You know what? I’m done with you, James.

Have a good one.

I’ve also been paid to write (and edit). It’s important for me to write well whether I’m being paid for it or not. For various reasons, some people simply can’t write well…for them, I hold no enmity. But for someone who knows better but can’t be bothered to provide a quality product, I can’t be bothered to consider anything you write to have any substance. You obviously don’t care…why should I?

I do not get paid to post on this site. I often do so while I am working, and thus, do not give each post much attention to detail. Certainly not the attention I give to copy I am paid to write. I often just write and post.

So yes, you got me of showing a lack of attention to the words I leave in the comment section of HotAir.

Now, get off your high-horse. It makes you look silly in this environment. I’d suggest if you want to add anything it, make it about the substance of what I’ve said.

Or you can be like Jaibones (sic) and attack my typos some more.

What the heck did they teach you in journalism school, if this wasn’t drummed into you at every opportunity?

You’re right, I didn’t spellcheck. Wonderful. Now care to comment on the SUBSTANCE of my post?

Thanks for bringing so much to the table, James. You’re insight is invaluable. Maybe lobby Malkin for a copyediting job.

(by the way, I didn’t self-edit or spellcheck this post, so if you could check it for me, that would be awesome).

Not only do you have to be a good writer (on dealdine, no less)

Tom_Shipley on May 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Earlier, I let this one slide, because apparently it’s not true. But even the increasingly popular lazy habit of using spellcheck for a single layer of editing would have caught that one.

Credibility comes with competence, Tom. You’re blowing it.

Great work, James. If I ever decide to hire a personal editor, you’ll be the first to know. In the mean time, keep pointing out typos in commentator’s posts, and you’re gonna have a bright future ahead of you!

I have journalism degree and know many people who work in the newspaper industry. I’d posit that I’m more informed on this subject than most people on here.

Tom_Shipley on May 28, 2008 at 7:32 PM

I think the wording you’re looking for here is “Me have journalism degree….”

The announcement of his (Mike Barnicle’s) resignation drew cheers and laughter in the Globe newsroom.

Assistant Metro Editor Joe Williams is one of the many staffers heartened by the decision to get rid of Barnicle.

“I think the Globe has to do a lot to win back the trust of the readers,” says Williams. “Everyone in the newsroom is willing to do it. But it will take a lot of work.”

Says it all really.

One guy is a disgraced columnist who was suspended for stealing material from George Carlin and was fired by the Boston Globe for fabricating a story, the other guy can’t even repeat Obama’s fabricationmis statement correctly.

While MSNBC didn’t get the sharpest tools in the shed, they at least had people who could speak from personal experience.

Hey Mike, go fabricate another column in the real news media! Where it really matters!

Together, these two are feted around town like some sort of “power couple” when all they really are is a couple of empty suits.

Leave it to MSNBC to hire this creep.

Agreed. Barnicle is jealous but also angry that he and his fellow political travelers no longer set the rules of what gets printed versus what the public doesn’t need to know. Drudge got his start not by what he reported but by what he revealed what reports Newsweak had scuttled to protect Bubba.

Gannett Corporation got another downgrade by S&P today. The old media snowball rolling downhill gets larger and faster.

Make no mistake, I’m a journalist apologist. Doesn’t mean I’m not right.

This is the NEW media. A place where ideas flourish and the truth can be uncovered when the old (biased) news media filter gets it wrong.

As I said before, there’s value in blogs acting as a media watch dog. Unfortunately, most bloggers who take on that role seem to have this attitude:

As far as attacking the reports without evidence…. we don’t need any stinking evidence. That’s called free speech, learn to love it.

I couldn’t have put it any better.

And, it’s funny how the “old” media fuels this “new” media. The reason newspaper circulation is down is not because of perceived bias, but because people prefer to to online to get information these days — but that information still comes from traditional newspapers. It’s just accessed on the Internet with more frequency.

This is the NEW media. A place where ideas flourish and the truth can be uncovered when the old (biased) news media filter gets it wrong.

An attack like that from such a man of maturity says one thing. He is jealous. Well maybe two. He knows he’s wrong

I have journalism degree and know many people who work in the newspaper industry. I’d posit that I’m more informed on this subject than most people on here.

