Costly citizen journalism

[verdantFOX]

As for the profit motive, Eb, you make an excellent point. People can be corrupted by money. But that’s why we have business ethics.

It’s easy to pass off ethics as something industries avoid in their race to making a buck. But as I noted above lying is bad for business – any business, but especially one whose stock and trade is its credibility.

A lesson I learned long ago is that following your ethics (common sense as Nino so aptly put it) is good business. The reason ethics are taught at major universities is two-fold, it reinforces a moral backing learned in our youth, and it keeps you from bankrupting your company for short-term gain. Look at Enron. Those bastards were the most unethical business people in the world. They got rich quick and now they’re either dead or doing time.

Do people representing companies do unethical things? Sure, all the time. But it’s short-term thinking that will eventually bite you in the butt. Do we oversell stories so that people will watch that night? Sure, all the time. But what is the result? Fewer people watch. Notice that happening anywhere?

So where do they get there information? The Internet for one. Some times to bloggers. Those bloggers find all sorts of outrageous and sometimes down-right false things to get people to go to their site. Those people may visit that site what, once, twice, five times? It depends. How many times do they want to be lied to?

That’s the self-policing I was talking about. We don’t need a board or panel to tell us those people are lying dogs, we can figure it out for ourselves.

Good ethics is good business. And that goes for any business. If you plan to be around for more than a week, you better plan to be honest and dependable. Just like we used to be.

Alex and Dog, that's all I got for now. It's time for you guys to remind everyone what an irrational idiot I am.

[Nino]

If you want to see how severe this problem is search Google for "Bloggers lawsuits"

[Grip]

3,520,000 results on google for bloggers lawsuits....


its not that I agree with Rosy, but any panel formed to label who is a journalist would just be tainted from the start.

In the end, there will be enough lawsuits, bloggers killed for pissing off the wrong person, and vjs ran over covering traffic that the problem will police itself.

If you start giving out badges, its like turning journalism into a private club. And when the entire media is only owned by big buisiness (which is already pretty close) these little upstarts, will be the only saving grace.

True, most of these small upstarts and bloggers are the ones abusing what journalism should be, but they will either get sued, fade away or change.

[Lenslinger]

Grip's right. We don't need no stinkin' badges. I understand the motives of those who want to certify journalists, but Rosenblum could not pay for better sales pitch fodder. Then again, I'm a photojournalist AND a blogger. In both endeavors I employ a personal standard - one that has nothing to do with official seals and secret handshakes. I'm not questioning the judgement of those imploring authentication, but frankly the whole thing smacks of desperation. Count me out.

[eb]

Originally Posted by verdantFOX

"Identifying" as you put it, is at the root of my concern. By giving "stature" through identifying them as "one of us", we remove stature from others. We make the outsiders' information, facts, and opinions second-class. It is my position that no one has cornered the market on truth. I believe that was what the Founding Fathers tried so mightily to pass on to us.

Setting up a panel, board, or committee, no matter how well intentioned and qualified, leaves the door wide open to controling information. What happens the first time our esteemed delegates don’t like a person applying for official journalistic recognition? They don’t like the way the guy presents his views, or his arrogance, or worse, his politics. Be assured they will find other reasons than those to deny him entrance to the brotherhood. But they will deny him and it will happen more than once.

Fox, that's better. You actually gave us something to chew on.

You did say, "...they don't like the way he presents his views"
And yet, journalists are not supposed to present their views, or their arrogance, or their politics. Journalists are not supposed to be the story. So if someone is presenting his bias, of course, they could not be a member of a journalism association. They could still write, or communicate... and get an audience. They would not be stopped or forced to shut down. They might even get MORE viewers. But if they are consistantly presenting false information, lies, deceipt, one sided reports and opinion... and saying they are an ethical "journalist" while wanting to be a member of an association... then yes, I think they should be denied membership.

There will be a HUGE number of content producers in the future. Nothing to worry about there. The free flow of information is not at stake. Freedom of speech will thrive. So will freedom of the press. Nobody will be a second class citizen. Yet, journalists who adhere to ethics codes could indeed use that as a brand, as identification.

