Monday, May 12, 2008

*Real* journalists? Pffft!

OK, I'm pissed.

I just read a blog from a guy who was touting that he was a "real" journalist because his blog "broke a story." Then he chided an actual newspaper for "claiming to break the story.

Puhleeze.

The "story" that was broken was a link. No details -- just here it is, folks.

The newspaper, on the other hand, had a reporter who actually made phone calls and dug for facts. Furthermore, the reporter's name -- his REAL name -- was at the top of the story. Not some pseudonym or cutesy screen name to hide behind and to abandon when the heat's too hot in the kitchen.

I like blogs. Hell, here I am spouting off on one. And I won't deny for a minute that I'm using my own cutesy screen name.

Is this a news source? HELL NO. I'm not even going to pretend it is. It's my forum for letting it all out. Sometimes, I use it as a sounding board about current events. But breaking news on it? Hardly.

I've broken a few stories in my day -- using my name. My real name. Have I received criticism? Sure. If I put it on the line, I should take my licks like a big girl. In my real name.

There are some good blogging news sources. But there are more (and they're breeding like bunnies, folks) bad ones who want to play "journalist" without getting their hands dirty.

To give the devil his due, there are some bad journalists out there, too. (Jayson Blair or Jean Cooke, anyone?) But, believe it or not, they're a rarity.

Most journalists are underpaid and overworked. They care about getting the most accurate facts to you. They confront politicians on behalf of you.

Sometimes, what looks like a good news story just doesn't have the facts behind it to come together. The reputable journalist will recognize that. His real name and reputation are on the line, after all.

OK, this is disjointed and in all likelihood, not my best work. But there it is. And even without my real name on it, I'll take my licks.

After all, I'm on both sides.