GG wrote:

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?

Of course you should make that decision. My point was, though, that it's the same logic many of the reporters you criticize employ. For example, it's been argued that reporting that an Obama surrogate called Clinton a "monster" off the cuff is a petty distraction. I think that could be argued with your own logic.

The email was significant enough for you to bring it up as an example. Any journalist knows that when you bring a communication up in support of your argument, you need to let the reader know its content so HE CAN MAKE HIS OWN JUDGMENT. Isn't that what, bottom-line, you are advocating?

So, in your eyes, an email addressed personally to you is considered public discourse, suitable for publication and attribution? My experience with Netiquette is that email communication is presumed private unless explicitly indicated, or permission is given, to distribute widely.

This note is delivered via public media. I expect others to see it. If it were sent via email, I would expect at least anonymity, if not privacy.

Perhaps you should update your caricature on your web page to include the popular T-shirt slogan: "I'm blogging this!" That way, people will understand that you have no private boundaries w/r/t communication.

For anyone who wants to dismiss Carlson as some buffoon ...

I do dismiss him for being a baffoon. Also for being the prick, tool, punk, and stuffed-shirt that he is. I dismiss him for the empty, snide, gossipy mildew that he somehow makes a living off of.

...who is unrepresentative of journalists generally,...

Oh. yeah. nevermind then.

As Carlson put it: "People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did." I can't think of any single dynamic that better explains what has happened the last eight years than that one.--G.Greenwald

That statement by Carlson is another unintentionally candid admittance to low "journalistic" standards. In fact, that isn't a standard at all. It's a way of placing responsibility for what the interviewed person said onto the person who conducted the interview. Peev didn't say that Hilary Clinton is a monster, Powers did. Peev didn't "go out of her way" to 'make' Powers say what she said. Peev just wrote down what Powers said. Powers is free to address that in any way that she chooses.

Chazz: Yes, if someone writes me an email in his professional capacity to object to something I've published, I consider the email public. And so does any reporter.

Glenn here is completely off-base. The problem is that somehow Tucker was mistakenly taught incorrectly the meaning of "the truth", and he is using the term truth when he means to say "public relations" or "advertising spin".

This is by no means Tucker's fault -- he was educated well by many of his colleagues and employers.

For example, everyone buys consumer products. And I am sure that those products' makers would feel very, very hurt if they invited you to help them conduct public relations for their products and then you misunderstood their intentions and you went out and described that they were manufacturing products that had problems, or failed to serve their purposes.

That's why major news media depend nearly entirely upon advertising revenue -- if they depended too much upon their viewers or subscribers for their incomes, then (1) they'd have a lot less money, and (2) they would be less likely to think carefully, deeply, even subconsciously about the delicate feelings of all the people who could be advertising for them.

Of course you should make that decision. My point was, though, that it's the same logic many of the reporters you criticize employ. For example, it's been argued that reporting that an Obama surrogate called Clinton a "monster" off the cuff is a petty distraction. I think that could be argued with your own logic.

That just isn't the point Carlson made. He didn't say the remark was insignificant and therefore shouldn't be reported. He said she wanted it off the record and therefore it shouldn't have been reported.

The email was significant enough for you to bring it up as an example.

The significant part of the email exchange was his view that he could declare his remarks unilaterally to be off the record, not the content of the email.

According to the Russerts and Tuckers their purpose is to be told newsworthy topics so that they will not report these newsworthy topics and that the 1st Amendment's purpose is to protect reporters that don't report what's newsworthy, controversial, illegal and insane that affects the country and it's citizenry from knowing that they are suckers, taxpaying suckers, whom pay taxes for the purpose of a criminal government, which operates with tax monies, which is doing illegal and insane acts. According to the Russerts the Constitutions with its bill of rights was concocted to protect the government from the citizens whose tax monies are used to repress and persecute those very same taxpayers.Something is wrong with this picture, although if the purpose of the Constitution is to protect government and steal taxpayers tax monies then the Constitution isn't worth protecting. History proves that a country cannot operate dysfunctional, malfunctioning , deceitfully and criminally insane in perpetuity.

So, in your eyes, an email addressed personally to you is considered public discourse, suitable for publication and attribution?

If it's from a public figure and relates to something I wrote about, then absolutely. I'm not writing about reporters and political issues in a quest to make friends and develop personal relationships. I'm writing in order to disclose what I think is relevant and provides insight into significant matters. If the topic of something I write emails me about that topic, I would treat what they say exactly the same as if they called me: as something I can disclose in the absence of an agreement not to do so.

My experience with Netiquette is that email communication is presumed private unless explicitly indicated,

or permission is given, to distribute widely.

Why would statements in email be treated any differently than statements in a telephone conversation or face-to-face discussion?

Perhaps you should update your caricature on your web page to include the popular T-shirt slogan: "I'm blogging this!" That way, people will understand that you have no private boundaries w/r/t communication.

I'm a writer who writes about political and media issues. If someone with whom I have no personal relationship emails me about something I've written, what possible basis is there for them to expect that I will keep that concealed?