Gut Rumbles
 

January 20, 2005

heh. I think this might be me

Never mind where I found this. I might hurt somebody's feelings with a link. But I do like the blind egotism and the arrogance in this statement.

The News Beast must be fed. Some bloggers are as contemptuous of news professionals as some news professionals are contemptuous of bloggers. I read about one blogger who basically said journalists are not intelligent. REALLY? How MANY does he know? If you vetted that statement you'd probably find not too many; certainly anyone who has talked to any editorial board (even if you disagree with it) or editor (even if you don't like the paper) will usually find someone who knows an awful lot and agonizes over the choices presented to the public.

If he was referring to me, I can answer that question. I know a BUNCH of them and very few have ever earned my respect. I KNOW how much effort most of them put into research and I also know that their biases drive the point of the story. Show me ONE "environmental" reporter who isn't a tree-hugging, green-weenie, who relies on Greenpeace press releases to stock her columns (notice how most environmental reporters are wimmen?) and maybe I'll say I'm mistaken.

But that ain't gonna happen. The evidence is out there. "Reporters" ignore it.

And that's the issue: if blogs...which necessarily reflect the writerís personality...can get info out quickly on issues, they'll play a key role. If they degenerate into sites that merely attack and name call politicians (and other bloggers) they'll be fringe info sources.

Unlike the New York Times? Unlike Dan Rather? C'mon. You can do better than that.

My blog has no political agenda and I hate EVERYBODY. I don't claim to be breaking news, nor do I want to. I kinda like being on the lunatic fringe of blogdom, where I have found a happy little niche. I like doing this a lot better than I ever liked doing "real" journalism, which I did, once upon an unhappy time.

I never found editors to be all that smart.

Comments

you've got an unclosed blockquote tag there, rob.

Posted by: caltechgirl on January 20, 2005 01:32 PM

Journalists are generally pretty stupid compared to real professionals like lawyers, engineers, accountants, doctors, and so on. You don't have to take any aptitude tests to be a journalist. If you can talk and write (even badly), you're in. You don't even need a high school diploma; Peter Jennings doesn't have one.

Lawyers take the LSAT. Doctors take the MCAT. Engineers take various specialty GRE's. Accountants take the CPA exam. And they're all college graduates.

On top of all that, journalists are often communications majors, which means they have to learn difficult skills like how to apply hair spray. Communications majors are the idiots at every school. When you want to use a cliche for "moron who attends this institution," "communications major" just rolls out.

Journalists stupid? Yes, sorry. Let's move on to something genuinely controversial instead of arguing about well-settled fact.

Posted by: Steve H. on January 20, 2005 01:52 PM

"Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects" - Will Rogers. What this country needs is another Will Rogers, and I think (Acidman) you're the closest one I've seen yet.

Posted by: Phil on January 20, 2005 01:57 PM

I think said commenter is confusing education with intelligence. I'll not quibble that most reporters are educated but I'll agree with Acidman that very few of them are intelligent.

Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on January 20, 2005 02:47 PM

No political agenda? Bwahahahahahaha Good one Rob!

Posted by: Eliza on January 20, 2005 07:44 PM

Just want to say I read more of your words than any the those printed in NY Times's. I beleive you way over Danny boy. Keep up the words, they do matter. Peter

Posted by: Peter on January 21, 2005 05:51 AM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.