No Basic Protection for Bloggers?? FUCK THAT!  

Saturday, April 02, 2005

David Shaw, you should be ashamed of your sorry self.

Bloggers ARE journalists. My blog (and every other one for that matter) is as accurate as the opinion page of your communist rag of a newspaper - in most cases even more accurate, I'd be willing to wager.

BLOGGERS require no journalistic experience. All they need is computer access and the desire to blog. There are other, even important differences between bloggers and mainstream journalists, perhaps the most significant being that bloggers pride themselves on being part of an unmediated medium, giving their readers unfiltered information. And therein lies the problem.

And I suppose you had a shitload of experience on your first job? Many bloggers do a better job than you do. Perhaps it bothers you that many conservative bloggers have a more intelligent audience than your newspaper?? Oh, and can it really be said that the LA Times is a "mediated medium?

If I'm careless - if I am guilty of what the courts call a "reckless disregard for the truth" - The Times could be sued for libel ... and could lose a lot of money. With that thought - as well as our own personal and professional commitments to accuracy and fairness - very much in mind, I and my editors all try hard to be sure that what appears in the paper is just that, accurate and fair.

It's a wonder they haven't been sued already. When was the last time your paper actually reported on the positive things going on in Iraq or Afghanistan? Something of real substance instead of this piddly little "insurgency" you fartknockers keep obsessing about. Why not some positive coverage of the elections held in Iraq? Since I don't read your paper, I searched your site on "Iraq" and "Elections" ... One article. The obsession with the "insurgency" started in the second sentence. I doubt there are many Iraqis that would call that kind of reporting "fair" and "accurate". That, coupled with your paper's nationwide reputation as a left-wing rag, shows a clear bias toward the moonbat position. Bend over, here it comes.

The First Amendment protects my free speech and press rights here on my blog, just like it does your communist propaganda machine. Shield laws? Not necessary. The true difference is that my viewpoint isn't filtered out in the name of grammar and taste. Of course, my grammar is usually better than that of the dumbasses who proofread most newspapers. It's fucking annoying to read them.

BUT bloggers also took the lead in circulating speculation that what appeared to be a bulge beneath Bush's jacket during his first debate with Sen. John Kerry might have been some kind of transmission device to enable his advisors to feed him answers.

No credible evidence has emerged to support that charge.

OK, but the above-mentioned article clearly implied that the "insurgency" in Iraq was a bigger and more important story than the election. No credible evidence has emerged to support that charge, either you fuckwad. Real nice that you turn to pro-Bush stories being true (Rathergate) and debunking anti-Bush propaganda in an effort to hoodwink the President's supporters into buying your bag of shit-goods.

Also kind of neat that you call Matt Drudge "a tipster and a gossip" and "part of the same solipsistic, self-aggrandizing journalist-wannabe genre" when the guy is head and shoulders above your sorry ass. Get over yourself you fucking loser.

I strongly favor such a (Federal "shield") law, and in this climate we have to be careful about when and under what circumstances we apply and assert the journalist's privilege. If the courts allow every Tom, Dick and Matt who wants to call himself a journalist to invoke the privilege to protect confidential sources, the public will become even less trusting than it already is of all journalists.

That would ultimately damage society as much as it would the media.

The public less trusting of the media? You are missing the point completely. The public's already total distrust of the media is not a result of anything to do with protecting sources, you imbecile. It's a direct result of a bias with which the public doesn't agree and which you morons won't even admit to. Why do you think there are so many bloggers in the first place?? This is what you get when you do things the way you've been doing them. Society has already been damaged by the media, particularly media like your left-biased paper that won't admit its bias. Most bloggers do not work under that false pretense. Read any of my posts (OK ... yesterday was April Fool's ... Can't you take a joke?). Shit, look at the name of this blog. Any question in your mind as to the bias I have? Seems to me "the media" could use some damaging, and we bloggers are just the people to provide it. Thank God for the First Amendment. It's the only shield we need.