Mmm - and you care so much about accuracy, validity, yes? About "an honest trade?"

More so than anything else?

So then I look forward to your principled, loud stand, against the manipulation of science data, in the Bush administration?

Actually, one of the other reasons is the fact that the cost-cutting measures of monopolistic and only profit driven media, means that a lot of the "specialist" reporters, such as the investigate reporter as opposed to the beat reporter, a lot of the previous expertise isn't there. It's too "expensive" to maintain, if you want year after year 20% profits.

So, yeah, the unpaid volunteer bloggers have to take up the slack - IF you can trust a blogger to not come from a sophist/lawyer point of view, with the facts thus marshalled.

"Journalism school" and degrees were a waste of time.

And that goes for Education schools and degrees, too. The only thing they qualify you for is union membership.

And damn it, the two things are related. In both fields we're at the mercy of bogus and parochial "experts", supervised only by other such "experts", who are mainly interested in their own interests. And in doing ward heel work for the Democratic Party, which is no coincidence.

Some day we'll blog the NYT into Hell where it belongs, but you'll still have to send your kids to school somewhere.

Yup, they're clueless first and biased second.

How so typical JC, you point to the editing of a leftist fraud ....

Nothing about Carters comments about Gitmo ?

But is a bogus leftist journalism degree any better than any other leftist credentials ?

Lots of hard sciences are not yet bogus leftist garbage of postmodernist gulag religion worship of gaia, but give them time.

Sure the sokal hoax was a hoax, but the paper was published wasnt it ?

Koyoto is based on a fraud

JC writes: " IF you can trust a blogger to not come from a sophist/lawyer point of view, with the facts thus marshalled."

I don't think it was really necessary for you to engage in ad hominem. Some of the best bloggers are lawyers.

BTW, dont you find it kinda funny he pointed to the NYT as an authority on something.

With little exception, (there are some) the Times is basically "what would Satan Say, what would be Castros opinion?, what is the wackjob nutbar moonbat minions who worship Kim Jong Il's opinion?" and how can we smooth and polish it all so American dupes will buy into our leftist crap.

How can we make the good and the decent in America look bad today while covering up the crimes and evil intent of the left ?

I've had the same experience myself with regard to two subjects that I was intimately familiar with. One was by a Wall Street Journal reporter who wrote about mortgage trading while the other was only a grade-school play covered by the town paper.

In fairness, the reporters in both instances TRIED to get the story right. The Journal reporter over-simplified some very technical stuff to the point that what he wrote was wrong. The local reporter just didn't seem very smart to me.

Ever since, I just don't believe much of what the MSM tell me (even in those instances where I don't detect the outright bias that colors so much of what is supposed to be hard news).

"Used to be an honest trade?"

When was that, exactly?

#1 is kinda funny from the guy who spent a lot of rhetoric defending Dan Rather, Newsweek, et. al. long after it was patently obvious to everyone (in some cases, including the publications themselves) that they had a truth deficit. JC recently spent equally large amounts of electrons trying to argue that massive political bias and abuses in publicly-funded education systems were no big deal.

Coincidentally, the common denominator in every case was friendliness to JC's political interests. Coincidence, I'm sure.

So color me unimpressed with the passive-aggressive gambits.

Personally, I'd rather read about space policy from Rand Simberg than the New York Times. I'd rather read about military matters from Jack Kelly, Donald Sensing, Blackfive, Chester or a whole host of people with actual experience in the field than 99% of paid reporters.

These days, I can. Jack Kelly, again:

"Then, only after I've done that, do I look at our newspaper, and then only because it's our newspaper -- I stopped buying newspapers, period. I'd rather read stuff online and most of it's there. I'm an unlikely candidate being a middle-age man who grew up with print, used to read 3 newspapers a day and likes newspapers as a concept, and if I'm not reading them, and my daughter certainly isn't, she gets her news from other sources, if this is the wave of the future -- I'd better get accustomed to it."

We hear this again and again. I hear it from VCs, from bloggers, from regular readers. Look at the circulation figures from print media, and especially the age demographic.

Personally, JC, I could really give a damn whether you believe this, or like it. It is... and if you're going to play the game of trying to run down the messenger, you might consider that cyberspace leaves records of its own, and try to be a little less transparent in future.

