"Everyone with a laptop thinks they are a journalist"..Helen Thomas

[SoCalDem]

She's on a panel (c-span) about journalism & civil rights,,

This is the one time I must disagree with Helen...

People with laptops (and digital cameras) ARE journalists. (they just don't get a paycheck)

Have they taken this on because their own lives are so empty? NOPE.. They have taken this task on because they feel COMPELLED to, because they see NO JOURNALISM going on these days, and they have CHOSEN to fill the gap.

I would guess that a LOT of the pictures we see on TV were shot by "amateurs"..

News groups these days are CUTTING staffs and budgets, and yet there is still "stuff" happening, and if they don;t cover it, WE will.

the consensus of the panel is that the media is "trying", but apparently not doing that great of a job.

They don't "like" the bloggers, but did admit that bloggers are "pressuring" news people to do a better job..

[Mythsaje]

1. And the origin of the journalist in America was...?

Average people who wanted to disperse information to the public using their own resources to write, print, and distribute flyers, pamphlets, and, eventually, newspapers and magazines.

This is no different. And, as much as I respect Helen Thomas in general, she's WRONG to take that attitude.

[Katherine Brengle]

57. This is a no-brainer.

But not everyone thinks so, I guess...

[realFedUp]

2. hey, we're just truthseekers

some of us write better than others.

[tenshi816]

30. You've hit the nail on the head. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

3. And neither are we corporate and/or lifestyle prisoners

whose freedom of expression is cut off by pressures from above, fat paychecks and access-denial threats from sources.

Further, we don't cover the news, we respond to it, which is what most journalists are reduced to in the real-time world anyway.

[YOY]

4. Afraid of anyone not on the corporate dole

n/t

[glitch]

16. well said. nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Huh?

Do you really believe that?

If you put the word "amateur" in front of "journalist, I'd agree.

But, if someone with a laptop decides to write something and isn't held to the standards of triangulation, can't avail himself of the rights of confidentiality regarding a source, and doesn't meet the other requirements of real journalism, that's just like saying you're a brain surgeon because you're holding a picture of a brain.

[SoCalDem]

10. "Journalist" has more than one definition

noun: a writer for newspapers and magazines
noun: someone who keeps a diary or journal

Either works for people with laptops.. the only real difference is the paycheck.

Anyone can (and many do) submit their writings and ideas to "legitimate" venues. 99.9% of the time, they are ignored, or only printed as LTTEs, but the ACT of witnessing, writing, and submitting is the same..paid or unpaid.

and "private" citizens often DO HAVE sources connected to news of the day.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. That's not what Helen Thomas was talking about,

though. I suspect you know that, too.

There are stringest directives and rules where journalism is concerned. That's why J-schools exist.

If you're not bound/protected by them, you're someone with a laptop. And sending in something you've written to a publication makes you a hopeful, but it does not make you a journalist. That's why you see "Special to the NY Daily Mush" under a over-the-transom piece.

Reporting is one thing. Journalism is another. Without a journalist's credentials, for instance, there are places you just are not allowed to go - like crime scenes.

You're citizens with laptops and thoughts and ideas, and that's wonderful. But, let's be clear here.

[Burning Water]

28. I agree, but

it is important to realize that freedom of the press, freedom of speech is for everyone, not just J-school graduates.

If they publish lies, then others will publish truths. Darkness flees before the light of a single candle.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Of course

But that's not what I was talking about.

We do agree about the First Amendment.

[Burning Water]

33. Good.

By the way, as referring to journalists, what, exactly is the "standard of triangulation"? Also, why can't a blogger hold his sources confidential? Perhaps a Republican judge somewhere decided to restrict the rights of citizens in order to further some prosecutor's case? Simple enough to remedy. Pass a law saying that anyone working on a news story with intent to publish can offer confidentiality to the same extent as "real" journalists are allowed to.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. Well..............

if you don't know what "triangulation" is, you're not a journalist.

Check out the cases when self-styled "journalists" tried to claim source confidentiality, and see how they turned out.

Someone "intends" to publish?

I intend someday to become Queen of England. You think that counts as reality?

Let me help you.

No.

There's no need for a remedy. All that's needed is for presumptious, self-important folks who are convinced anything they write is a gem. Just as soon as you fill in that part of your 1040 with "writer" or "journalist," I'll agree that you're a journalist.

