The spat between the “Meet the Press” moderator David Gregory and The Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald continues this morning, with media critics, observers and fellow journalists all chiming in on the matter.
So now, we ask you, our dear readers, to weigh in with your opinion on the issue:
Below, what some of the more prominent pundits had to say.
On “Morning Joe,” Gregory’s colleagues Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough supported the “MTP” host.
“Why didn’t you answer the question?” Brzezinski said. “I thought that’s what journalists did.”
The New York Times‘ David Carr took a more nuanced approach, but still argued that given the actions of the administration over the last few months, there is no doubt that Greenwald is is not a co-conspirator:
Politicians would like to conflate the actions of reporters and their sources, but the law draws a very clear and bright line between the two in an effort to protect speech and enable transparency. Mr. Greenwald may have a point of view and his approach to journalism is through the prism of activism, but he functioned as a journalist and deserves the protections that go with the job.
The Dish’s Andrew Sullivan, never one to mince words, argues that Gregory, as part of the Washington establishment, was always going to criticize an outsider like Greenwald and defend insiders in the administration.
At some point the entire career structure of Washington journalism – the kind of thing that makes David Gregory this prominent – needs to be scrapped and started over. And then you realize that it already has.
The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple sided firmly with Greenwald, arguing that Gregory’s question was loaded:
David Gregory’s logic has a cursory appeal. Why wouldn’t Greenwald have the courage to take on the issues swirling around his reporting? Shouldn’t a Sunday talk show host have the latitude to pose tough questions to another journalist?
Of course. Too bad, however, Gregory didn’t do that. Rather, he seeded his question with a veiled accusation of federal criminal wrongdoing, very much in the tradition of “how long have you been beating your wife.” To repeat the question: “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”
Bolded text added to highlight a clause loaded with assumption, accusation, baselessness and recklessness.