another 'bloggers aren't journalists' column

Then don't even write about the rumors.

 

Now if you bloggers would only follow that advice...

 

A counterpoint:

http://www.detroittigersweblog.com/2007/11/newsflash-reporter-hates-bloggers/

McCosky isn't specific, so who knows if that's the blog in question. It seems more like he's calling any online forum a blog.

 

Stereotypes exist for a reason.
[/quote]

Dearest Chris,

So then, it's OK to make stuff up?

If I'm writing a column, is it OK to create a fabricated storyline about the Jewish guy stealing money from the lazy Mexican who fell asleep on the sidewalk after becoming tired because he had to out-run the fast black dude in a race for some fried chicken?

Is that cool?

 

McCosky rants about bloggers just spewing out opinion and not actually talking to anybody. Then in the next two items of his column he just spews out opinion, about ESPN and Kiki Vandeweghe, without actually talking to anybody.

 

We can go ahead and solve this debate right now, forever, in one paragraph.

Bloggers CAN be legitimate journalists. No doubt about that. But not many bloggers ARE legitimate journalists, or even interested in journalism.

If TheBigLead wants to get Talking Points Memo on the phone to better understand why what he does doesn't pass my standard of blogging journalism, I'm convinced that can be arranged.



"So Mr. Marshall, can you go over the attribution part again?"

 

That made me laugh extremely hard.

 

They will lift facts and segments of stories and cut and paste them onto their blog. Rarely, if ever, though, do they bother to credit the source.

Huh? I know there are blogs out there where the writer is trying to play the insider by citing things he's "heard" or rumors floating around, but the majority I've read will "cut and paste" an article with a link and the author's name, and then comment on the news.

 

Oh, and I'm also a fan of this line in the column:

"If we rip somebody in an article, you best be sure most of us will confront that person the next day and take whatever medicine we need to take."

I'm sure he means "most of us will BE CONFRONTED BY that person the next day"...

 

Not to discredit you TSP, I'm going on a rant about douchenozzle's column:

Written like a guy who acts as if his shit don't stink because he's a journalist. Stuff your arrogance someplace where the sun don't shine.

How does one correlate to the other? Blogs aren't trying to compete with "legitimate" media. Their actions theoretically should have little or no bearing on ours.

You don't need a journalism degree to be a good journalist. Journalism ain't rocket science. Obviously, you failed that part of class.

Most of which are common sense.

Try telling that to the Jayson Blairs of the world.

This is the only point I might concede. If I'm in the right mood.

How did THAT bug get up your ass? If someone libels on the Internet, it's still libel and it's still a potential lawsuit. And courage? Unless you're talking about dodging bullets and IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, expressing your opinion is still an act of courage if you disagree with Dubass.

If they do that, it's a real problem. When I had my own blog that I updated semi-regularly, I posted links to stories rather than claim it as my own work.

I agree. Perhaps by doing, you know, real reporting, he might get to the bottom of what really happened to Zumaya. Then he could write a more topical column on the difference between going on rumor and writing something based on fact.

 

Oh, I don't mind. I just pulled the exact quotes from his blog so TBL could understand his point, since TBL couldn't understand it. I was going to refute it point by point as well, but had to go to the bathroom.

 

This might clear up a few things:

http://www.detroitsportsrag.com/b2evolution/index.php