David Shaw (left) of the Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed published Sunday which implies journalists are accurate and bloggers are inaccurate. He doesn't mention Steve Doocy (middle) of Fox News or Judith Miller (right) of the New York Times.David Shaw writes that "many bloggers ...don't seem to worry much about being accurate" ("
Do bloggers deserve basic journalistic protections?," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 27, 2005):
Then David Shaw
fails to name EVEN ONE BLOG which is unconcerned about being accurate.
The only website he names is "The Drudge Report," which isn't a blog. It's a news-portal.Shaw even admits the weakness of his example, writing, "Drudge may be more a tipster and a gossip than a true blogger."
While David Shaw correctly identifies one website by a non-journalist which is inaccurate/misleading (Drudge), I can name two journalists who are inaccurate/misleading:
Steve Doocy of Fox News and Judith Miller of the New York Times.On Friday, I wrote a
blog-article about Fox News' Steve Doocy talking to a
psychic about Terri Schiavo on a recent "Fox & Friends."
This is bogus as all psychics are frauds.If I'm ever asked to name a source, I should have as much protection as Steve Doocy does.
I care about accuracy.
Steve Doocy may be indifferent to accuracy.
Or Steve Doocy may be a believer in psychics and the supernatural, who consequently has a warped sense of what constitutes accuracy.
Either way, I deserve whatever protection Steve Doocy gets.
More at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_03_28_la_times_op_ed_bashes_blogs.asp