#8 SAO... we noted and acknowledged that very point yesterday while quoting Mr. Kelly.

I'm assuming he meant "honest trade" as a figure of speech, though it could also be the human psychological tendency to unduly romanticize the "good old days".

He's totally dead-on about the "bogus profession" part, though.

SAO ,, hehe heheheeh,,, Yah, going even back to the (post) colonial days ... There are those that try however .. and one thing in common, they dont pretend to be free of bias, they instead are up front about it, they make no attempt to be neutral, while striving to be objective.. honest and transparent.

Those I can respect.

I think its a fraud to claim neutralty, nobody is, but honest,, how about that.

Lefties cant be honest, or they would be rejected, but thats their problem.

In fact, thats the leftist media's problem, their very problem, the very thing demanded, they cant provide, or they deep six their political agenda. thats the problem.

Look at the leftist fraud JC offered up top.

If they are honest ... poof goes the agenda placing the US economy under the control of the UN, which, is the whole point of the koyoto scam.

Raymond: going even back to the (post) colonial days

In fact, when Admiral George Cockburn's troops invaded Washington in 1812, one of the first things they did was burn down the local newspaper office, The National Intelligencer. Admiral Cockburn regarded them as a sort of Al-Jazeera.

"On August 25, the advance guard of British troops marched to Capitol Hill; they were too few in number to occupy the city, so Ross intended to destroy as much of it as possible. He sent a party under a flag of truce to agree to terms, but they were attacked by partisans from a house at the corner of Maryland Avenue, Constitution Avenue, and Second Street NE. This was to be the only resistance the soldiers met. The house was burned, but the soldiers were infuriated, and the Union Jack was raised above Washington.

The buildings housing the Senate and House of Representatives—construction on the trademark central rotunda of the Capitol had not yet begun—were set ablaze not long after. The interiors of both buildings, including the Library of Congress, were destroyed, although the thick walls and a torrential rainfall preserved their exteriors. Admiral Cockburn also entered the building of the anti-British newsletter, National Intelligencer, intending to burn it down; however, a group of neighborhood women persuaded him not to because they were afraid the fire would spread to their neighboring houses.

The troops then turned north down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the President's House. First Lady Dolley Madison remained there after many of the government officials—and her own bodyguard— had already left, gathering valuables, documents and other items of importance, notably a full-length painting of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart. She was finally persuaded to leave moments before British soldiers entered the building. Once inside, the soldiers found the dining hall set for a dinner for 40 people. After eating all the food they set about destroying the building.

Admiral Cockburn now ordered all the contents of the building to be emptied into the streets and standing on a printing press, he announced he would set it on fire so that "the rascals can have no further means of abusing my name". Fuel was added to the fires that night to ensure they would continue burning into the next day; the flames were reportedly visible as far away as Baltimore and the Patuxent River.

The British also burned the United States Treasury building and other public buildings. The historic Washington Navy Yard, founded by Thomas Jefferson and the first federal installation in the United States, was burned by the Americans to prevent capture of stores and ammunition. The United States Patent Office building was saved by the efforts of William Thornton—architect of the Capitol and then superintendent of patents—who convinced the British of the importance of its preservation."

The above history lesson is provided free of charge and without bias nor malice towards anyone but HE whom we shall not say out loud.

however, a group of neighborhood women persuaded him not to because they were afraid the fire would spread to their neighboring houses.

That Admiral Cockburn was a sporting guy. It wasn't right for The National Intelligencer to make fun of his name.

And boy, those really were the good old days - Patriots had previously demolished the Baltimore Federal Republican:

After the Baltimore Federal Republican greeted the beginning of the war with the opinion that Madison was a pawn of Napoleon, enraged citizens smashed the printing office and tore down the building. The National Intelligencer seemed satisfied at the attack on its rival, announcing that citizens had been "very peaceably engaged for two or three hours in demolishing the office."

Wistful sigh.

In the immortal words of Tony Blair:

"I know this is, kind of, late... but sorry."

Time, Commie Media hack: ... must say something good about Mao,,, must,,, rehabilitate,,,, must resurrect saint Mao...