I liked this discussion. Do I think there will EVER be MANDATORY "show me your badge" "requirements?" Absolutely not. Nor should there be. Nor could there be.

This idea, and I like it, is about future voluntary - read "Voluntary" - identification of ethics code following - or journalism association membership. Perhaps "Certification" is not a good idea. But rather "membership" in a journalism association which requires ethics to be practiced publically - and membership can be revoked if the public complains to much about unethical journalism (not biased, but unethical).

I think that is something which in 10-50 years might be something members of journalism associations might consider promoting. They will "identify" themselves as members of an ethics association.

As for "Show me your stinkin badge" -- we already have to do that.

We need press credentials to enter official press conferences, get into disaster zones, park on sidewalks etc...

What will the future be when thousands of citizen journalists knock on the Governor's door asking to "cover him" for their website? Don't you think some form of "badge" or "certification" might be required? The fact is, we already must show our stinkin badges.

The idea floated here...just re-enforces this concept and strengthens it moving into the digital future.... not as a requirement - but as a voluntary separation and identification of ethical "journalists" and other forms of communicators. So in that regard, I don't think it's too far fetched, or dangerous.

Just an idea. And a good debate too. I have no idea if this type of identification will become a tool. It's an exciting time.

Is this a desparate attempt to save the traditional model of journalism? Not really. It might be a desparate attempt to save ethical journalism. If that's the case, then it's worth writing about. But I'm not worried. There are other forces that do apply...as Fox and MR have pointed out. People will find the information and sort through a lot of crap.
Yet the playing field is changing. What will it look like in 100 years? We'll never know.

[Nino]

Originally Posted by Lenslinger

We don't need no stinkin' badges. I understand the motives of those who want to certify journalists, but Rosenblum could not pay for better sales pitch fodder.

Actually Stewart, MR was there first.

From Rosenblum CitizeNews
Become A Credentialed Contributor
CitizeNews is building a community of credentialed video journalists whose work is memorable for the quality of storytelling. We realize there are dozens and dozens of video web sites competing for your work. We are striving to differentiate ourselves from this mass of miscellaneous video by offering unique craftsmanship, the result of your sincere and sustained journalism efforts.

[Chicago Dog]

Originally Posted by CitizeNews

Become A Credentialed Contributor
CitizeNews is building a community of credentialed video journalists whose work is memorable for the quality of storytelling.

Another in a long, long line of hypocritical turns by Mikey. He never ceases to amaze me.

I guess this is the part where we light our torches, raise our pitchforks into the ember-lit night sky, and scream "Oppression!"

Nice catch, Nino.

Originally Posted by verdantFOX

Alex and Dog, that's all I got for now. It's time for you guys to remind everyone what an irrational idiot I am.

Naah. I'll say this, though: it's sad that it took several people in a single thread to make you realize how unproductive it is to offer nothing but shoot-downs.

Originally Posted by Lenslinger

... I'm a photojournalist AND a blogger. In both endeavors I employ a personal standard - one that has nothing to do with official seals and secret handshakes.

LS, I enjoy reading your blog. You take great care and pride in crafting it. Unfortunately, there's many people out there who won't do the same. You and I both know this. If anyone's providing fodder, it's the bloggers who remain ignorant to high personal standards, like those you hold.

Others out there can say the same thing you just did: "I'm a photojournalist AND a blogger." Don't tell me that doesn't scare the crap out of you. With the effort you put into your blog, I'm certain you don't want it cheapened -- or worse yet -- destroyed by a wave of ignorance.

Sure, a "certification" might not be the answer. My college degree gives me some certification. Not entirely, though: the degree is a piece of paper that shows folks I know how to be a journalist (or photojournalist, as it were).

Aside from knowing how, though, journalists must know why. Unfortunately, there's a ton of folks out there who don't understand (or even know) the "why." Not a clue.

