Meanwhile, the traditional news media chewed over what the arrival of online commentators — mostly untrained journalists whose stock in trade is the sharp opinion, often quippy — meant to the political process. "Obviously, the official media don't quite know how to deport themselves in relation to the blogs," said Orville Schell, dean of the graduate journalism program at the University of California, Berkeley. "If they adopt them, it's like having a spastic arm — they can't control it. But if they don't adopt it, they're missing out on the newest, edgiest trend in the media."
Over all, the very nature of the blog — all spin, all the time — seemed to suit the coverage of a news event where the drama was carefully scripted, and the nominations were a sure thing.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the bloggers was to create what the Democrats would like to see come November — a Blue State nation. On television the party depicted itself as moving toward the center. But to follow the proceedings online was to burrow, link by link, deeper beneath the blankets of ideological fellowship. On LiberalOasis, for example, one found dozens of links to like-minded warriors, among them The American Prospect and a Web site called Class Struggle. In cyberspace, left-leaning bloggers have managed to create an America where Republicans simply don't exist, at least as anything more than useful abstractions — like Eurasia and Eastasia in "1984."
Where to begin with this silly, defensive garbage?
"Mostly untrained journalists"? I love that. As if attributing quotes to "unnamed" sources, as if simply typing up what other people tell you in a way that conforms to your preconceived story line takes training! What do they do? Slog through the swamps in South Carolina on their bellies with a cell phone, a PDA, and a laptop?
Without giving too much away, to do my job--shit, just to be allowed to do my job--required years of graduate school, where I had to thoroughly learn about every area of my profession that I might come into contact with. Just to do my job, I had to take a licensing exam which lasted for a couple of days. And I have to take continuing education classes--a bunch of them--every year of my life just to make sure I still know what the fuck I'm talking about when I do my job.
Do you know what's required of a "professional" journalist to "professionally" report on our government?
Jack fucking dick.
Are they trained and educated in history? In Constitutional law? Are they even required to have the slightest grasp of how our government actually works?
Most of them have journalism degrees. Which means what? They've got about zero knowledge about what they write about. But they have studied a whole lot about how other people, who also didn't have any idea about what they were writing about, wrote about their mystery subjects, too.
When I read a "professionally" trained journalist write about my profession, I fucking howl with laughter. They have no idea what they're talking about.
They quote the incompentents and the lunatics of my profession and give those fools as much credence as the highly qualified and competent people. And why? Again, because they don't know enough about what they're writing about to tell the difference.
"Professionally" trained journalists? They're gossips. They tell you what other people told them.
Sure, there are some excellent journalists out there. There are people who do the work, who do the research, who actually learn about their subject matter. Sy Hersh is one, Gene Lyons, Joe Conason are others. Greg Palast is a tremendous investigative journalist, who gets the documents, does the research, does the leg work, and knows what he's talking about. And there are others.
But most of them are just quoting people. They're looking for quotes that will fit perfectly for their story line.
Not "professionally" trained? Like Jason Blair? Like Stephen Glass? Like Judith Miller? Like Susan Schmidt?
Fuck, how about Jeff Gerth? He won the highest, most prestigious award for "professionally" trained journalists in the country, the Pulitzer Prize, for writing a series of articles which turned out to be not true.
And he's not the first.
Christ, if I submitted work, again, in my profession, which was as sloppy or as inaccurate as what passes for "professional" journalism in the New York Times, I would find myself before an ethics board reviewing my credentials.
What a fucking joke these people are.
Oh, yeah, bloggers haven't received the kind of rigorous training to know when to pass on unsubstantiated rumors from sources who refuse to allow their names into print? Dear "professionally" trained journalists, how did that whole Whitewater thing turn out? What about Travelgate? And, oh yeah, any word on what's in Sandy Berger's socks?
Oh, that's right! All that stuff turned out to be bullshit, mindlessly passed on by "professionally" trained journalists.
And the very nature of the blog is "all spin, all the time"??? Jesus Christ, the whole reason for the existence of blogs, the only reason people feel the need to blog at all is because "professionally" trained journalists don't appear to have the God given sense they were born with to seperate the "spin" from the facts.
How else do you explain a national media which reported for years and still reports that Al Gore said he invented the internet? How else do you explain the continuing stupid reporting that John Kerry voted against body armor for our troops?
You clowns do nearly nothing but pass spin on. Like it was facts.
And bloggers spend most of their time pointing out incredibly obvious mistakes of "professionally" trained journalists. Mistakes that are so simple that these "professionally" trained journalists could avoid them themselves if they even bothered to do something as easy as a freaking Google search. Never mind Lexis.
I mean, what is their excuse for being so fucking lazy??? Half the time, they could read their own damn papers and be more aquainted with the facts than they appear to be.
And then the big finish: democratic bloggers have created a world where Republicans don't exist? How foolish can the New York Times be? Democrats existed in a world where Democrats didn't exist. In the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC! A world where the majority of Americans opposed going to war without the support of the U.N., a world where the majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, a world where the majority of the world opposed the Iraq War, only to unbelievably read and see enthusiastic pro-war, pro-Bush stories day after day from our "professionally" trained journalists.
Blogging exploded because journalists weren't doing their damn jobs.
And now these same lazy fools are going to write stories about the inaccuracies of the internet, of bloggers???
Jesus Christ, do your job well. And then you can make silly, snide comments about the "amateurs" who are doing your job for you.