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

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.

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.

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?