...very nice.

I did not know it. I'll save you some.

I feared they may give one pomegranate granite stones.

That would hurt at wee-times on the porch in the morning.

You would think someone of my advanced years would know better than to disagree with the conventional, syncophantic wisdom of the masses sucking up to Glenn Greenwald.

Translation: "I can't argue the issue on the basis of facts or reason. But I can pretend to be 'reasonable' as a cover for an elegantly-worded smear."

You would think someone of your advanced years would know that right-wing drive-by posters like yourself get spotted pretty easily here.

Care to comment on how GG's never having been a reporter is relevant? That was your point, correct?

My school produces some pretty bright students who they have gone on to respectable careers.

I would think that a professor of journalism writing a chiding note would make sure that it is grammatically correct before posting.

The error in logic you committed and are committing now is that of ad hominem.

Who Glenn Greenwald is and what he does has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness or lack of such of what he writes. In attacking Glenn's credentials you are attempting to divert the discussion from the substance of his post and turn it on the man.

You do make a good point about anonymous postings though, I find them distasteful and cowardly myself.

I do have a question or two for you professor Smith:

What would you have had Glenn do differently?

Do you honestly think that John King would have taken or returned Glenn's phone call?

That's what my French friend (now back in France) used to say when asking me about nuanced, slang, or just fast conversation.

Here's what I need to know: (Quite seriously)

TROLLS.

1. What is one, precisely? Someone who is not a regular reader? Someone with an opposing view who wants to cause trouble? Someone with a different view who is actually trying to change minds or skew results in some way? Or is it something even more sinister--someone who is a principal in the story in question who is hiding his identity as he tries to throw the conversation in some way?

2. How do you know who the trolls are? For example, Yellow Dog called Prof. Tim Smith a troll, but others are taking him at face value. I was going to thank Prof. Smith for giving his real identity but now feel foolish if that is not who he is. But if that was in fact Prof. Smith, I do appreciate him offering his identity and background for scrutiny, even if his view is disagreeable. (On that last point, maybe he was just feeling a bit weary and defensive on behalf of the profession; it seems that scathing attacks on schools of journalism and the teaching profession itself were a bit uncalled for. As a teacher who refuses to get certified b/c I view schools of education like you do schools of journalism, I have to acknowledge that there are many good teachers out there who have chosen to go through the appropriate hoops even if they don't like the drivel (hee hee) that goes on there. So...Maybe Tim Smith is a hack, but that's not BECAUSE he teaches journalism, that's because he's a hack.)

VILLAGE.

What does this term mean here in this thread?

BEBOP.

What is s/he all about? Delightful but strange.

Tapes destroyed over CIA's objections

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The CIA official who gave the command to destroy interrogation videotapes apparently acted against the direction of his superiors, the top Republican House Intelligence Committee member said Wednesday.

"It appears he hadn't gotten authority from anyone," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., speaking to reporters after the first day of closed testimony in the committee's investigation. "It appears he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed."

Hoekstra said that raises the troubling prospect that there's a thread of unaccountability in the spy culture.

"I believe there are parts of the intelligence community that don't believe they are accountable to Congress and may not be accountable to their own superiors in the intelligence community, and that's why it's a problem," he said.

Hoekstra spoke after the CIA's acting general counsel, John Rizzo, testified behind closed doors for nearly four hours as the first witness in what committee officials have said will be a long investigation.

"I told the truth," Rizzo said in a brief appearance before reporters.

The man at the center of the controversy, Jose Rodriguez, had been scheduled to appear Wednesday, but his lawyer's demand for immunity delayed his testimony. Rodriguez was the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, the CIA branch that oversees spying operations and interrogations. He gave the order to destroy the tapes in November 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_go_co/cia_videotapes

You've already got bebop-o understood. Though I'd reverse it to "strange but delightful."

Please have a seat (remove stick from butt first!) and take a deep breath.

You'll find, upon reflection, that you and Glenn have like ideals and practices (if, that is, you're as good as you say you are).

You haven't responded to another writer's correct point to you that, contrary to your assertion, Glenn does not "dislike journalists," rather he deplores shoddy journalism.

One other thing: is it your contention that John King is a probing insightful journalist, one also capable of introspection and self-awareness? I ask because it seems that your beef is that Glenn isn't qualified to criticize journalists (you are mistaken), but you don't really disagree with his content. Correct?

Gordon Ginsberg

A couple of points for consideration:

First, are you who your username asserts? It's not nice to use someone else's name, especially by writing in such a way as to undermine his or her reputation. Would you please provide a professional email address for independent verification?

Second: journalism, like other professions, has a social contract by which the society in which it operates gives over trust to provide the specified service at a level which assumes authority and expertise. This translates into access to sources, venues by which to disseminate chosen messages, and the freedom to pursue stories which are supposedly in the public's interest.

The consumers of that professional service or product not only have a right to criticize it, but I posit, that there is an obligation to perform thoughtful criticism. When a profession breaches the public trust, then it must be held accountable for that breach. The public has a right to demand that the profession uphold standards of practice.

It is these standards which Glenn addressed in today's post and in many of his other essays. He brings logic, reason, insight and critical thought to bear upon specific instances of professional breaches as well as a growing catalog of practices which demonstrate entertainment over reporting and stenography over investigation and holding those in positions of trust accountable to their constituents.

While peer review and evaluation is a necessity in all professions, it is also critical for the public to review, critique and demand that minimum standards are maintained when the members have an interest and investment in that performance.