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.

I had a similar reaction, perhaps because of his comment about being able to look himself in the mirror every morning...

Someone asked me to post something on the quality of King's email; it's up at The Chocolate Interrobang.

- Karen M.

http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/

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"

What's truly amasing is that the Internet and electronic communications makes possible a lot more feedback (and a lot more visible feedback) in response to some of the more egregious errors in the MSM. But their frequent response to this increased scrutiny (and increasingly visible criticism) is not to say "thanks for the help", but rather to bar the gates from the hordes. The dismal response of the MSM to complaints about acknowledged and provable errors of facts bears this out. They think it more important that they not admit mistakes than that they not commit mistakes.

Cheers,

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.

-- Prof. Tim Smith

Isn't it more than a little late for you be making that claim? That you would like to know whether Greenwald has the background to speak knowledgeably on the topic? You've already filled a few pages of comments without having made any effort to learn the answers to that question. You admitted as much in the very post I am quoting you from. Of course, even if you were to trouble yourself to gain some background information on Greenwald I'd have to wonder, having read your posts, what criteria you would use to make your determination about Greenwald's ability - or qualifications - to "speak knowledgeably on the topic".

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.--Prof. Tim Smith

Glenn specifically targeted journalists who, instead of thoroughly covering their assigned beat, shill for (and never challenge) their subjects on a regular basis, essential hard news job performance requirements that do not necessarily have to be junk-yard-dog adversarial. Glenn further disparaged, as he always does, non-responsive defenses to his queries and the sense of entitlement oozing from reporters like John King. The emphasis here is like John King, not all journalists.

I begin to see what chafed you about Glenn's post (though I don't see it that way myself), but I believe you can try cutting him some slack. Surf through his past work and you will see that he a good-faith actor, one who unfailingly gives praise (even to journalists!) when it is due.

Respectfully,
Gordon Ginsberg

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

[Kitt]: 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.

Not to mention his characterisation of the commentators here as "synchophantic":

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

The guy's pig-ignerrent. And not afraid to show it. And just as refractory to any admission of error as are the MSM; he has, despite perhaps a little less hostile subsequent commentary, yet to apologise for this stoopid and uninformed outburst.

Cheers,

Once again, a would-be critic has made Glenn's points for him. The referenced commenter has complained about being asked to verify his identity and vetting his credentials (as any journalist would do as a routine matter of course), has impugned Glenn without having done any due diligence (as any journalist would do), and when confronted with these omission, proceeded to go to ad hominem (as any journalist would NOT do).

However, because his identity has not been verified as that of the professor from KSU, I cannot accept his comments as having come from that person with those credentials. In other words, I cannot produce the evidence necessary to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the source.

The benevolent thing to do would be to assume that the commenter is not the good professor, and that he or she is playing a practical joke. Help me out, professor.

Caveat emptor.

You must admit it was more than John King he was targeting.

Yes. We know that. Glenn's been skewering the fawning and vapid MSM for quite some time now, which just a tiny bit of research using that neat little journalisming tool Google might have twigged you on to. You know, like Googling "site:www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ media"....

Sadly enough, it's become a regular feature on Glenn's blog, not so much because Glenn wants to do it, but because it becomes a weekly, if not daily, necessity.

As has repeatedly been pointed out, and as should be obvious if you bothered to do the slightest bit of research before opening your yap or going ballistic in high dudgeon at the perceived slap in the face to your vaunted profession, Glenn knows that journalism is important, and wishes it were better. He skewers those that have repeatedly lowered the bar for the profession and is trying to encourage better standards and more substantive coverage. Don't you agree that this would be a 'good thing'? Do you think that King didn't deserve a slap-down for that inanity Glenn highlighted?

And what's your opinion of Bob Somerby? How about Howard Kurtz? How would you compare the two? Care to chime in, in a substantive discussion of journalistic practise?

Cheers,