Glenn Greenwald mixed it up with CNN’s John King. Greenwald criticized King for doing an adulating interview of John McCain, and King fired back (reprinted in full at Greenwald’s Salon.com blog). Greenwald’s response to King’s response is one of the better dissections of modern political coverage I’ve read in some time.
Excerpts:
Most of [King’s response] 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 (without any recognition of the glaring contradiction between those two claims).
They boast of what they believe to be their reputation, assuring you that they are widely respected and admired by the People Who Count. Even though they never read you, they’re repulsed by the idea that you would dare to critique their work because you know absolutely nothing about the High Art of Journalism and never get any messages on your Blackberry from Ed Gillespie or Karl Rove or Anyone.
Have you ever noticed how haughty journalists get when they confront their critics? Mind you they seldom confront critics – they’re too busy handing out awards to one another. Permit me to analyze this: They are hypersensitive to criticism because on some level they know they are sucking it up. They don’t confront powerful people, they don’t do follow-ups questions, and offer floral bouquets instead. That is – unless your name is Dennis Kucinich or some other schmuck – they do get tough when they are dealing with the class geek.
They invariably point to criticisms from both Left and Right as proof that they’re unbiased straight-shooters.
Journalists love this fallback – it’s tactical avoidance. It permits them to ignore the criticism and carry on. In King’s case, Greenwald got after him for kissing up to McCain. King’s response: Well, there was one time when a guy got after me because I wasn’t tough enough on Hillary. Or something like that. Anything but deal with the actual criticism.
They proudly inform you that there have, indeed, been some instances over the many decades that they’ve been working when they’ve stood up to someone and asked something other than mindlessly reverent questions, and if you had looked hard enough, you might have found a couple. They tell you it’s appalling to comment on what they publish to their readers or viewers without first talking to them about it, even though you linked to or even printed in full everything they said and wrote. And they close by telling you that you have no standards, no ethics, no understanding of their Complex Profession, and no decency — that you’re just a shrill, ignorant partisan pushing a lowly agenda while they are in the business of Real Unvarnished, Objective Reporting.
We simply don’t understand journalism. The Daily Show does.
Stewart : Here’s what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry’s record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn’t been disputed for 35 years.
Corddry : That’s right, Jon, and that’s certainly the spin you’ll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
Stewart : That’s not a spin thing, that’s a fact. That’s established.
Corddry : Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.
Stewart : But isn’t that the end of the story? I mean, you’ve seen the records, haven’t you? What’s your opinion?
Corddry : I’m sorry, “my opinion”? I don’t have opinions. I’m a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called “objectivity”—might want to look it up some day.
Stewart : Doesn’t objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what’s credible and what isn’t?
Corddry : Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.
John McCain said that going on the Daily Show is a “dangerous experience.” That is, oddly, because the Daily show, in it’s own quirky way, is doing journalism.
Wait! Did I say that? I obviously don’t understand what journalism is. Greenwald:
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.
Piece of Mindful 
One reason journalists may seem “haughty” is that so much of the criticism is so incredibly stupid. That makes it hard to focus on the criticism that really should be heeded.
LikeLike
David – when you say criticism directed against you is “stupid”, aren’t you being haughty?
“they’re repulsed by the idea that you would dare to critique their work because you know absolutely nothing about the High Art of Journalism…”
LikeLike