The use of the word often connotes the existence of journalists whose responses are other than those who often respond in the manner that Glenn reports.

The members of the corporate mainstream news media will never admit how irrelevant, incompetent and unimportant they are.

What I really mean to say - I think - is:

The use of the word often can connote the existence of other journalists, those whose responses are different from that of those journalists who do indeed often respond in the manner that Glenn reports.

powersjq

You've completely missed with your attempt at logical analysis. Not only does GG in the article clearly address "those who respond", as someone else pointed out, he's also limiting the thought to those who he's singled out for criticism in the first place. If you're not one of those, then I can't imagine why you'd feel so defensive.

Listen, we're in a mess. Among the many reasons, the lack of any real scrutiny of this government for the past seven years by the nation's press stands is a large one. Even if the writer had launched a generalized statement about journalists coddling those they cover it would be valid. If every journalist isn't guilty of this, enough are to make it more than a fair target for a general critique.

It therefore saddens me that you have descended into the demagogic use of a logical fallacy (specifically, the fallacy of converse accident--reasoning from a specific case to a general rule) in this post. You write:

I pointed out that this was not the first time [Mr. King] appeared to be reverent of John McCain... Most of this speaks for itself, but it's worth noting how often journalists' responses to criticisms contain so many of the same elements which King's email contains. They always want you to know that they never read what you write and that you're an Unserious, biased, partisan amateur..."

Your logically unjustified use of the pronoun they in order to represent all journalists as being guilty of and for Mr. King's sins reeks of frustration and not a little spite. While your takedown of Mr. King seems to me entirely justified, and his puerile response entirely worthy of mockery, this post does not mock Mr. King; rather, it goes on to vilify journalists in general. Whether or not journalists as a profession do in fact deserve such vilification (and it seems to me that your entire project is an attempt to improve journalism, not denigrate it), the bad behavior of one CNN ninny cannot justify your recklessly splashing all journalists with your venom.

Oh, get off if. See the bolded part. Glenn said it was noteworthy "how often" this happens, and then describes what it is that those ("paging Joke Line, paging Joke Line...") that do this (the "they") are doing.

Hardly a "converse accident" fallacy; rather a pretty accurate description of what Glenn has seen. If you choose to dispute it, fine, but Glenn has never said that "all journalists" (or even Journalismists) are Satan Incarnate™ (... oh, right, you didn't say "Satan Incarnate"; I just put that in there in some rhetorical language to attack you...)

Cheers,

When the mass media cozies us to the political establishment and becomes part of one large mainstream fraternity, which is the CNN way, Time way and just about everybody else's way in the MSM, you get the end of real scrutiny, so obvious during the Bush presidency, and also the end of democracy. John King is so mad because someone actually called him on it, not because it's not true.

I have suspected all along that the commenter here is the real Kent State version. That’s why I researched him and came up with some references suggesting he’s actually a pretty reasonable guy.

See these previous posts:

http://tinyurl.com/35garm

http://tinyurl.com/2kl9n8

Maybe just a bad day??

Who knows? I asked in both these posts what I considered to be reasonable questions that he has chosen not to answer thus far.

I’m going to try once more to get an answer from him.

“It is an honorable calling, fallen on hard times brought about by a changing world, 24/7 cablevision and the voracious Internet.” - Professor Tim Smith

Professor Smith, would you concede that perhaps some other reasons that a once honorable profession has “fallen on hard times” may be:

1. The attitudes of those who own media outlets and the opinions expressed by some people who were interviewed in the NPR segment (that also quoted you in dissent) as included in my last post?

2. The lack of truly critical assessment today on the effectiveness of news coverage and analysis?

3. That the “voracious internet” has served to expose the overarching commercialism as well as the vapid and stenographic nature of traditional media today?

4. The “closed circle” and, perhaps, elitist assumption that only journalists are qualified to criticize “journalists”?

A lesson for you, John King, on how to do real journalism. Please pay close attention.

The candidate, Romney, was being dishonest. The journalist called him on it...immediately and repeatedly. See how this pays off over the next few days. Romney may have just lied himself into the death of his campaign. These things aren't likely to happen without real journalists doing the job of real journalists.

http://tinyurl.com/3avotz

I wrote: “Glenn Greenwald does not have proof that ‘…these are all of the “questions”…’ King asked McCain in that interview on that day. Glenn’s critique of the piece was based on two things: 1. The quality of the questions, 2. The absence of better questions. Glenn provided evidence on point 1 but not point 2.”

In response, Cocktailhag wrote: “Although you were far too busy to read the comment thread, what with depositing your wingnut welfare checks, it was amply discussed and irrefutably concluded that the only valid judgement of any published work is based on what was actually published. What King really needs, besides a conscience transplant, is better toadies. You won't do.

I read Glenn’s articles and was responding to them, and I want him to update his article on the point I raised. The comments were irrelevant. Your assertion that my criticism was refuted is simply false. Since you say it without proof and with such irrational invective, I further claim that it is a deliberate lie on your part. Regarding your wingnut welfare comment: I am a writing student writing a non-wingnut book on creating worldwide happiness and I am receiving only $265 per week from the leftwing Labor Government in Australia, so your assertion that I am receiving wingnut welfare checks is pure fantasy, and could be interpreted as a bizarre projection of a sick mind.

Cocktailhag,

In response to Cocktailhag’s post, Associative Individualist wrote: “Extremely accurate and well-written observations throughout this post, cocktailhag. It's an aesthetic delight positively vibrating with truth value.

Associative Individualist,

Given what I wrote above, can you now see that you might be prejudiced in your assessment of what Cocktailhag wrote?

Cocktailhag and Associative Individualist and Glenn Greenwald,

Are any of you willing to specifically address the point I made? Or is this simply a reactionary left-wing blog, and therefore not progressive? My guess is that you will not specifically address my point because it’s true and it goes against your goals, which deviate from the issue of truth.

Martin Gifford.