... be right back after these messages.....

Cheers,

I won't post further on this OffTopic until the thread slows to a trickle. Meantime:

Aych: There is a lack of full disclosure in the recruiting process, youthful idealism & enthusiasm, and other complicating factors accompanying your correct observation of recruits' responsibility for their own destiny. Our nation owes anyone willing to serve more than we give them.

bebop-o: I didn't mean to upset anyone, least of you who bring us much joy. Overly Cranky isn't much fun, is it? If there is anything I can do to help.... [I could shaddup.... I think I will]

All and Dirigo: Thank you for your service, your sacrifice, and for coming back. We're so very glad you came back.

Everyone else: My emotional outburst was unwise and an abuse of Glenn's hospitality.

Sorry.

Out.

Professor Smith, you've been quiet for a while. I guess you shot your load and left. But here goes anyway.

Question: If you have read GG's previous columns about bad reporting and the reporters who report it, why then do you assume that he has an ulterior motive in criticizing reporters? I've read his posts; I don't know the guy; and yet I know why he criticizes bad reporters. (Answer below)

Did you know reading involves looking at words? Maybe they should teach that in journalism school.

(Answer: It has to do with bad reporting.)

Perhaps one should ask him how he deals with criticisms from his students.

Does he refer to any as "drivel" because the source of the criticism has no experience in journalism or in teaching?

One should evaluate the argument, not the source of the argument. Good arguments/critiques stand on their own. Faulty ones fall, regardless of one's years of experience or letters after their name.