No remedy is required. There are real journalists out there who define the profession. Poseurs are just that.

[Burning Water]

38. Why the attack??

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Show me where I claimed to be a "journalist". I have no blog; I investigate no stories. I post my opinions to places like DU same as you.

So, Can you please define "triangulation" for journalists? I know what it is for politics. Why the attack??

My point is, freedom of press, and of speech, belongs to "we, the people". The press obtains these rights only because they are part of "we, the people". What you seem to be saying is that they are an elite class with privileges separate from, and greater than, the rest of us. Especially anyone who is trying to fulfill the functions of informing the public, but does not have a corporate master to hide behind.

By the way, I don't have to check out those cases, I already knew about them. No need to assume that those that disagree with you are necessarily ignorant. But, as I said, there is a remedy for journalistic arrogance and erroneous judicial decisions. Whether it can be done or not is a different story.


"There are real journalists out there who define the profession. Poseurs are just that." If they were fulfilling their functions properly there wouldn't be any need or place for the amateurs. There wouldn't be an evolutionary niche for them.

Or are you a big fan of the corporate MSM? If so, you seem to be a rarity on DU. Why the attack??

[Katherine Brengle]

44. some information---

Courtesy of WorldWideLearn.com:

Things a Journalist must learn/possess:

• Accurate research skills. Professional journalists make and break their reputations on the quality of their research. Journalism majors learn a powerful technique, called triangulation, that assures their audiences will receive only factual reports instead of unverified rumors. Journalists learn to track down leads and verify information quickly, especially since audiences reward news outlets that consistently break new stories first. Cutting corners by running stories without proper fact checking can lead to major mistakes and career meltdowns.
  
• Strong writing skills. Regardless of whether they work in print or broadcast media, journalism majors spend a great deal of time in their degree programs learning how to tell complete stories that engage audiences. By sharpening their writing skills, journalists learn how to add an extra dimension to their stories that sets their work apart from bland headline tickers. Journalists with exceptional writing skills often work on book projects while still covering their usual beats for their employers.
  
• Understanding of laws and ethics. Journalism majors receive significant training in law and ethics for two major reasons. First, a sharp journalist can spot legal transgressions and ethical violations that most people overlook. Those glimpses into the underside of legitimate operations can launch significant investigations that can lead to major shifts in politics and business.
  
• Second, journalism students learn to appreciate the consequences of fabricating sources and publishing inaccurate articles. Likewise, they learn how to separate their editorial work from commercial influences of their outlets. Because journalists so often call attention to the failings of others, they must do so from a moral and ethical high ground to maintain their credibility.
  
• Powerful oral presentation skills. Naturally, broadcast journalism professionals spend a significant portion of their degree programs learning how to present their stories effectively on radio or on television. However, all journalism majors must learn how to present their stories verbally, even when they work for a print organization.
  
• Journalists and researchers must be able to speak loudly and clearly during heated press conferences. Many print journalists must pitch ideas to groups of editors at story conferences each morning. And an increasing number of newspapers ask their print journalists to appear on radio and television news reports to boost the profiles of their publications.
  
• Interview skills and techniques. Unlike historians, who can do most of their research online or in the stacks of university libraries, journalists rely on conversations for the bulk of their stories. Journalism students develop the ability to probe their interviewees for key pieces of information. The best journalists develop powerful interpersonal skills that make their sources feel comfortable revealing sensitive information, especially under duress.
  
• Accurate record keeping skills. Journalists maintain a centuries-old tradition of holding each other accountable for the information that they include in their reports. Therefore, journalism students learn how to catalog and index their interviews and other sources for future reference. Note taking and transcription are powerful tools that can prevent journalists from misquoting sources. Large news organizations usually rely on third-party fact checkers to eliminate unintentional errors from raw research and limit company exposure to libel lawsuits.
  
• Computer and technology skills. Today's journalism majors must learn to research and deliver their stories using a variety of technologies that were unavailable to their predecessors only a decade or two ago. Journalism students learn to use e-mail and word processors to prepare their stories. Print journalists learn how to use specialized database and publishing tools to submit their work to editors for printing. Radio and television journalists learn how to edit footage and record narration to create compelling news packages on tight deadlines.
  

