Journolist is a gruesome cesspool of liberal media elites who use to compare left-wing talking points and coordinate their messages. Is this the end of Journolist? I wish. Sadly, I suspect it will live on.

What “basic journalist” ethic has been violated by the posting of those emails? Be specific.

Is that kind the of “journalism” you practice — you only publish things if the subject of what you’re publishing authorizes you to do so and gives you permission? What’s the source of my “ethical obligation’ to keep those documents confidential?

Speaking of “journalistic ethics,” you just wrote a piece accusing me of violating journalistic ethics. Have you ever heard of the ethical rule about including the side of the story of the person you’re accusing? I have a long, detailed post today responding to this accusation that you not only failed to link to, but even failed to summarize or acknowledge at all — to say nothing of your failure to seek my comment. That’s what is called a failure of journalistic ethics.

Your assertion of knowledge that Greenwald was motivated in this instance by a desire to “to satisfy some personal grudge” is bizarre. He responded to a laundry list of character attacks that were being levied upon him in front of his peers and behind his back by simply sharing those attacks, verbatim, with the wider public. I suspect you were motivated by a desire to appear pithy without giving the situation much thought — but I won’t pretend to know that for certain.

In re: “No matter the justness of your cause, you can’t say “boo” about someone’s journalism skills if you violate the most basic of its ethics.”

There was no ethical violation here. The messages were posted to a restricted but still public listserv. They were not private emails. One of the members of the listserv was sufficiently offended by the content of Klein’s posts–that Greenwald’s personal and professional reputation was being savaged to hundreds of media industry insiders, without Greenwald having an opportunity to see the statements and rebut them– that that member of the list forwarded them to Greenwald anonymously and gave him that opportunity.

As in any whistleblower scenario, Greenwald is blameless, even if confidentiality had been breached.

Now, to your conduct: Greenwald is right in his comment post above. You don’t really have a leg to stand on in not referencing that he has a post up today on his side of this. And between him and Aimai (that’s the “acolytes” name, and she’s IF Stone’s Granddaughter by the way, every inch of the way.) Joe Kline gets his ass handed to him in a teacup.

While I must admit I don’t really care about this seemingly personal feud between Greenwald and Klein, as a journalistic and moral matter I think I come down on Greenwald’s side. To me, its actually a bit simpler than Greenwald’s response on his blog. Imagine if Klein had an email “leaked” to him that had been sent out to hundreds of people on an email list, would he refuse to publish it just because it was “off the record.” In theory, all emails not written for publication are off the record. The fact that this group of hundreds of journalists would like complete and total immunity from the same rules they would apply elsewhere seems at best naive and, at worst, hypocritical.

If Klein is looking for someone to blame he should target the “leaker” who had presumably agreed, as had all the participants. to keep it off the record. Every day journalists report information derived from sources not authorized to disclose that information. Greenwald did not violate any agreement he made to a source. Klein and the rest of his cabal can’t demand to have it both ways.

Former Congressman Tom Foley probably agrees with this silly post.

Greenwald did absolutely nothing wrong. The only thing I completely agree with him on (and what has been ignored by most of the journos weighing in on either side) is whether or not it’s okay for journalists to belong to secret lists with like-minded fellows, if they plan on using stuff on that list for their columns or articles without telling their readers or bosses.

While I’m not entirely certain that it’s wrong to belong to that particular list (as long as politicians, their spokesmen, and other gov’t officials aren’t on it, it’s probably more a personal ethical decision than anything else), I do think it’s wrong if your editor doesn’t know. Did Klein’s bosses know? That’s really the only potential ethical issue or journalistic no-no in this whole battle.

I can’t get past the searing irony of someone complaining about an email they sent to a large list of people whose job it is to write about what they see and hear on a daily basis. Might as well confess a crime on an email list full of police officers or federal prosecutors and then express shock when you get arrested.

That side, how is this really a personal feud? I haven’t seen Greenwald write anything about Joe Klein that wasn’t in some way strongly related to what Klein does professionally. Klein’s response was personal, sure, but you kind of come to expect that response from people that Greenwald writes about because, generally speaking, that’s just how they operate.

It’s what they view as acceptable and probably necessary to defend their position as gatekeepers.

It really boils down to what he’s been writing about all along, how people will use terms like (and I really do love this one) “civil liberties extremist” to demonize people beyond reason, to make them unapproachable. If you dare agree with someone like Glenn Greenwald, then you must be one of these imaginary extremists too, and are summarily dismissed as quickly and efficiently as he has been.

Not because they are wrong or dishonest, but because that’s the easy way out from having to debate the facts and acknowledge that perhaps they are right, and you are wrong.

I really think this incident is quite revealing about how insecure Joe Klein appears to be about his profession and how he handles himself, that he has to denigrate other people who dare challenge conventional wisdom and write about the corrupt process that allows people to lazily roam about the land, pontificating on one thing or another without being any more informed than the average joe is. Greenwald and others represent a threat the power and stature of top tier pundits, and really that’s all that Klein amounts to anymore.

And Glenn has said as much in his response to Klein’s embarrassing post on Time’s website.

Watching how people react to criticism, whether they address it substantively even if they don’t ever come around, or they just set about whining and slinging mud, seems to tell you all you ever need to know about the veracity of the garbage they are selling.