I'm not tired of asking yet: what criteria could/must GG meet to satisfy you that he's qualified to post as he did?

But I wouldn't presume to pass myself off as a food critic without some training and/or education in the field so that I could base my opinions on something other than contemplating my navel.

-- Prof. Tim Smith

But you apparently still have no qualms about coming on here and passing yourself off as someone who either knows enough about Greenwald to repeatedly insult Greenwald - both directly and indirectly. Or someone who couldn't care less if he knows his target, as long as he can insult his target.

You seem to know virtually nothing about Greenwald's expertise, training or education or in what ways has his expertise, training and education have been voiced or printed publicly. You seem to have read none of his blog writings and none of his books. In that way you are not unlike, John King, who is the subject of this post. You seem to know nothing about what or of who you speak, but yet, in your ignorance, you attempt to insult with impunity.

Professor Smith,

So you are then suggesting with your latest post that for someone to be "qualified" to critique anything, they need "training" in that very field? Are you kidding?

Hmm....

I have not been trained to critique haircuts, so I had better head over to the barber shop and apologize to the guy who cut my hair some months ago, as I told him I was unhappy with the work he had done. But now, knowing that I was not adequately "trained" to be a critic of haircutters and their trade...well, I am sure my words to him were way off base.

Thanks for setting me straight on this.

Oh and....

Could you point me to the place of learning you went that gave you the "training" on how to critique bloggers?

Hmmmmm?

Again, for the record, I never said Glenn Greenwald couldn't criticize John King. I just wondered whether he was qualified. There's a difference. -- Prof. Tim Smith

The difference is semantic at best. Like all humans who eat, you are actually competent to be a food critic. Like all literate voting adults who consume news, Glenn Greenwald is competent to critique obsequious "reporting".

The real problem most critics of his post have is its harsh tone, which verges on a personal attack. His words and attitude towards Important Public Figures are as vicious as the tones and words used to describe this evening's latest sacrificial "bad mother" on the nightly news.

But, wait! "The Lottery"-style stoning of unimportant, undereducated fuck-ups is A O.K. -- because they are "designated" losers. But you aren't so please when the same harsh standards are applied to one of life's winners?

You are defending a system, and a highly placed man within that system, that destroys the unimportant and unprotected on a nightly basis. This fact reduces any sympathy I might have for your arguments or King's -- down to the atomic scale.

Judging from your earlier comments, I doubt that any answer would be satisfactory, but I'll try. I don't dispute GG's right to criticize John King. Nor did I defend Mr. King. I just wondered whether GG knew anything about the field that he was so casually dismissing as worthless. You must admit it was more than John King he was targeting. In his response to King's email, GG not only filleted King, but virtually all journalists. I was merely wondering whether he was being critical because he didn't like the product -- ala the casual diner -- or did he really know something about the business, making his comments -- to me, at least -- a little more worthwhile.

It is about the same as reading a criticism of a surgical procedure from a surgeon as opposed to someone who once had surgery. I have no idea what Mr. Greenwald's qualifications are. If the Salon.com website is accurate, he is a lawyer and an author. The world is full of both who are expert in their fields but couldn't find their butts with both hands and a map when it comes to knowing anything about being a reporter. I wouldn't presume to challenge GG's right to criticize. But, before I pay any more attention to him, I'd like to know whether he has the background to speak knowledgeably on the topic. I can't quarrel with his erudition and I don't even have a great deal of disagreement with his tilt (though i chafe at his cheapshots). He certainly writes well and in today's wired world that often appears to be all that counts -- just one vast Wikipedia.

If a journalism school degree result in pseudo journalists like John King, Joe Klein and their likes, we must do away with journalism departments. Klein, Blitzer or King wouldn't be able to ask a journalism worthy question if their life depended on it. The criteria for genuine journalism is the ability to research, follow and corroborate leads, ask tough questions, follow them up doggedly when an honest answer is not forthcoming, never chumming up, sucking up and exhibiting adulation and admiration for the politicians a journalist is interviewing. I don't have a journalism degree yet I know that stuff- village idiots like King obviously don't.

I'm not at all satisfied with your answer.

@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?

Indeed. Why would these things cause "hard times" for journalists? Perhaps the money's not there like it used to be, but I would like an explanation as to why these things (assuming arguendo their existence) should excuse shoddy journalisming. While print newspapers and broadcast outlets may be down on revenue, the cost-of-entry and cost-of-production offered by on-line media should have produced a virtual cornucopia of new and competent journalists, that should lead the way and set the standard for those in more traditional markets. Unless the schools aren't quite up-to-snuff....

Cheers,