Rosenblum teaches very, very little of even the "how." He doesn't even touch "why." So long as he's able to sign suckers up for his boot camps by addressing the bare minimum of journalism, that's all he'll care about. Point a camera, punch a button, cut it on your laptop, post it to your blog for the world to see.

I agree with Alex: I believe it's no more dangerous than an AMS Seal. Nobody screams "Oppression!" when a station runs a promo with an assortment of sparkly, well-lit Emmys for five to fifteen seconds during prime time programming.

I'm certain every photojournalist on this board can come up with at least three reporters they'd love to see put to the certification test. There's people in this business who have no business being here. You and I both know it. Those are the kinds of people who hurt our profession.

We've got enough problems without having Joe Blow sign up over at Blogger.com, label himself a journalist, and use his extensive study of "The People's Court" to back his misguided-ass up.

[Canonman]

Originally Posted by Chicago Dog

I agree with Alex: I believe it's no more dangerous than an AMS Seal. Nobody screams "Oppression!" when a station runs a promo with an assortment of sparkly, well-lit Emmys for five to fifteen seconds during prime time programming.

Isn't that at least partly why the NPPA exists? I mean, when I became a member, part of the verbiage was that I practiced the ethics and standards of journalism as a condition of membership. Granted, it was a voluntary compliance and no certification was involved.

I also tend to think of bloggers not as journalists, but opinion columns. They reflect the viewpoints of those who write them. I mean, look at Lenslinger's blog. It's high quality and employs high standards, but it is still his opinion and POV.

It really doesn't matter what you do or don't do for a living, slander and libel are still applicable to all people.

cm

[Chicago Dog]

Originally Posted by Canonman

It really doesn't matter what you do or don't do for a living, slander and libel are still applicable to all people.

Right, but the point of this thread is that there's plenty of people out there willing to dub themselves journalists. They're not doing it because they're actual journalists, they're doing it just because they can.

Some might have "teachers" (Rosenblum, for example) who don't care to educate them about the dangers of slander and libel. They're out for the Almighty Dollar.

As a result, you've got thousands of bloggers running around -- claiming the title of "journalist" for themselves -- with no actual training.

Picking up a gun with the intent to fight crime without the proper training doesn't make you a cop; it makes you a vigilante.

[Brock Samson]

Hopefully the people who matter will be smart enough to know the difference between Journalism and Editorial.

Alas, we know that there are a lot of people who don't. My grandparents, for example. They watch Fox News, enough said, that's not an argument I want to get into at this time.

One thing to take note of, though, is that piss-poor journalism and/or television have a tendency to drive themselves out of business sooner or later. That is, they would really have to have something going for them to make it work. Far as I know, going downtown with a handycam and shooting a bad 10 minute story on a homeless dude, then putting it on youtube because no stations will buy it doesn't really pay the bills. So then it will have to become a hobby for these 'citizen journalists' because they have to spend at least 40 hours a week flipping burgers, because they spent their college money getting VJ training from Mr. Rosenblum.

I'm rambling, but I digress. To make a long story short, in the end it won't be a feasible way to get your opinions or whatever out there on a large scale because there is no built in consideration for the capital required to make it work.

Sure, the internet is available to the entire world, but you better be cranking out some damn good **** to compete with the other nine billion pages of information that are available, and the fact of the matter is, I doubt most VJ's are gonna be able to do that. I'm not saying that I would, either, but I went through the proper channels and put in the blood and sweat to get my stuff on National TV every week. There's a difference between that and deciding that, because you have something to say, the entire world will lend you an ear to listen with. Yeah, Walter Kronkite could have done that, but he spent 40 years proving himself first.

So now I wonder if anyone cared enough to read this entire post? Heh, that would be both poetically just and potentially ironic, if nobody did. But then, it would also prove my point to a degree. However, if it were to be read would it not be disproved because it is in regards to a relevant topic in a forum that interests people who have like-minded interests?

Screw it, I'm getting a beer. I'm thinking too much.