I don't think it is necessary to learn all of these things in a school, as long as they are learned. For instance, I studied English and Political Science in college. I have a background in writing, a clear understanding of US History, and a solid grasp of US politics, as well as the politics of other countries.

Interview and computer skills are generally better learned through experience.

As far as learning how to work within the confines of a deadline, this is not a difficult skill.

Anyone with a solid grasp of the language, the political arena, and the gumption to get out there and investigate a story can do this job. It doesn't require a degree to possess these skills.

The mass media is failing in its duty to the citizens of this country--those of us with the ability to pick up the slack have a patriotic duty to do so.

[Burning Water]

46. Thank you very much for the info.

If you would be kind enough to answer one more question, I would appreciate it. What is the technique called "triangulation"?


Cheers:) :) :)

[Katherine Brengle]

51. In simplest terms...

I believe that it refers to a journalist/reporter consulting sources directly and continuing to interact with them over the course of the unfolding of a story, rather than doing initial research and calling it quits.

But hey, I don't have a degree, so don't take my word for it, lol. This is just my best understanding, as a laptop commando.

[Burning Water]

60. Thanks

:)

[Katherine Brengle]

61. Seriously though, it is a term with which I am not familiar--at least

in this respect--of course, it is possible I understand it without having been specifically educated on the terminology. I tried to find a concrete definition and could not.

From what I found, my previous conclusion is what I was able to piece together.

[K-W]

47. Because if you arent paid to do something you arent doing it?

An amateur journalist is a type of journalist no more or less a journalist than a professional journalist. To say that one can be called a journalist while the other has to be qualified is to show a remarkable bias.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. You work for free?

An "amateur journalist" has absolutely no right to invoke First Amendment protection, and that, in my opinion and in the opinion of American courts, means they're not "journalists." They have no confidentiality to offer sources, and that means, to me, they're just people writing.

That doesn't make you a writer, either.

Yeah, your second sentence is a classic. I suppose you'd have no trouble turning over your stomach cancer surgery (heaven forbid) to someone who isn't "qualified"?

Or your murder trial to someone who never went to law school but calls himself a "lawyer" because he can?

Next time you need a root canal, why bother with a qualified endodontist? Hell, just hand your mouth over to someone who calls himself an endodontist.

Jeez.

[Katherine Brengle]

52. You can't be serious...

Every American is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech). If one chooses to write down their words rather than speak them aloud, they are no less protected. Also, recall that when Freedom of the Press was granted, journalism degrees were not required in order to report a story or write for a newspaper or magazine--how do you account for this? It is required now, but it's okay that the newspapers published in this country when we fought for our independence and against slavery and for women's rights contained articles by absolute hacks?

The problem with your argument is obvious--although a journalist has a responsibility to report factually, he/she does not have a direct chance to physically harm his/her reader, as a doctor or lawyer does.

You also fail to address the problems of the MSM which are only being countered thanks to those of us who make the effort to dispense what information we can through the outlets that are available to us.

Also, the definition of "writer" would be "one who writes" so your argument that just writing something doesn't make one a writer is just plain foolish. It may not make one an "accomplished writer" but it does make one "one who writes."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. When "freedom of the press was granted,"

women couldn't vote, African-Americans couldn't vote, either, and the world was a little bit different. I'm sure you've noticed.

You sound far too much like Anotnin Scalia. As for the idea of causing physical harm to a journalist source, you really showed there that you're not getting it. "Physical harm" is very often the least of what might happen to a confidential source.

Figure it out. You can't be what you say you are unless you really are.

[Katherine Brengle]

56. What does that even mean? "You can't be what you say you are unless

you really are."


I just don't think that it is necessary to have a degree in Journalism to report a story or write an editorial or do an interview. It is necessary to have the knowledge, but knowledge can be gained in many ways--it doesn't have to come from a classroom.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. What you are seeing is a sea change in how people get their news

Newspapers are dying. Network and cable news is sliding into the infotainment range. People who want real news are going online, and reading the blogs. This trend will continue.

[KansDem]

29. I've been doing this for some time...

who want real news are going online, and reading the blogs.

...as I suspect many Americans are doing. I have my select blogs that I read everyday for news and commentary. Blogs from learned journalists who have earned my respect.

