ping
Before you license journalists you might want to repeal the first amendment.
A license is nothing more than a way to eliminate your competition using the force of law and the barrel of a gun.................
This would be funny if it did not represent such a threat to our right to free speech, and if such a requirement was not right up the narcissist-in-chief's alley.
It occurs to me that given a stupid and corrupt enough congress (and we HAVE given ourselves exactly that), some kind of law requiring journalists to be licensed by the FCC might actually have a chance of getting passed during an Obama administration... strictly in the name of “fairness”, mind you.
They’ve already found a way to license the second amendment, now they want to license the first amendment. If they get away with that, how soon will they want to be the ones to decide what is a “real” church and start licensing religions?
I don't think it's supposed to be limited to "journalists," but then I am not a megalomaniac.
“I’m sorry sir, you’re not authorized to either have an opinion or ask a question.”
“You’re under arrest!”
Let's rephrase...
< What is a whore? A woman who performs a sex act for cash. So then, what is a prostitute, a call-girl, an escort, a courtesan? And what's the difference between a crack whore, who does 20 men a night at $10 bucks each, to feed her habit, and the $5000/night lady of Elliot Spitzer's dreams.
And what of the woman who accepts no cash, but allows herself to be flown to exotic locals, wined and dined at the best places, and then showered with baubles from the best jewelers? In return, she knows what is "eeeeexpected" of here..
These are all far more relevant questions than "what makes a journalist?"
It's too late.
If liberal elites outlaw our speech - restricting 'speech' only to "licensed" elites, we still have iphones, ipads, blogs that will appear and disappear quickly. We understand technology. They can't suppress everything.
The real reason newspapers are dying is because when the truth started coming out - they were exposed as purveyors of liberal myths... Their allegiance was to push an agenda at the expense of truth. That understanding - of who they really are - will never go away. It's why in public places when groups are together, the MSM is booed...
And what is journalism? Apparently, Holesgrove defines journalism as being solely the pursuit of and presentation of objective facts: something he doesn’t seem to think most bloggers are capable of. At one point, he describes All Things Digital writer Kara Swisher and TechCrunch writer Paul Carr as “journalists acting like bloggers,” but then adds later that he doesn’t think Carr is a journalist at all because he isn’t objective. After some more back-and-forth about TechCrunch, the author then comes to the conclusion that we have an “objective journalism problem.”Nobody can know that they themselves are objective. There are people who are trying to be objective, and there are those who are not even trying to be objective, but there is no one who is objective and knows it. Anyone who claims to be objective, or who presumes to know who else is objective, is not objective about themselves. But it is possible to discern that some people are not even trying to be objective. Anyone who claims to be objective, or claims that members of their own group are objective, is at that moment avoiding the painful humility which is the sine qua non for attempting objectivity.Anyone who thinks themselves qualified to license "objective journalists" is making no attempt to be objective. The trouble is that "objective journalism" is actually consensus wire service journalism.
IOW ATLAS SHRUGGED
The “anti dog eat dog rule”
upstarts are not allowed if they damage existing established companies AND they have to share their resources with the established companies.
(crony capitalism. I can’t believe part 1 did not make it at the box office)
How's about we have them making license plates?
The gnashing of teeth has been going on for at least 15 years, and over the past 10 years it has become downright nasty, with the dinosaur newsrooms constantly trying to affirm their relevance by getting socialists and goofball leftists elected against the will of most decent Americans.
They were surprised to see their Al Gore lose, but they were thoroughly flummoxed when Kerry lost despite pulling out all the stops. It was around that point they decided to stop even pretending to be "objective".
Their success with getting Ubama elected was too easy after 8 years of relentlessly beating up Bush, and so now they are wondering how on earth they are going to get Ubama reelected. I'm sure the Journ-O-listers are putting their heads together even as we post.
Over and over again, the writer commits the unpardonable sin of putting “objective” and “journalism” in the same sentence.
We can refer to the "professional rank" as the "Soviet" reporters.