[eb]

When the internet becomes REALLY a place where video programming becomes vibrant - and it will - then you will see companies start up video channels. Let's say someone in your city, or state, or community is rich. They decide they want to start a news program channel. Yet they pretty much present one side of issues, or advocate only one side, or promote one side. Or they promote commerical businesses who pay them for promotional time. Or they pay money for content, or take money for air time. These things already occur. And it will probably get worse. When niche viewpoint programming gets onto the internet/video - and your TV set is hooked up to your internet - then you basically have an unlimited number of video productions. (Think 20 years from now when things really get interesting.) When you have a lot of far left, or far right "news" outlets - (Think Fox on steroids, or MSNBC on crack) along with lets say 100 other different news programs labeling themselves as "journalists" -- THEN it becomes more of an issue (for the public to know, or get a balanced presentation of facts.)

I am just wondering where the breaking point will come - when ethical journalism producers and networks -- will WANT to identify themselves as following a code of ethics.

Because anyone will have the CHOICE to produce and program whatever they want, and call it journalism. And viewers can watch whatever video viewpoint they want. Free speech thrives, but ethical journalism gets lost in the confusion. So I think there will be some outlets, and some viewers who will actually want to identify with a journalism code of ethics. That is when they will advertise themselves as members of journalism associations. And journalism associations will be required to enforce their membership on the basis of their ethics codes.

Either ethics are going to promoted, or they are going to be further and futher demoted.

News and information up to this point in history... has been a bit easier to distinguish. There are a small number of papers. A few TV stations and networks, or cable outlets. In the future... unlimited. When the waters get muddy, or when the road map becomes very confusing, people will want some direction, and journalists will want to identify themselves. So, while we discuss this in the current atmosphere.... I think the future is where the rubber meets the road.

[AlexLucas]

Well, I'm back after a couple of days.

It's good to see that Verdant actually got in on the conversation, and offered some real insight into the situation. Sorry I got testy about all of that. I don't like to be told I'm an idiot any more than anyone else. And I sure don't like to be put in a straw man.

Despite all that, welcome back to the discussion, Verdant.
We can talk, or we can swing swords. I am much happier with the talking part.

I am seeing what a lot of people are saying about the 'market controlling' the journalism.
But the truth of the matter as I see it, that's not a very Adam Smith, pure market model. Journalism is not a commodity. It's subjective, and recently, with the addition of fresh cost-cutting behaviors and outside market forces, it's just not a level playing field.
Rupert Murdoch, is, without a doubt, been buying the market out. Spending billions. Spent billions. Could actually be argued that he is responsible for the ascent of George W. Bush and his policies, and a definite creator of a 'rubber stamp of public approval' without it being passed in front of the public.
From a pure journalistic perspective, it is atrocious. And that's not just simply my opinion. It's the opinion of many. Many feel the way about CNN.
That's just the mainstream media.
Get into the blogger world, with DailyKos, or Drudgereport, or anything like that, and it sure isn't even exsisting with the journalistic standard.

That's my premise... here is my point.

A lot of you are arguing that 'the market will sort itself out.'
That's the classic Adam Smith argument. It barely works with things like apples and carts and prices. And those are commodities. Gas is a commodity. It's off kilter right now, without doubt, because it's not a pure market.
Most markets, are without a doubt, unlike the commodity markets you describe, and yes, I believe there is a market for unbiased information. It's a premium. And it sure as hell isn't a pure commodity market.
Saying it will work itself out is like saying that the car companies are going to bring back the electric car now that gas is $4 a gallon. It makes sense... people want electric cars now. So, by that simple argument, they'll come back.
They ain't coming back, because it's not a true market. No one is going to sell you a car with screwdriver maintenance and a 50 year life span if they have any control of the market.
And that's what I'm talking about.

The truth is, though, there is no way that you can make a simple market analogy for journalism, and expect it to work.


Journalism and free speech is not a 'fair market,' either. That's where that argument fails. With big corporate players, with bloggers that aggregate bull to herculean piles and fling it around the 'net, false journalists, and price cutting tactics like VJ, you're lucky if you can see the forest for the trees.