Via Chenkoff

Speaking of Mao, it looks like Jung Chang (of the bestselling "Wild Swans" fame) and her husband historian Jon Halliday have written the definitive biography of the monster:

Just so you know where they stand, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday declare in the very first sentence of their impeccably detailed biography of Mao Zedong that he "was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime

Time commie hack Donald Morrison

Also missing is an attempt to explain Mao's enduring popularity in China. In a conversation with TIME, Chang ascribes that phenomenon to "brainwashing." But nearly three decades after his death, as New China races toward the industrial and military glory of which Mao could only dream, the man remains as well liked as ever. His visage beams benignly across Beijing's Tiananmen Square, long lines of visitors creep past his preserved corpse nearby, and restaurants are decorated with Mao memorabilia.

What was the real answer?

Why is Mao still so popular in China?
Brainwashing. People are deprived of the truth and inundated with books praising Mao. There's no free press to expose his activities.

Can you see whats wrong with this ?

The pro-communist, "70 Million dead, so what" Time leftist hack is also annoyed the authors dont laud Maos wonderfull accomplishments.

Reminding me of Walter Durranty "got to break a few eggs" or the leftist ethic ends justify means. The cause of communism excuses holocaust.

Any other way to take that ?

Any other way that would not be historically ignorant about the left ?

Another leftist media hack with a case of gulag chic. (laogai in China)

As a former, ahem, journalist (it was still reporter in the 1970s), and now career Naval officer (27 years), the argument against J-schools is sound. Journalism school teaches little about analytical thinking, the manipulation of facts, how to synthesize vast amounts of data, how fallacial arguments are generated, propagated and sustained, historical case studies, or network building. It does teach many "skills" that good journalists (reporters) either know or learn over time, and, therefore, represents a tradeschool for news outlets. My implicit suggestion here is that the news outlets have largely given up on TRAINING newbie reporters, and simply depend on the school to have provided them with the skillsets to integrate into the newsroom. THESE SKILLSETS DO NOT PROVIDE ANY HELP IN HOW TO INTEGRATE INTO THE WORLD, and this is where journalists need to be.

Interestingly, not long after I wrote the post you link to, I came across just such an example. In a discussion of Apple's forthcoming switch to Intel processors, there was a list of processors used by Apple in Macs over time. It left out two that were widely used: the 68040 (last non-PPC Macs) and the PowerPC 603 (lots of low-end machines around the time that the 604 was being used). Since this is a subject I'm intimately familiar with (being a long-time Mac user and a long-time IT consultant on systems integration), it served as an almost perfect dessert for the original point.

Sorry for the lack of a link; I have no idea which site I saw this on. (I think it was USA Today, but I cannot find it there, now.)

I once thought that blogging would replace the MSM. I am no longer sure that is the case. The issue of whom reads blogs period and which ones for the purpose of commerce(which supports papers, TV and radio,et al) is the real issue. This is not settled yet. either commercially or ideologically.

I've argued for some time that a journalism degree should be considered a defect in the resume of anyone who wants a job as a reporter. It wouldn't be enough to disqualify the applicant, but it would require explanation.

There are many reasons I have come to that conclusion. One of them is the columns by Floyd McKay in the Seattle Times. McKay was a journalist for many years and then a journalism professor for years after that. His columns are almost always biased and often contain factual errors -- which he nearly always refuses to correct.

My area of expertise is chemistry/chemical engineering, and the ignorance of your average journalist (not all of them) in this field is astounding.

An article on an Italian newspaper stated that nitrogen is poisonous, go figure. So how can we live breathing almost 80% nitrogen all the time?

As any good SCUBA diver could tell you, Nitrogen IS poisonous... in certain concentrations, given prolonged exposure. It becomes especially dangerous when oversaturation is followed by sudden depressurization. Hence nitrogen narcosis (and its beneficial flip side, laughing gas, for which many dental patients are astoundingly grateful), and also the bends (Think of opening a Coke can. Imagine your body as the can, and your blood and joints as the cola).

As any good SCUBA diver could also tell you, Oxygen is even more poisonous. Maybe we should start chainsawing every tree in sight, in order to clean up the air.

What's missing here, as usual, is the knowledge that would determine the factoid's relevance. Followed by the ability to put the factoid in context, if it is deemed relevant.

This is the biggest thing journalists are consistently missing these days, something we've discussed re: their military coverage. But it isn't limited to that. And it's made worse by the ideological biases chronicled in survey after survey.

The present system is broken and unsustainable. What will replace it? That's not clear yet.