John King is symptomatic of what passes for the "press" today--ass-sucking, toadying scumbags who crawl on their hands and knees for crumbs from the hacks they cover.

Mr. King, I'm callin' ya out. What I want you to do is to go back to your buddy McCain and ask him this: "Mr. McCain, sir, your critics think you're a bought-and-paid-for D.C. Beltway hack, and a neocon warmonger. What about it?"

Let's see if you're man enough, Mr. King!

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.

If you are expecting journalism professors to practice good journalism (or even good writing) then you aren't paying enough attention to journalism schools.

Here is an open secret: most journalism schools are terrible, stocked by awful students and professors alike. That is part of the reason the profession has "fallen on hard times." I wonder if Professor Smith is keenly aware of those sad facts?

The fact that Prof. Smith attacks via non-sequitor makes his identity no less likely. I find this kind of thing sort of silly anyway, if he really is who he says then the people questioning him look foolish, even though he is still the foolish one.

Very few people in the journalism industry are keenly aware of the problems, if they were they'd switch fields.

John King claims that the substantive portions of the interview were edited out before airing. Bullshit.

King's been a journalist since 1985, and has worked at CNN since 1997; he's been there 10 years. He should know by now what kinds of stories his editors expect out of him, especially since he's been covering politics since '87, was named chief political correspondent by the AP in '91, and covered the '92 and '96 presidential elections. He's been promoted since he joined CNN, too.

So he knows what the editors (and management) want and has shown himself capable of delivering it. I find it inconceivable that he would tolerate that kind of butchery, and given that he's chief national correspondent for CNN, I'd be very surprised if the editors didn't let him (mostly) have his way on stories.

Once again, bullshit. King is lying through his teeth.

he/she should take all the “ex-patriot” intelligence officers who valued their ethics and profession and therefore left the government and put them in charge. They will know how to identify and eliminate those who have sold out or were just incompetent.

From what I understand, this could be done in several agencies, from Justice to the Pentagon, and possibly the State department, not to mention FEMA, the Bureau of Land Management, DARPA, the EPA, and a few others. Isn't that what, in Africa, they call Truth and Reconciliation?

Oh, that I'd live to see the day!

@Arne Langsetmo at 6:15 PM:

"Is it just me or are the comments not staying fixed with respect to page number?

"I'm seeing similar. "next page" sometimes pulls up old pages, and comments seem to get renumbered. Perhaps someone's deleting comments and thus they get renumbered ... but there doesn't seem to be any less comments AFAICT. No big deal, though...."

Won't using the posting times allow readers to find posts they want to read in their entirety, circumventing the problem you cite?

That's what I plan to do consistently from now on.

KR

John King claims that the substantive portions of the interview were edited out before airing. Bullshit.

I find that very believable. Just as it is common practice for editors to put purposely misleading headlines on pieces.

The scandal is that it's considered standard practice and in no way unethical. That's why I laugh when the professor says he is keenly aware of the shortcomings. Shortcomings are at the very core of the industry.

In a WBUR interview Michael O'Hanlon claimed that the title "A War we Just Might Win" was chosen by the Times and that he didn't think it even made sense to talk about winning. But of course he only offered that when pressed, he didn't actively complain about it or lodge any sort of protest.

That's just how journalism works. Which is the problem.

These sorts of practices are just "how it's done" but they don't withstand basic scrutiny.

You asked what purpose is served by calling King first. Quite simply, it closes the loop. King is clearly a potential source of facts. He may have commented, or presented facts that would have thrown more light on the matter. Glenn assumed that the broadcast portion was the entire interview and, based on the footage, he may have been right to do so but there is no harm in checking and it is easy to do. It is always better to research than to assume. More information is never a bad thing because if you do not inform, you cannot persuade. If, as you suggest, CNN was unresponsive, Glenn could have stated so in his post, thus robbing King of the (admittedly thin) basis for his indignation. The outcome would have been better for Glenn, since it would have more fully have revealed King for what he appears to be. Does that make sense to you?

We know what you think of Glenn’s post (who btw is not, and doesn’t claim to be, a journalist).

Now, as a Professor of Journalism, tell us how you would grade the John King interview with McCain and his subsequent email response to Glenn’s critique of it. Additionally, how would you grade CNN for airing the McCain interview? It would also be informative if you could explain how you arrive at the grade(s) you assign Mr. King and CNN.

These are serious questions.

He may have commented, or presented facts that would have thrown more light on the matter. Glenn assumed that the broadcast portion was the entire interview and, based on the footage, he may have been right to do so but there is no harm in checking and it is easy to do.

So, are we all reduced to calling the reporter for every story which we think may be substandard or incomplete? Would that make a reporter's quality inversely proportional to the volume of recordings in their voicemail?