Someone approached me on the streets tonight and told me about it. Check out his view by clicking below.
target="_blank">Charles Blog
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I was with Randy up until the very end when he said that as long as bloggers don't break laws or commit slander they should be considered equal to journalists.
By the very definition he says you should be considered equal, you can't be. This blog routinely equates the Irvings to Hitler and Rogers Television to Nazis.
Clean it up and stick to the issues and not over-the-top personal vendettas and you would have a case for journalistic credibility.
You didn't get the full ringing endorsement you could have - he said bloggers are journalists if they don't slander. You can work on that though and maybe one day, if you're a good boy, you'll be a journalist.
Try to find the last mention of nazi's or hitler by charles, its been a long long time-even the picture is gone. However, depending on how its said, it can still be accurate. You'll notice that long ago he switched to 'old germany' and explained exactly what he meant by it. Some people just don't like unpleasant analogies. However, the whole issue is moot, first of all, whats in a name? Second, if Irving media or government media defines a 'journalist', who'd want to be one anyway? The only people who will take that moniker are ones who get paid to sit on their asses and talk. Who gives a flying *&^% what Randy McKeen says anyway, we've got the New York Times commenting on it and polish newspapers commenting, who gives a rats ass what a blowhard whose life is spent behind a mike says?
5 comments:
I was with Randy up until the very end when he said that as long as bloggers don't break laws or commit slander they should be considered equal to journalists.
By the very definition he says you should be considered equal, you can't be. This blog routinely equates the Irvings to Hitler and Rogers Television to Nazis.
Clean it up and stick to the issues and not over-the-top personal vendettas and you would have a case for journalistic credibility.
Randy is bang-on the money with his analysis. Very well done although I imagine some of his colleagues would disagree.
You didn't get the full ringing endorsement you could have - he said bloggers are journalists if they don't slander. You can work on that though and maybe one day, if you're a good boy, you'll be a journalist.
Try to find the last mention of nazi's or hitler by charles, its been a long long time-even the picture is gone. However, depending on how its said, it can still be accurate. You'll notice that long ago he switched to 'old germany' and explained exactly what he meant by it. Some people just don't like unpleasant analogies. However, the whole issue is moot, first of all, whats in a name? Second, if Irving media or government media defines a 'journalist', who'd want to be one anyway? The only people who will take that moniker are ones who get paid to sit on their asses and talk. Who gives a flying *&^% what Randy McKeen says anyway, we've got the New York Times commenting on it and polish newspapers commenting, who gives a rats ass what a blowhard whose life is spent behind a mike says?
12:53, McKeen was on side.
Post a Comment