Irony, Defined
Yesterday I went to a thingie at the National Press Club that was held in celebration of National Freedom of Speech Week. Part of the programming included a panel discussion that examined "... among other issues, whether online journalists and bloggers should enjoy the same free-press protections as those in the more traditional media of print and broadcast ..."
You can probably guess what the general attitude was among these "freedom of speech" lovers. If it were up to these folks, the Federalist Papers might never have been published and distributed. This hack (major claim to fame is that he covered the OJ trial) was particularly annoying. You should also know that said hack now sports his own blog here.
The attitude of journalistic officialdom on this issue is just incomprehensible. I mean, what are they missing? Any grade-school student understands that the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights are connected to individuals via the “hook” of their role as citizens. NOT, as one might think obvious, their roles as professionals of any sort. Freedom of the press requires nothing more than a press, and a blog is a press.
Posted by: res publica | 19 October 2005 at 12:41
If it were up to these folks, the Federalist Papers might never have been published and distributed.
Um, the Federalist Papers were originally a series of essays printed in the New York Independent Journal...
Posted by: NTodd | 19 October 2005 at 13:53
And they were published under a pen name, etc.
Posted by: Roxanne | 19 October 2005 at 14:01
That Hack (Manuel Medrano) is so full of it, he can't help padding his own resume. He claims he covered the "...trials of O.J. Simpson, the Menendez brothers, Reginald Denny and Rodney King, among others..." I regret to inform Mr. Medrano that Reginald Denney was never on trial for anything, he was a VICTIM of a crime. I suspect he also meant he covered the LAPD 4 trial, since Rodney King was never prosecuted for the arrest that resulted in his tragic beating.
But I am probably asking too much, to expect such a hack to be accurate about his own work.
Posted by: charlie don't surf | 19 October 2005 at 14:11
The New York Independent Journal was the blog of its day. It didn't have a satellite, Istanbul bureau, photography department, etc. It was words, full stop.
Posted by: A Kossian | 19 October 2005 at 14:12
So, a lawyer is allowed to be a journalist, but a blogger isn't?
Posted by: KathyF | 19 October 2005 at 17:33
How about a Republican Leadership "school" like James/Jeff Guckert/gGannon. Worked for that jackoff. Sorry, I didn't mean to compliment him.
Posted by: nellieh | 19 October 2005 at 17:58
I wonder what those icons of accurate, unbiased reporting would think of some of the stuff I write, particularly my essay on How to Rationalize Domestic Terrorism.
Posted by: Weapon of Mass Disturbance | 19 October 2005 at 19:43
Come on! Everybody knows that bloggers can't possibly live up to the high standard of integrity being demonstrated by print media (like, say, the NYT) these days.
Posted by: BroD | 19 October 2005 at 20:53
Just such tidbits as Charlie Don't Surf brought up demonstates the current caliber of "news" people.
Posted by: Sister Faith | 20 October 2005 at 14:06
I hate tooting my own horn, or do I? But anyways dealing with the press and their acceptance of blogs and bloggers, seems someone somewhere went and found a way to make bloggers acceptable to the MSM.
Please see here for more details because I really don't want to flood your messages with all of it at once.
http://home.comcast.net/~incubus52/mainstream.html
Posted by: IXLNXS | 20 October 2005 at 23:17