[RagingInMiami]

7. As a journalist who has a degree in journalism and spent years

writing for the MSM, I agree with you. The information being disseminated on the internet is the New Journalism.

[Armstead]

8. I must agree with her

There's a difference between a member of the journalist profession and being curious and/or an activist.

It's true that unfortunately many people in the modern professional media are not really journalists either. They're either bimbo entertainers (male and female) or people who just rehash press releases or people who spout off their opinions and call it commentary.

But a journalist is a classic sense (and it still exists) is primarily a professional whose job is to learn the truth and analyze and disseminate it without any personal axe to grind. Doing that -- and seperating that task from one's own personal believes and ideology -- is hard work and requires skills more than just Googling or gathering information to confirm what one already suspects.

That's not to denigrate bloggers or DU posters or information activists. But first aid is different than professional medicine, to use an admittedly bad analogy.

[Burning Water]

9. Journalists, even progressive

ones sometimes tend to forget that the rights of free speech and free press belong to "we, the people", not them. In doing their jobs, they are only exercising rights that belong to all of us, not just them.

Sometimes this works against the conservative journalist; sometimes the progressive journalist gets caught. But they are not the 'gatekeepers' of information any longer, and sooner or later they will realize it.

[TahitiNut]

12. For every enumerated right there's an economic interest ...

... that would convert it into a narrow entitlement. This is the Holy Grail of conservatism: 'rights' to only those who can afford them.

[Burning Water]

26. I can't acquit

progressive ones from the charge, either. Wasn't the original post about Helen Thomas, as progressive a journalist as you could hope for?

Even progressives are still human, and subject to the same fears, joys, and other emotions as every body else. The difference is that we use reason to fight against the tribalism of our natures to ensure rights for all. Except sometimes we can forget, too. but at least we have a higher standard, even if we sometimes fall a little short of our own expectations.

[joefree1]

11. I'm a artist with a laptop, but ...

What are we suppose to do, wait for the paid Journalist to get the balls to investigate Bushco? Too late. He should never have been elected to a second term.

[reichstag911]

13. ...nor selected to a first! nt

[Village Idiot]

14. I'd rather see honest amateurs than GOP sponsored media shills...

[MuseRider]

17. Another great sig.

You have the best sigs I have seen. Love this one.

As much as I love Helen I have to say that if the journalists had done their job there would be much less blogging news.

I agree with you. The pressure comes because we need them to do what they have traditionally done and are failing at miserably.

[SoCalDem]

19. Thank you

I have an "eye" for the sigs:)

[aden_nak]

18. A lot of people on the news think they are journalists, too, Helen.

It's sad, really.

[underpants]

20. Who What When Where HoW and Why

the Why is usually for the editorial department but other than that you have just received your formal journalism training.

Practice and Repeat.

Sorry Helen I have to disagree with you on this one.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

24. Bloggers may not be journalists, but they are great researchers and

bs detectors! Many are also great Op-Ed writers of a caliber at least equal to much of what fills our daily fish-wrap. They also act like a Greek Chorus, commenting on the news of the day and the actions of the leaders. And thankfully, they offer an alternative to the CRAP (Corporate Republican Amnesiac Press).

[SoCalDem]

25. AMEN.. Reasearch and perspective are sorely missing from

corporate media..They have cut the staffs to the bare necesity, and the stuff the print is usually crap.. It always amazes me when stories are written as if they are NEW, when reallym they are just the latest installment of a larger, previous event/story/scandal..

The reporter may actually THINK he/she has a 'scoop' because someone told them a story, but if they took the time to google and search a bitm, they would have to share the 'glory'..

WE can and do ferret out links and ties to the BIG PICTURE.. Today's corporate journalistic view extends only to the edge of their own cubicle.

[emulatorloo]

21. Thank goodness for those truthtellers like Jeff Gannon, Little Green Footb

alls, Buckhead, and so on.

[SoCalDem]

23. There are pros and cons to both

I don't think that the Washington Times, Newsmax are very representative of good journalism either, BUT they do exist.. We cannot ignore that fact.

The bloggers you mentioned are only "famous" because they are tied into the cast echo-chamber that is rightwing media (corporate-rightwing-media)..

WE know the path that's taken..

fax/talking points issued from WH/
Operatives online and radio trumpet them 24/7
Corporate media/Fox/Cnn/Msnbc picks up "news" and touts it as "what people are talking about"
gullible people hear it on the radio, see it online and then hear/see it on TV, so "it must be true"..

