Howard Kurtz, on his CNN television show yesterday:

Finally, a few words about a recent story about Politico's Patrick Gavin on the most frequent guests on this program, people like Roger Simon, Michelle Cottle, Clarence Page, David Zurawik, and Karen Tumulty, appearing more than 25 or 30 times. But that's over a decade, an average of maybe three times a year.

Gavin accuses us of, yes, clubbiness. …

If this is some kind of club, it's one that Patrick Gavin has been trying to join for quite a while. He has repeatedly asked and cajoled me to book him on this program.

Here's an e-mail Gavin sent me just a few weeks ago: “Why yes, I would love to come on RELIABLE SOURCES if you're doing any White House correspondents dinners curtain raisers this month.”

Sure, Patrick, we would be happy to have you on some time in the next decade.

And here's Howard Kurtz, leading off his Washington Post column today:

Everything is supposed to be “transparent” these days, but is every word you utter -- or e-mail, or text, or tweet, or mutter within earshot of a reporter -- now fair game?

And couldn't that drive our discourse toward the pathologically cautious and mind-numbingly banal?

Yes, that's right: Just one day after reading a private email aloud on national television, Kurtz laments the possibility that “every word you utter -- or email” is now “fair game.”

In case you're wondering: No, Kurtz didn't apologize for reading Gavin's email on television.

It's also worth noting that Kurtz's introduction of Gavin's email seems intended to imply that Gavin's criticism was hypocritical, thus (arguably) justifying the disclosure of the email. But nothing Gavin wrote is inconsistent with his interest in appearing on Reliable Sources. Nothing. It was just a cheap shot by Kurtz. Imagine a politician criticizing a television show for skewing its guest list towards the opposing party, and seeking a guest slot on the show himself. That would arguably be self-serving, but not hypocritical or inconsistent.

In fact, Kurtz's disclosure that Gavin has “repeatedly [and unsuccessfully] asked” to be on Reliable Sources actually lends support to Gavin's criticism of the show, which is that he believes it should feature more “Washington gossip columnists” and “Washington media writers” -- "both categories he admits falling into." (Personally, I'm content with a paucity of gossip columnists on television.)