That was my first thought reading this as well, and I agree that the author couldn't have missed the point about journalism more. As you said, the goal of jour

That was my first thought reading this as well, and I agree that the author couldn't have missed the point about journalism more. As you said, the goal of journalism should be to publish the truth...and journalists should absolutely not be free from criticism by other journalists in the pursuit of that goal. The article's reaction to the interview, which I did watch, seems to mainly take issue with the idea that anyone would dare question Gleen Greenwald about his coverage. There were some things wrong with the interview, the anchor questions were overall not all that good (particularly follow-ups), but objecting to the very idea of an adversarial interview of someone covering an important story seems exactly the opposite of what journalism should be about. Basically, if we value journalism at all, we should support the idea of other journalists looking at Greenwald's (or any other journalist's) coverage with a critical eye.