Anyone who thinks that 'the market will sort itself out' is, in my opinion, giving one heck of simple, ridiculously optimistic opinion of any economic model.

And let me add in one more thing:
The market can't really sort it out, because lying works.
It works brilliantly. Because, from the time when a kingsnake evolved to look like a coral snake, it was effective. Walking across a kingsnake gives you bad info. And you run with it, or better yet, from it. From the time when people were shooting in the bushes when they heard Orson's War of the Worlds on the radio, it should tell you that the opinions of others are, well, pliable.

That's deception on the most basic level. Deception works, very, very well. You just can't throw it out there, and expect by some mythical economic theory, that the good stuff will float to the top.
It is, in my opinion, a tad off kilter to even say good journalism will always be rewarded.
We just know that isn't true, right? We see it going down the wrong way, every day, it's why we get up and fight.

A simple model doesn't answer everything.
Just like communism wasn't ever really the "workers struggle against bourgeouis oppression."
Some things are just rhetoric.

Sample question:
In how many markets is the top station, without serious argument, considered the best journalistic station?

Just some things to chew on.

[verdantFOX]

No problem Alex. We seem often on the opposite sides of discussions, so conflict may be inevitable. We should just keep it civil. I'll try to do my part.

What I believe you are seeing with new Internet sites and major media consolidation is exactly the market working itself out. Those are the yin and the yang of the information market. If one doesn't like big media, one can find an easy alternative. The downside is that the Internet is difficult to navigate because there are so many possibilities. With old media you have predictability, relative stability, fewer choices, but more dependable ones.

What do I see happening in five years or so? I believe you will see the two grow closer. Each trying to adapt to the market by adopting the traits of the other. My key point is, we should simply let it happen. If we do, we'll have more choices and more credible choices. That's essentially what happened with newspapers and then raidio. It's now happening with TV and the Internet.

[AlexLucas]

Originally Posted by verdantFOX

No problem Alex. We seem often on the opposite sides of discussions, so conflict may be inevitable. We should just keep it civil. I'll try to do my part.

What I believe you are seeing with new Internet sites and major media consolidation is exactly the market working itself out. Those are the yin and the yang of the information market. If one doesn't like big media, one can find an easy alternative. The downside is that the Internet is difficult to navigate because there are so many possibilities. With old media you have predictability, relative stability, fewer choices, but more dependable ones.

What do I see happening in five years or so? I believe you will see the two grow closer. Each trying to adapt to the market by adopting the traits of the other. My key point is, we should simply let it happen. If we do, we'll have more choices and more credible choices. That's essentially what happened with newspapers and then raidio. It's now happening with TV and the Internet.

I'm not arguing the coming of it as a major force. Not at all.

I'm not arguing that big media isn't jumping on it now. Like they should.

I don't see the market 'sorting it out.'
No way. Hasn't before. Won't today or the next. Not the nature of the market forces. Tampering with the market is a basic human behavior for anyone in the game.
For information to be clear and honest, then the people playing the game have to be honest as well, and not tamper with the market.

Cmon. That's not even capable of being said with a straight face.

The market won't sort it out, because it doesn't want to. Nor do the corporate players, nor do the bloggers want to play fair in the game. Why would you want to play fair?

That's why I believe in a signpost for those looking for fairness in their reporting. That's all.

Puttiing your faith in the market is about as silly as putting your faith in the government. Both are bad religions.

Brock Samson said that sooner or later, the bad things tend to drive themselves out of the system... specifically this:
"One thing to take note of, though, is that piss-poor journalism and/or television have a tendency to drive themselves out of business sooner or later."
I have only two things to say about that:
Bill O'Reilly and Tila Tequila.
Both of them are propped up so much in their respective fields that they need to have kickstands attached to their ankles.

That, and "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" should be examples to counteract the truth that the good stuff sells itself in television, and it's an egaltarian system capable of being let go, because it's so free and open, and the good stuff just goes up the charts.

