Perhaps CNN would be willing to release the entire transcript of the interview, not just the edited portions, so we can see how hard hitting an interview Mr. King delivered.

I also like how he had to explain to us that that interview was just part of a tapestry of interviews done with that candidate and others to present a larger, more accurate picture of the American political landscape, something that an amateur like Glenn would clearly never understand.

I haven't seen more self-important laced bullshit since I was in journalism school listening to the professors masturbate about how important they were to the "profession" back in the day, before they were regulated to a mere teaching position...

I love this response:

"you don't have to go into every interview asking him about the time he cheated on his sixth grade math test."

It kills me that his idea of a substantive, confrontational question would be something this inane.

King implicitly throws CNN and/or his producer under the bus in his response to Glenn. King doesn't defend the aired portion of his interview, of course, because it was undeniably substance-free and disturbingly fawning. But he implies that the unaired portion of the interview was more substantive and that CNN chose not to broadcast it.

In a way, this reveals as clearly as anything could the narcissism of the blow-dried set in our media. Glenn's real target, as usual, was the media generally; King was just the example du jour. Someone at CNN - King, or his producer, or some other off-camera CNN-type - decided to air a series of exceedingly silly questions posed to McCain by King. It is of course irrelevant that there may have been hard-hitting queries by King left on the editing room floor. But to John King, it was all about John King. If indeed the probing and incisive parts of King's interview didn't make it to the screen then King should tell us - and ask himself - "why?"

I think John King should understand that Glenn and the rest of us care little if it was John King's flaccidity or, alternatively, CNN's editing that produced this sham interview.

I second the opinion here often expressed that you clearly got under this man's skin. And perhaps it will be worth it.

But I really want to second just_ed's observation that King's idea of what people asking for more substantive journalism want is more questions about sixth-grade misdemeanors.

I'm not looking for any reporter to try to sink a candidate on some petty problem. I want the reporter to ask questions that get through the candidate's spin a little and let me see who they are and what they offer the country. In a way, a good journalist helps a good candidate by asking questions that do that.

What was shocking about the original interview is the questions asked were so banal that McCain actually seemed embarrassed by them. As if he knew this whole exchange was about to happen, because, well, a real slugger doesn't feel he's wowing the crowd when he hits fat softballs.

In democratic politics, it takes two to tango. And until the press starts standing up for its own dignity--asking neither slavish nor silly questions--that dance ain't happening around here.

I intended the last sentence in my last post to read, "Glenn, if you're ever going to earn the respect of the Heavy Hitters on the Journalistic Short Bus, you'll have to learn to write unbiased uninformed drivel." (i.e., uninformed drivel about everything and everybody you write about, without exception).

I have to admit that your potential questions for McCain are considerably more substantive and less Russert-ish-gotcha than mine (and vastly better than anything King asked) but I'd still like to hear the dessicated old geezer answer mine.

King's reaction to the implicit charge that maybe he should ask about substance or policy or something someday is identical to Chris Matthews' dismissive response to Tom Brokaw a week ago.

They are literally incapable of conceiving of a question about substance.

Apparently this was on display in full force last night in the Democratic debate. But because I care about policy, not the reality freak show that is TV news, I don't watch the debates.

Wow. He read your whole post and somehow came to the conclusion that its all about him and his credibility. Its really astonishing how obtuse these people are.

Glenn,

I suggest that you print your response to JimPharo as an update to this blog on the main page. This shows your strategy of argumentation and why they get so upset when you use their own words against them. (this was/is the last letter on page 1 of the comments.)

Here is another strategy employed by a software engineer, an old timer, David Parnas. In a conference or a meeting, he would figure out the fundamental assumption of the speaker. Often this would not even be realized by the speaker. Then he would ask a question based on the negation of the fundamental assumption. It would blow the speaker out of the water. They wouldn't know where to start the answer.

In a way, that is what you did. You asked the question about whether or not the "journalist" was doing his job. You asked it by showing his fundamental assumptions by just displaying his "journalistic" product. He was unable to answer.

And other commenters on this blog that CNN is the one that edited the interview so they are in the game of entertainment, not thoughtful analysis needed for a democracy. Need it be said that CNN employs the King.

When your working-for CNN's media whores do the editors still send King's mommy over at lunch to cut his beef-loin into bite size chunks? huh.

Does McCain tuck a bib under King's chin for Fear the "interviewer" drips? If he slurps neocon chili-corny-soup with a straw, I'd Fear his silk neck tie may flop in the soup?

Neck-tie flavored soup? yuck.

I thought the part when King was condescendingly explaining "access" to Glenn was the key. Isn't "access" the agenda for these mainstream media interviews? Let's review:

1. Ratings require shows with stars for the dumbed down American electorate.

2. The media creates political stars (e.g., McCain, Romney, but *not* Paul), good guys and bad girls.

3. Its "reporter" stars get together with the political stars to create a "show."

4. "Reporting" means keeping your nose to the wind so that you are aware of what script is acceptable that day.

It's just a political version of "E! Entertainment."

I've written flaming emails like King's before, but since the 10th grade I've had the good sense to delete them before hitting send because they end up saying more about the juvenile writer than anything else.