Tom_Shipley on May 28, 2008 at 7:32 PM

What did Tony Soprano say? “You don’t need a gynecologist to know which way the wind blows.”

What exactly is illiterate about that post? As I’ve said before, attacking the prose of a blog comment is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Yes, I read newspapers (plural) everyday. Most of my comments about newsreporting is in reference to them. And I stand by my conclusion.

I have journalism degree and know many people who work in the newspaper industry. I’d posit that I’m more informed on this subject than most people on here.

If I remember right, Barnicle wasn’t a plagiarist like Doris Kearns Goodwin. He was a fabricator like Jayson Blair, which is actually worse in its own ways, since — unlike borrowing a factual passage from someone else — the fabricator just makes things up out of whole cloth, often because they’re too lazy to go out and do their job, and then try to pass the information and/or the people in the story as being real.

Actually, he was both. Not only did he make things up but he also ripped off George Carlin for one of his columns.

I’m saying that reporters have MUCH tougher and tighter standards than blogs. They work harder than bloggers. And the produce better work than bloggers. (speaking in general terms here).

Blogs rely and that higher quality of work to fuel their opininated posts. Bloggers also attack many journalists’ (whom them rely on) credibility WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE aside from their interpretation of what they’ve written. They often attack them for things they themselves (the bloggers) do on a regular basis.

Blogs have their purpose (which include, among the good ones, being a media watchdog). I’m not anti-blog. But make no mistake, tranditional news reporters work on a higher plane.

Tom_Shipley on May 28, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Judging from this illiterate pile of dung, Tom, you must be a blogger.

As for your conclusion, do you actually read any of the crap that comes from the “traditional news reporters”? Do you actually watch the television news, and listen to the wondrous reporting done there?

Your conclusion seems ill-informed.

In later years, after his getting fired by the Boston Globe Democrat, his moonbat self showed through and then joined the semi-Conservative Boston Herald.

I’m not saying everyone doesn’t have a day job or that anyone is forced to be a reporter. I’m saying that reporters have MUCH tougher and tighter standards than blogs. They work harder than bloggers. And the produce better work than bloggers. (speaking in general terms here).

Blogs rely and that higher quality of work to fuel their opininated posts. Bloggers also attack many journalists’ (whom them rely on) credibility WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE aside from their interpretation of what they’ve written. They often attack them for things they themselves (the bloggers) do on a regular basis.

Blogs have their purpose (which include, among the good ones, being a media watchdog). I’m not anti-blog. But make no mistake, tranditional news reporters work on a higher plane.

Tom_Shipley on May 28, 2008 at 4:45 PM

I’m not doubting it’s hard work. As for “MUCH tougher and tighter standards,” no doubt they exist but I don’t see them as improving the truthfulness or the quality of the work. I constantly see reporters using the same old tired phrases over and over again and using LOADED words depending on what the report is about.

For example, the Texas case in the news right now about the FDLS church and their kids that were taken by the state. In every report the “ranch” is called a “compound” …. why is that? I think that might be one of the “Standards” you are talking about and it stinks. “Compound” is a loaded word meant to invoke prejudice against those people. I could give you enough examples like that to fill a book, but I’m sure you get the idea.

So it seems to me these “standards” are actually just bias wrapped in organized new reporting policy.

I’m not saying that type of thing is always the reporters fault, I understand they have an editor they must please. But frankly I’m just not seeing any benefit to these higher standards you’re talking about.

As far as attacking the reports without evidence…. we don’t need any stinking evidence. That’s called free speech, learn to love it.

I think all reporting will get much better as a result of blog interaction. But naturally nobody likes someone looking over their shoulder, but that is exactly what the press has lacked for far too long.

Reporters and mainstream news in general has got away with murder for a very long time and there is a lot of pent-up anger in the public as a result. So news guys are going to get bludgeoned for awhile and they will either get better or eventually they won’t be the mainstream anymore. I think they will get better, they are already getting a little better.

Don’t know Make Barnicle either, but from the comments here, I’m sure he’s a nitwit, and a nincompoop.