[Nino]

I have to admit that I�m not much of a �blogger�s surfer�. I don�t have the time to look for blogs and read somebody�s opinion based on��.somebody opinion, and like most of the silent majority, I�m totally disinterest in someone opinions, show me real facts and you�ll get my attention. The correct classification of most blogger should not be that one of �journalist� but rather �opinionist� (I just created a new profession) because that�s what they really are.

I posted this a few months ago, way ahead of this thread but you can see the direction that bloggers will be heading���self extinction.

This is a new definition that I�ve never heard before, Big Mac Journalist.

This past week I shot an interview with a well known retired sport personality and still very active in many areas.

Somehow the interview drifted into modern journalism and this is when he mentioned his very own definition of a new wave of journalists, The Big Mac Journalists as he calls them because according to him until last week they worked at McDonald.

I�m sure that his remarks will not make the show as it was unrelated to the topic, he was just venting, so before sending the tapes out I made a little transcription.

Here you have these new guys that show up with a camera that looks like they just bought in Walmart. The first thing they do is try to figure how that thing work. The camera battery is usually dead so they ask me if there�s an outlet that they can plug-in. After they find one they ask me to move because the cord doesn�t reach far from the wall. They use no lights just what�s there. I�m not vain but everybody like to see themselves half-way decent, I�m going bold and with the overhead lights these guys make me look like an upside down light bulb. Then they start asking questions, I give them my answer and is like talking to the wall, they�ll do everything but looking at me; they�ll check their notes and look at their Mickey Mouse camera to make sure it�s working, then when I�m finished they have no idea what I said. Doesn�t really matter because most of the times I have no clue of what their question is all about and when I ask for some clarification they don�t know it either. I ask them where they got their information and they tell me from blogs. YOU GOT IT FROM A F*@#* BLOG? You lazy bastard, and where the guy from the blog got it? But they have no clue, probably from another blog. There was a time when a journalist would research their questions and verify for accuracy, but no more, now as long as they can read it somewhere is good enough for these guys. My time is much too valuable, I rather be playing a round of golf than waste it with these clowns, no more interviews unless I know who they are and where the stuff is going. Web or not, even if it�s lousy it still has to be accurate; somebody might actually see that garbage.

Bloggers worst enemies are themselves, they are rapidly getting a reputation of bad journalists and like they say, give them enough rope��

The only way for most blogger to get information is from other bloggers and by reading or watching established news organizations and then formulating their own opinions, I can hardly call this journalism. For most this is nothing more than a venue to get something off their chest and many blogs are just ego trips. The most evident of these is RosenblumTV. Michael will go to any extent to find something wrong with the opposition and from a single incident that could be years old he will make a complete case to bad mouth an entire industry that rejected his ideas, totally and intentionally overlooking everything else that his targeted victim is doing right. This is the typical case of using a blog to be vindictive, self serving, ego building and self promoting, not to mention to take apart those who do not agree with him; and this is what it�s referred to as journalism? It doesn�t take a genius to see where this entire blog phenomenon is heading, once the system lose credibility it will also lose audiences, and this is happening now, no need to wait.

Bloggers do not have the resources not they�ll will be allowed access to newsmakers like established organization can; and although I can already see Rosenblum blasting the unfair power of such organizations dominating and monopolizing the news business and the need of democratization, read above what that sport personality had to say, the newsmaker himself will not make himself available to bloggers and this has nothing to do with the established news organizations, the individual newsmaker himself do not have confidence in bloggers as being real journalists and this lack of broad confidence from newsmakers as well as from the public will be the bloggers demise. Being a journalist is more than just a title on a business card, a true journalist in order to be successful has to first establish a reputation of fairness in order to have access to the newsmakers, this will not happen overnight but it might take years of hard work in order to build that confidence. Even established journalists that have violated this trust have difficulties getting information because nobody wants to talk to them, and I see this happening everyday when personalities refused to be interviewed because of past reports that they have considered unfair.

There are however many blogs that I enjoy reading and participating, these are non-political blogs directed to specific activities. Photography is also my hobby and there are many blogs just for photographer, they share information and skills and in my opinion these will survive and do well and some already do very well with sponsors and advertisers.

[Michaelrosenblum]

Any half-way decent journalist or blogger for that matter would provide a link.
So here's one:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/200...ortyou-decide/

[Nino]

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

Any half-way decent journalist or blogger for that matter would provide a link.
So here's one:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/200...ortyou-decide/

Then while on the subject let's add another one Michael, you took one bad video and used as your own propaganda for �we are better that they are� clich�.
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/200...-tv-news-crew/

If you have to go out of your way to prove of how bad we all are here's something to disprove your self serving theory, at least have the nuts to show that this is not a typical representation of video produced everyday by cameramen and that the video that you are trying to get so much mileage from it is nothing more than an isolated case. Care to see what work is being done everyday in this business?
http://b-roll.net/tv/
Here you�ll find hundreds of good to great clips of any level of video reporting, not an occasional one but everyday work, Mr. Fair Journalist, why don't you mention that for a change.

And what about this one, in an vain attempt to make yourself credible and prove that the odds of getting sued is microscopical you went out of your way to find one single case about bloggers getting sued that took place outside the US, and intentionally overlooked thousand of others right here in this country who are facing a real danger of finding themselves in front of a judge. Great and honest journalism Michael.

From Rosenblum:
Incidentally, here is one of the 100 (or 70 million) bloggers who have run afoul of the law. This is an American citizen and blogger arrested in Singapore for 'insulting' the Singapore Supreme Court and forced to pay a fine.

The First Amendment, by the way, protects us from this kind of action here... so far at least

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1

Singapore, a country that 'controls' its bloggers in a way that people like Nino would really admire, is nothing to aspire to.

And this is what you refer to as fair �journalism�? More like deceptionism.

[Michaelrosenblum]

What the hell is 'deceptionism"?
In any event, yes, I think fair journalism.

PS. Thanks for the additional link.
No one reads my stuff the way you do.
(Not even my mother!)

[Nino]

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

What the hell is 'deceptionism"?
In any event, yes, I think fair journalism.

Deceptionism it's a fantasy word Michael, just like you and your type of blog fantasizing of being a venue of fair and real journalism, a detachment from reality, a figment of your imagination.

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

PS. Thanks for the additional link.
No one reads my stuff the way you do.
(Not even my mother!)

Wise woman

[Chicago Dog]

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

Any half-way decent journalist or blogger for that matter would provide a link.

Speaking of which, Mikey, I'm still waiting for you to provide that link in which you claim I made anti-Semitic comments here at b-roll.net.

Am I to believe you don't practice what you preach? How sad. Let's look into that.

You wave the banner of "Free Speech," claiming people have nothing to worry about. How many folks on these boards have you threatened with legal action? I'm one of them:

Originally Posted by Michaelrosenblum

You, however, are skating dangerously close to slander, and if you had the courage to identify yourself by name (or have the courage to come over to the Downtown Sheraton and identify yourself) I will be more than happy to test the law.

What?! You're willing to "test the law?!" By your claims, that's not possible! Free Speech for everyone!

You claim we're trying to "control" citizen journalists when a few people kicked around the idea of journalist certification -- while you and your band of buddies at CitizeNews offers the exact same concept. From ctzn.tv (specifically, http://ctzn.tv/about/become-credentialed):

Originally Posted by ctzn.tv

CitizeNews is building a community of credentialed video journalists whose work is memorable for the quality of storytelling. We realize there are dozens and dozens of video web sites competing for your work. We are striving to differentiate ourselves from this mass of miscellaneous video by offering unique craftsmanship, the result of your sincere and sustained journalism efforts.

Upload two examples of your news video, keeping each video sampling to four minutes or less. We will review your submission and contact you regarding becoming a credentialed CitizeNews contributor.

Hypocracy at its absolute finest.

You're not a journalist, Mike. You're a hypocritical, cowardly scumbag who doesn't really care what happens to the suckers to whom you sell a bag of very wrong ideas. You tell people what they want to hear instead of what they should be learning, all in the name of the Almighty Dollar.

You are what's wrong with this business -- period.