That Carlson, like John King before him, referred to this tendency to collaborate with the object of their investigations as "Journalistic Standards."

WTF planet did THEY go to school on? I just don't get it.

Are our standards higher because we don't have Page 3 girls here?

CARLSON: But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the "Scotsman,"....

What an arrogant twit.

Paxman.

Paxman is not typical, but neither is he unique - every single day, particularly on the radio news, you will get interviewers who see their role as prosecutors.

The British situation is not perfect - a great new book just came out called Flat Earth News which shows just how limited and lazy British journalism can be. It's better, though, particularly when it comes to political reporting.

Youtubify, or whatever the verb is, John Humphrys, John Simpson, Eddie Mair, Edward Stourton.

Journalistic standards in the US ... well, they're different. American journalists are a great deal more deferential. Paxman has said in the past that the constant drumbeat in his head as he interviews someone is 'why is this lying bastard lying to me?'.

I don't see a helluva lot of difference between your protecting the reporter and the process you're complaining about. You write:

"I ended up not publishing that exchange solely because the probative value was minimal and the primary effect from doing so would just have been to make him look foolish for being so petulant and thin-skinned. Publishing it would have been more vindictive and petty than instructive, so I didn't. But his unilateral "OFF THE RECORD" designation played no role in my decision."

Part of the problem you're talking about is an acculturated way of doing business within the press corps. Obviously, it's so habitual that people don't even think about it any more. And they defend the protection of their interview subjects on the basis of their own evaluation of the material's worth -- just as you have.

Most important: You haven't accounted for the difference in sources and subjects of interviews. Tim-o is undoubtedly viewing these people as sources, not as subjects of reporting themselves. The distinction is important and it is indeed true that if a reporter discloses every source, his information will dry up.

In the case of Samantha Powers, she was not performing as a source, but as a surrogate.

I'm a former editor turned psychologist and you're right that the press corps has become a compliant flock. However, you're truly oversimplifying when you don't account for the need to develop sources. And you're a bit myopic in your defense of your own decision not to publish something when you haven't agreed to the stipulation of confidentiality.

Er....what's the difference

I don't see a helluva lot of difference between your protecting the reporter and the process you're complaining about.

So do you think I should just publish every single email I ever get and publish the transcript of every single conversation I ever have? Or should I make choices about whether the email and conversations are sufficiently interesting, relevant and worthwhile to take up readers' time and attention?

If a journalist tomorrow emails me to tell me his favorite colors or what actresses he finds attractive or what the design pattern he used to decorate his home, should I publish that? If some political figure emails me tomorrow to "disclose" some tedious, already-well-known series of self-promoting details, should I publish that, too?

I get pitches all the time from political people and others "disclosing" something they want me to publish. Should I just refrain from evaluating whether it's worth publishing and just dump everything into my blog?

Part of the problem you're talking about is an acculturated way of doing business within the press corps. Obviously, it's so habitual that people don't even think about it any more. And they defend the protection of their interview subjects on the basis of their own evaluation of the material's worth -- just as you have.

Not publishing it had nothing to do with "defending" anyone. It had to do with not filling my blog with petty stupidities, things that would have bored readers and that are just vindictive and small.

I'm a former editor turned psychologist and you're right that the press corps has become a compliant flock. However, you're truly oversimplifying when you don't account for the need to develop sources.

It's actually quite easy to develop sources. Just be honest and upfront about what you're agreeing to and adhere to your commitments. If sources will only talk to you if they perceive you will protect them -- and there are plenty that will do so -- then they're not worth talking to.

He does, though.

Clearly off-the-record briefing is part of the deal. If every word a politician said to a journalist was at risk of being printed, politicians would never speak to journalists, they'd just make speeches.

What happened here is that a woman said something she shouldn't, *then* decided it was off the record. That's what Mr Greenwald objects to.

Now ... a question no one's asked: how many American journalists has she said exactly the same thing to, unreported? My guess is she expected another little conspiratorial chuckle, like the dozens of times she's said it before to a US journalist.

"... for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to "the relationship between the press and the powerful." A journalist should never do anything that "hurts" the powerful, otherwise the powerful won't give access to the press any longer."

Yes, it is nice when those in the press admit that they are the cowardly lackeys that an observant individual knows to be true and congratulations for pointing out this confession by Carlson.

We live in a time when a small percentage of our population even tries to see what our rulers are pulling, and connecting the dots is beyond many of my fellow citizens; but when the press works against the citizen understanding it is even more difficult.

I believe that Americans might become decent citizens of the world if they would examine the actions of the American government; but that will be difficult since news reporters and historians work hard to keep the truth hidden. The citizen needs to use the Internet and listen to voices around the globe to get an informed idea of the mess we are in.

A few voices in America are reliably credible and worthwhile. Yours in one of them; keep up the good work.