Last Friday, reportedly in response to Joe Scarborough criticizing Keith Olbermann via Twitter, MSNBC president Phil Griffin issued an edict to staff:

We have many strong personalities with differing, passionate opinions, but it is important to remember that we are all on the same team. I want to reiterate my long-standing policy: We do not publicly criticize our colleagues. This kind of behavior is unprofessional and will not be tolerated.

I couldn't agree less.

When journalists think other journalists are doing their jobs badly, it is not only acceptable for them to say so, it is important for them to do so. The reluctance to do so contributes to mindless pack journalism, often with disastrous consequences.

Think how different things might have been if New York Times reporters said publicly during the 2000 campaign that their colleagues were treating Al Gore far more harshly than George W. Bush. Or if they had said publicly during the run-up to the Iraq war that Judith Miller and others at the paper were cheerleading on behalf of a bogus case for war. Or if Washington Post reporters had publicly said Ceci Connolly's factual inaccuracy and overt hostility towards Al Gore should disqualify her from continuing to cover him. Such criticism might have made atrocious coverage a little better. It couldn't possibly have made it worse.

Unfortunately, journalists tend to be reluctant to publicly criticize their peers -- including journalists at competing news organizations -- even without edicts like Griffin's.

As president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin has a brand to protect, so it is understandable that he doesn't like seeing people on his payroll undermine the brand by criticizing other people on his payroll. But a key part of a news organization's job is (or should be) the relentless and accurate pursuit of the truth. Stifling disagreement makes that pursuit less likely, and less likely to be executed well. And that isn't good for the brand, either.