Originally Posted by blandman
Great point. You're wrong, use an example where the system you say is at fault agrees with your point!
There's a lot I'd like to discuss on this topic, but it's all incredibly political. But you've got journalists like Glenn Greewald try to bring a bit of transparency of government and suddenly every publication in the country has every political writer put out an op ed piece that essentially lambasts him as a traitor. Regardless of your point of view on that particular topic, it's pretty damn apparent that you're impressions of traditional journalism is, at best, completely flawed.
You obviously don't want to engage in a serious discussion. I know precisely what I'm talking about because I was part of the industry. Most of my examples would be considered political in nature because I covered hard news, but I could point out that I was given -- earned -- a raise and a promotion to a bigger newspaper in my chain after I wrote stories about corruption and financial problems in a Nevada casino that subsequently ceased being a major advertiser.
I know what I am talking about. I worked in newspapers for decades working in a number of chains, in part because of the way chains were buying and selling newspapers. I guessing you were doing other things at the time.
I don't know if any of that is relevant to my point that if an Internet blogger has a financial incentive to get as many hits as he can to a posting, that he does not have an obligation to the truth, especially since people will click on outrageous things they know not to be the truth.
And it has nothing to do with my point that an Internet blog that does not specify a source for a fact is not a credible source, especially when I hold newspapers to the same standard.