John King, arrogant ass

Much as I admire Glenn Greenwald, I cringe when he locks horns with some MSM personality over something that (to my mind) seems trivial.

Wrestling with a pig and all that.

This time around, however, GG has laid into CNN's John King - and King has obviously made a fool of himself with his reply.

At issue was GG's criticism of John King's interview of Sen. McCain.

GG made the observation that King's interview (as aired) lacked substance. Four questions and all of them are fluff.

Fair point, right? After all, the transcript bears this out.

King's response?

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.
...
Did you think to ask me or anyone who works with me whether that was the entire interview? No. (It was not; just a portion used by one of the many CNN programs.)
...
You clearly know very little about journalism.

Where to even begin with that?

He wants Glenn to know - UP FRONT - that he doesn't read his stuff, but A FRIEND told him about the article and he HAD TO RESPOND.

That's like "I was flipping channels yesterday and I saw this bit on The View..."

King has a fair point that not all of his interview was aired, so perhaps Glenn's broadside is better trained on the producers of The Situation Room, who pared it down to the meaningless four questions that got aired. But his point gets lost in his avalanche of aristocratic vitriol Surely, his subtext assures us, I am SO above this. Don't you realize who I am?

Mr. King, your reputation doesn't enter into this. You got transcripts of the unaired portion that shows what a hard hitting journalist you are? - let's see 'em.

The idea that your access, your critics, or your posturing have any bearing on whether or not your interview had substance is what calls your understanding of journalism into question.