[abb]

No comment necessary...

[highlander_UW]

Sometimes I do talk to sources and sometimes I do do my own research. So in a lot of ways what I do does cross the line into journalism, but I think there is a conception of the word "journalist" that implies a certain degree of impartiality or nonpartisanship which I clearly do not adhere to.

I wonder if he realizes his definition eliminates the vast majority of the MSM from being considered journalists as well. The White House press corp comes to mind as an obvious example.

[LoveDoc]

I love...absolutely love... the KOOK sites like Kos, Crooks & Liars and Media Matters. I've been censored by everyone one of them.

And, for sheer lunacy, nothing beats the Huffington Post.

Why are these sites so counter-intuitively helpful?

The more people read what Democrats REALLY think...

...And discover how paranoid, disturbed and simply freakin' scary they are... ...the better for all of America.

LoveDoc

PS Just another way, albeit unintended for the dems, that the Internet helps moves our country in the right direction!

[HawaiianGecko]

How on earth can this site be considered the most linked to site with only 90,000 users?  Seems to me that nearly every time I google something political, postings to Free Republic show up in the results, but never anything from Kos.

 

[Caveman Lawyer]

OJR: Not "journalist"?

Kos: No, absolutely not.

OJR: Why not?

Kos: I'm too impartial.

[Christian4Bush]

Would this be akin to the "army of lawyers" that the Democrats boasted would be in Florida to make sure that what happened there in 2000 wouldn't happen again?

Well, to an extent, they were right. Instead of a 537 vote margin, George W. Bush won by a margin of 380, 978 votes. Heck, if that's the case, bring on MORE lawyers!