home

CNN's John King Gets Upset

with Glenn Greenwald for not recognizing his journalistic prowess. He fired off an e-mail with a level of vituperativeness that would make any DFH angry blogger proud:
I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game. But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings. Since the site suggests you have law training, maybe you forgot that good lawyers to a little research before they spit out words. . . . You clearly know very little about journalism. . . . When I am writing something that calls someone's credibility into question, I pick up the phone and give them a chance to give their side, or perspective. . . .
Pretty funny. Glenn makes a good point in response (for the substance of the dispute follow the link):
Ponder how much better things would be if establishment journalists -- in response to being endlessly lied to and manipulated by political officials and upon witnessing extreme lawbreaking and corruption at the highest levels of our government -- were able to muster just a tiny fraction of the high dudgeon, petulant offense, and melodramatic outrage that comes pouring forth whenever their "reporting" is criticized
Indeed.

< Why Obama, And Democrats, Won The Debate | Wednesday Non-Election Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He shouldn't have pressed "send" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:42:54 AM EST
    quite so quickly.

    P.S. Way to go on finding a blogger (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    to say something good about!

    Parent
    What Sock Puppet Antics? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    Please tell. This is something I am not aware of.

    Even if true, does that negate his basic point? And if so, how?

    Ad hominem (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    Did you have anything to say about Mr. Greenwald's THOUGHTS?

    You made a vague accusation about Mr. Greenwald's integrity.

    Care to back that up?

    The comment was deleted (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    The 'Mighty (Corporate) Wurlitzer' meets the Web (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:07:20 AM EST
    The facade of being 'honest brokers' is cracking for those who hold themselves qualified to be 'credentialed journalists'; bloggers have been chipping away at that facade for years, and have shown how the 'brokers' are little more than puppets of their corp-rat masters.

    When information that doesn't match that facade is introduced, and people are exposed to it and begin asking why they haven't heard this from the MSM, the MSM becomes, yes, downright petulant in its' 'defense' of itself, claiming superior status thanks to that very same corporately-controlled credential process. Which all too often nowadays seems to involve kissing the hand (or other bodily portion, usually further south) of those same corp-rat masters.

    It would seem that it is the bloggers, not those who hold themselves as somehow being superior to them, who are involved in the process of 'comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable'. And the 'comfortable's tame mouthpieces don't like it...

    Thats funny (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    he is getting married to Dana Bash right?

    I wonder if CNN's (none / 0) (#8)
    by mtj on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    blog reporter will cover this story on "The Situation Room". I doubt it.  

    The Least Self Aware People on the Planet (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    Honestly, except for possibly George W. Bush, the MSM folks have to be the least self aware people on the planet.  They have no idea how they are perceived or how angry the public is with them.

    I read an interesting point on Whiskey Fire about NH and the supposed media backlash that helped Clinton and that was that when the American people talk about changing Washingon, they don't just mean the politicians, they mean the media that has enabled them, too.  The speculation was the desire for that change helps Clinton because the media going after her is part of what people hate about Washington.  

    I have no idea of the merits of that, but I do think there is an incredible amount of anger about the media and that most of the media live in such a protective bubble they have no idea.  

    How else to explain King's response except that he has no idea of how it will be perceived because he automatically thinks he's CNN guy and CNN guy trumps some blogger.

    Amazing.

    So true (none / 0) (#10)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    They also live inside the beltway, behind the walls and the moat.  Totally unable to comprehend the anger at their "work."  And boy, can they not handle criticism.

    Glen nailed it.

    Parent

    Sock puppetry (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    You may make a prima facia case, however, the charge has been denied by and there is no definitive proof.


    Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

    Back to my other point which is the more important one. How does this negate his basic point?

    Get back to me on that will ya?

    If I (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST

    If I sent you an e-mail with a return address of POTUS@US.gov would you understand?

    Parent
    AAA (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    Thanks for dropping the signature line that used to appear on all of your posts. ime, sig lines get pretty annoying pretty quickly...

    Parent
    I wlll (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    I will leave if off at your suggestion.  Perhaps just posting all the words to the song in an open thread once every other year or so would be a more fitting way to honor Percy French.

    Parent
    Seems reasonable. Thanks. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    How does that negate Greenwald's point- (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    Ponder how much better things would be if establishment journalists -- in response to being endlessly lied to and manipulated by political officials and upon witnessing extreme lawbreaking and corruption at the highest levels of our government -- were able to muster just a tiny fraction of the high dudgeon, petulant offense, and melodramatic outrage that comes pouring forth whenever their "reporting" is criticized

    How does (assuming its true) being a sock puppet change this point?

    Can you get back to me on this question? With something relevant?

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    I think it proves the point, which is that no one addresses "the point" but does everything possible not to do so.

    Parent
    Ding ding ding. We have a winner! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    Then gimme five! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST