First off, a little back story. You know the main stream media, right? Those boring people that you get on the television between american idol and gossip girl? The ones that make a nice writing surface for that overprice crossword puzzle you get sent every sunday? (I'm assuming. I have neither. And won't. I have nothing but contempt for this dilettante leechfuck rable. As you will too once you've finished reading this post.)
Weeeeelll. They seem to have a little bit of trouble with blogs. You know: like this one. Apparently, bloggers just copy all their hard research, and work, repackage it, and then bask in the public glory of it all.
Here, let me show you how it's done: instead of trying to write this post myself, I'm just going to crib a few other people's writing. Simpler, easier, and filling just as much space on the page.
Over the past months, I've heard several journalists make the same comment at various industry forums: That blogs are a "parasitic" medium that wouldn't be able to exist without the reporting done at newspapers.Well, boo hoo. Let's see how amazingly well these fuckers cover the news: maybe I should be going straight to the source after all. Another blogger's post, I rip off below:
I hear the frustration behind the comment. You bust your rear to get stories in the paper, then watch bloggers grab traffic talking about your work. All the while your bosses are laying off other reporters, citing circulation declines, as analysts talk about newspapers losing audience to the Web. It's not hard to understand why many newspaper journalists would come to view blogs as parasites, sucking the life from their newsrooms.
This post may be a statement of the obvious, but it’s an observation I had this morning. As is typical, I skimmed the Kindle versions of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal on my subway ride to work. I thought it was very interesting how the three papers described the audience at President Obama’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire last night.Well, well, you little sacks of shit with your fedora hats and your pencils at the ready: go run to the payphone and phone in your scoop. You couldn't report yourself out of a paper bag full of flaming dogshit, and yet you complain when people report on your reporting? Your writing and your point of view would benefit a great deal from a strong dose of objectionism, delivered with a swinging blow to the back of the head.
First up, The Boston Globe:Obama’s audience at Portsmouth High School gymnasium was tame. The bleachers teemed with Obama supporters… The president wound up preaching to the choir, which applauded wildly at his calls for action on healthcare – at one point breaking into a chant of “Yes we can!”Next up, The New York Times:Unlike many of Mr. Obama’s town-hall-style meetings, usually filled to the rafters with supporters, Tuesday’s meeting included skeptics from whom he sought out questions. At one point he asked that only people who disagreed with his approach raise their hands to be called on. There were plenty who responded.
Finally, The Wall Street Journal:Inside Portsmouth High School, Mr. Obama faced a friendly crowd, so much so that he sought out some tough questioners.And just to round it out, I checked out Fox News once I got to work:Obama faced no disruptions at his meeting, instead taking questions from supporters who soft-balled him opportunities to knock down criticism.….and The Huffington Post:The encounter was so friendly, in fact, that by the end Obama was even asking for skeptical questioners to come forward – to no avail.
Posts