Liberals have fewer (do we have ANY) venues to spread the word..

[Burning Water]

27. I t doesn't matter, in

the long run, whether they are telling the truth, or not. What matters is that if we restrict their right to put out their viewpoint, someday our own rights will be restricted. Look at the number of revolutions that were co-opted by thugs. Ever hear of Stalin, for instance?

If the truth and lies compete, the truth will win. Because the vast majority of people are NOT ideologues of either the left or the right. They are pragmatists. They will go with what works and makes sense to them.

It would be a major mistake to discard freedom of speech and press for any reason whatever, but most especially a partisan one. That would bite us in the ass sho 'nough. And speedily, too.

[rocktivity]

39. Gannon was "outed" by the truth, remember?

We outed him a shill and a fraud. And he outed HIMSELF as a homosexual!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Orsino]

22. I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape...

...as Huxley supposedly said.

Anyone paid by a corporation to re-type slanted "news" thinks he's a journalist, too.

[rocktivity]

32. Right--flying the flag of "legitimate" journalism is ludicrous

when it's "legitimate" to sit on piviotal stories for a year, and when sponsors or politicians are making your editorial decisions. The blogosphere and The Daily Show are not the result of the mere existence of laptops, but of a desire to fill a vacuum that "real" journalism itself has created. Better that the MSM come to terms with their own failures and shortcomings rather than blame them on the bloggers!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Burning Water]

34. Exactly right n/t

[KoKo]

35. SoCal...I don't think the "oldie journalists" ever see anything but Freeps

and they think of the "Swift Boaters" and can't get beyond that. I've seen that with Richard Reeves and David Broder and others of the "Old School."

I think they are "clueless" about the NEW LEFTY MEDIA...they are so used to the ROVE Laptopers they can't get beyond.

I say this because I think you watch C-Span and so you've seen those "Journalist Roundtables" and all that stuff where the "Oldie News Media" discusses the "Young Turks" and they always say...it doesn't matter.

And...I say it because I think, that you, like me, have been around the bend a few times. :D And, as observers for a long while might have our "own" perspective on "journalists" we've suffered through all these years.

[SoCalDem]

42. It really annoys me though, that so many of them are "clueless"

The internet(s) have been around for a long time now, and if you are headed for a tv interview, why NOT go online and google a little to see what the "pulse" out here actually IS...or to do a little fact-checking BEFORE you get blindsided by a question and have to answer "I haven't read/seen/heard of......"...

In this day and age, there is NO reason to be ignorant of public opinion or what issues are important..

The internet itself is one gigantic poll...right there waiting for anyone who's interested in peeking behind the curtain..

When "real" journalists go on tv and "claim" to have not heard of PNAC or various connections to current events, I want to SCREAM!! (and often DO)

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. I don't know the context of the quote

but I'd wager Ms. Thomas meant something along these lines:

How many bloggers are familiar with media law and understand the rights and responsibilities of a free press?

What sort of accountability do they have if they're proven wrong, or worse, if they libel or perjure?

How many of them actually interview sources rather than simply googling for all their information?

Damned few, I'd guess.

[Katherine Brengle]

45. If you network proactively, as an outside the box journalist, it is

possible to get interviews. I have managed to grab a few--of course, I'm not going to be able to get an interview with Donald Rumsfeld, but that is immaterial to me.

We also have failed to note here that much of the writing we are discussing here comes to us in the form of op-ed pieces and editorials--these are generally based on second-hand information. Both the MSM and alternative media outlets feature this kind of work, and it is not without value.

[Solon]

40. Dammit, that is blatantly NOT true...

Some of us use desktops, also, I'm no blogger, I'm a freelance journalist, even had a job or two that involved deadwood newsmagazines.

[Mutley]

41. She's just jealous because the average American doesn't need her

or other "traditional" journalists anymore to get the news. They are a dying breed and I'm sure it scares the hell out of them.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. This kind of attitude is exactly what is killing mainstream American

journalism.

I take pride in the fact that I use the outlets I have available to get information out to the public. If I write something, and people read it and become better informed, that makes me a journalist.

If a paid reporter writes something that doesn't help people understand the world around them, I'd say he or she is a useless hack.

