Replies

I’ve been saying this for years...I think it especially needed now because “bloggers” don’t have the same legal protection as “journalists”. Lawyers must have a license to practice, they must uphold a level of integrity.

If a journalist is going to have special privileges then yes, they should have a license for it that can be revoked if they clearly violate journalistic ethics. Then we can have actual “news organizations” made up of licensed journalists that are clearly separate from bloggers and non-journalists.

“I’ve been saying this for years...I think it especially needed now because “bloggers” don’t have the same legal protection as “journalists”. Lawyers must have a license to practice, they must uphold a level of integrity.

You don’t want that. After a while, the ‘ethics committee’ ends up looking like the UN Human Rights Commission.

Free speech is ugly. Candy Crowley didn’t make it any prettier.

There used to be a thing called ‘The Naked News’. I know why it was invented, but frankly, to me, it took the infotainment business to its logical conclusion. If you aren’t going to report facts, then why hire real investigative reporters (a redundant title created by TV marketing people in the last 20 years)?

Fox has sort of taken that tack - hire hot women to report news that is more to the right of the typical propaganda, but then again not quite fair either.

The Net is going to hammer the journalism business to the point where it will be subsidized by special interests (as they pretty much are today).

Fox has become so bad of late I don’t bother watching any more. The last one over there hot enough and smart enough was Jamie Colby, and she’s only on Saturday’s and Sunday’s. Everybody else is too tired looking for me to tune in even for the eye candy.