In the interest of clarity, when we talk about what we require of journalists that John King, et al. don't provide, we're talking about what was on display in the first two episodes of this season's The Wire.

Fiction it may be, Professor Smith, but given how closely it resembles what we know to be true from our own experiences, I think it might be worth your while to take a look. Professionalism is not a synonym for obscurantism -- or hauteur, for that matter -- and no one who's seen even a little of the world can be convinced otherwise.

You hit a nerve.

It's not like being a professor is mutually exclusive with being moronic. Prof. Smith needs to grow up and realize that stamping his feet about his qualifications is not in itself convincing.

As I said earlier, many people in journalism (and that includes teaching) are absolutely incapable of thinking outside their narrow conventions.

It's funny that in the end his argument was the same as Proximity Warning's: the "journalism" was bad but it's supposed to be bad, so who cares?

Brilliant.

Prof. Smith didn't perform any research, he didn't provide any quotes, he didn't have any sort of real thesis or support it in any way. Great journalism Professor!

Is this guy a tin smith? His voice sounds kind of tinny to me. He's trying to pound the same thing home over and over and it ain't workin.

@Professor Smith:

"It [journalism] is an honorable calling, fallen on hard times brought about by a changing world, 24/7 cablevision and the voracious Internet."

This assertion cries out for explication, Professor. What do you mean?

How can "a changing world, 24/7 cablevision, and the voracious internet" cause journalism to fall upon "hard times?"

If you won't answer this question, your credibility as a teacher

of journalism is, as far as I'm concerned, on a par with that of Jeff Gannon.

Ken Rogers

It strikes me that Tim Smith's response reads like every Joe Klein response to scores of critical emails and complaints he gets "Oh, someone said something nasty and anonymous, so let me just dismiss the entire thrust of the criticisms offered"

It is a common tact by established types, to select a limited example of rude or offensive responses, and use those as a straw man with which to knock down all the polite and thoughtful critiques offered.

I'd also remind the Professor that the Federalist papers were written under pseudonames, as are many books. The Economist almost never names the author of any piece (Who is "lexington" anyway?) The quality of the argument is key, not the arguer.

To demand we all use our real names or we are beneath notice is infantile and evasive.

I didn’t require GG to prove a negative.

It's quite obvious that you did. You're demanding evidence for something that doesn't exist.

GG asserted that “…these are all of the "questions" he asked…” He mistakenly made that assertion without evidence, and he needs to correct that mistake.

He's seen the interview and listed the questions. That's evidence. What 'evidence' do you go by?

We're still waiting for your 'evidence' of 'other questions', which you can't present because they don't exist.

Prove otherwise.

You can't.

If you'd like an even bigger shovel, just ask.

Prof. Smith didn't perform any research, he didn't provide any quotes, he didn't have any sort of real thesis or support it in any way.

Which suggests that the poster in question is not in fact a professor of journalism at Kent State University.

That he would instead attack a critic of bad journalism, instead of the faux journalist, also suggests that he's just another right-wing troll, and not a professor of journalism, whom you'd expect to know better.

How would you attack a critic of the right-wing press if you were a right-winger? You might pose as a professor of journalism, just for the pretense of credibility. And hope that nobody notices the holes in your story.

I'll make that determination to my own satisfaction.

Anonymust. I love that book and It's a 'limerick'?

Cocktailhag. If the leg can be 'stuffed' with chocolate perhaps the V.A. can insert a unscrewing device...

That's my first plan. But it will get better.

It would be nice to just hollow it out.

It could be filled with colored M&M's?

They melt in your mouth.

I hope M&M's don't melt in your leg?

It be cool to have a coin dispenser?

I'd not need to pay fuel heating bills employed by: Troll.dark.choc.damned/html.king.http:// 25-cents a twirl.

Of course, I'd 'stuff' some of the chocolate bottle shaped liqueur's in it to share for treats.

The 'trolls' need some tooth decay?

I've just been made aware of:

Kola, Wild Turkey, and,

Wild Tennessee whiskey.

Mr. Greenwald:

As you and Bob Sommerby and so many other "shrill and uncivil partisans" have pointed out via the intertubes, it is damn near impossible to overstate the extent to which vanity has warped our national public discourse into the dysfunctional circus we all know and increasingly refuse to tolerate.

Still, it's surprising when it's presented so transparently, matter-of-factly and without a hint of self-awareness. Indeed, Mr. King's straight-up, unvarnished, sneeringly arrogant bluster seems more like something shouted by Bill O'Reilly or ripped from the pages of The Onion, doesn't it?

Sadly, this is CNN, "the most trusted name in news."

Yikes!

Good Luck and thanks for your exceptional work.

I am keenly aware of the shortcomings of my profession.

I highly doubt it.

Guess what Kent State lists as possible degrees under the school of "Journalism and Mass Communication"?

Advertising

Public Relations

And here are the ONLY graduate programs:

Media Management

Public Relations

Reporting and Editing

One of the shortcomings that Prof. Smith is obviously unaware of is that most journalism schools are merely vocational training that mix up journalism with PR and advertising.

People like Prof. Smith buy into 95% of the conventions of their field and are unable to see the simple truth that their profession is broken in fundamental ways. It's impossible for them to adopt an outside view.

So they'll argue around the edges even though the center is rotten.

I'd be interested in hearing Prof. Smith list the shortcomings he is keenly aware of.