It's just fear that the status quo will be overturned.

[K-W]

48. Good old fashioned elitism and authoritarianism.

Dont listen to anyone who doesnt have credentials.

[Katherine Brengle]

54. Exactly--all you need in order to get "credentials" these days is a big

wad of cash and deep pockets. Remember, Georgie Boy graduated from Yale, so he must be qualified to do... something...

[DelawareValleyDem]

50. Yup. Ain't it great? nt

[donco6]

53. I agree with her.

But a lot of people with the official credential aren't really "journalists" either. At least not these days.

[SoCalDem]

59. Getting your own "show" or a "column" makes you one these days

And the fact that they are all given equal credence..:puke:

Scarborough..Hah!
Tucker-Hah!
Abrams-Hah!
Limbaugh-Hah!
Hannity-Hah!
Savage-Hah!

These people are considered to be "journalists", and I doubt that any of them has any real training..They are opinionists, at best..lying sacks of shit, in reality.. They have their own "venue", and have an audience, so what they say, matters..

They have the unusual position too, of having it both ways.. In one breath they spread rumor and innuendo as "news"..and then calim they are "entertainers" when they are questioned about it..

If they were truly "just entertainers", they would preface every pontification with "ow I am just an entertainer, and this is just MY opinion..and then proceed with their "message"..but they never do that.. they present their nonsense with the sincerity of a "true newsman(woman)" and only add the entertainer part when they are cornered.

[donco6]

62. Agree 100% - good points.

Especially the playing both sides of the fence. "I'm a serious journalist/columnist" until someone nails their ass to the wall, then they're "entertainers." Pfaw.

[Catrina]

63. Don't forget Judith Miller (she had credentials, didn't she?) and

Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer. Or the WAPO Ombudsman who has a long list of credentials yet admits to using RNC talking points as a 'source'.

Howard Kurtz is another credentialed journalist who chooses to make fun of a US Congressman holding hearings in a basement because the ruling party refuses to allow the American people to hear the truth. Rather than report the real story, this so-called journalist ignored it and cheated the American people out of their right to know what the hearings were about and why they were held in a basement.

I could give a long list of examples where credentialed journalists like Judith Miller got it wrong, either intentially or through negligence, but I'm sure everyone here already has their own list.

I love Helen too and she is one of the few who tries to get the truth out of a bunch of liars and in doing so at least exposes them ~ but over the past four years at least, it was bloggers and independent journalists who made the facts available and that is why people go to the Internet to get the news in ever increasing numbers.

When credentialled journalists actually use their credentials, stop covering for this administration and holding back vitally important news from the people they work for maybe bloggers won't be so busy anymore. But they've lost the public trust and it's going to take a long time to get it back, if they ever do. Meantime, thank god for bloggers or we'd all be in the dark, knowing something was terribly wrong, but not knowing what or why.

The press has disgraced itself, credentials and all, and is complicit in pushing for a war that never needed to be fought. As of now, I see them getting worse, not better, which is why I never bother with them anymore ~ and I am way more informed than my TV viewing and NYT reading friends. They used to dismiss anything I told them if it came from the Internet but that's changed over the past several months as more and more cover ups and outright false information they believed because it came from the 'NYT!!' has been revealed.

[SoCalDem]

64. and i think they are very resentful of bloggers because now we

have easy access to information that previously only THEY had.. Until the internet came along, the only way to get to SEE research data, was to "live" at libraries photocopying stuff, subscribe to and SAVE a brazillion magazines, newspapers, or to pay someone to do this for you.. Most people's lives prevented them from doing that.

But NOW.. with a click of a mouse, you can literally find articles that THEY have written, or articles that are well researched and REFUTE what they are saying, or you can access technical data that sheds light on subjects...and you can also use a single "news item", and see how HUNDREDS of papers, radio/tv outlets actually covered it..and it's easy to categorize and save these things so they are readily available to throw back at the "reputable journalists" at a moment's notice..


We are watching them now..and previously they got away with sloppy or neglectful coverage.

We may not be "legitimate" journalists, but we are holding feet to the fire, and they are uncomfortable with our new role.

[thinkingwoman]

58. I love Helen, but...

she can't be right about everything. :shrug:

She's absolutely wrong about journalists and apparently has forgotten her history.