Durbin wonders: Does First Amendment apply to bloggers, Twitter?

posted at 3:01 pm on May 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to the Obama administration’s attacks on the Associated Press and its representation in federal court that Fox News’ James Rosen is a spy for asking questions, one has to wonder whether the First Amendment applies to anyone in the Age of Hope and Change.  Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Senator Dick Durbin whether Barack Obama’s promise to have Eric Holder look into cases of abuse that he personally approved represents a conflict of interest, but Durbin dodges that question and talks instead about the shield law proposed repeatedly over the last few years as the appropriate Congressional response to the scandal.  However, Durbin asks what exactly “freedom of the press” means in 2013, and wonders aloud whether it would include bloggers, Twitter users, and the rest of the Internet media:

Here’s what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  Press at the time would certainly have meant newspapers, which were the high-tech information revolution of the day. It would also have included pamphleteers, perhaps even more than newspapers, as pamphleteers helped drive revolutionary sentiment.  Their modern-day analogs would arguable be bloggers and Twitter users, those who reported news and proclaimed opinions outside of the establishment press.

However, Durbin’s asking the wrong question.  The question isn’t who gets protected, but what.  Journalism is not an identity or a guild, but an action and a process — and anyone engaged in that activity must be treated equally before the law.  A shield law based on membership via employment in privileged workplaces or certified by guilds doesn’t protect journalism, it becomes rent-seeking behavior that ensures that only the large players get protected, as I wrote ten days ago.

Durbin’s question isn’t even the biggest non-sequitur in this argument.  The biggest non-sequitur is the shield law itself, which wouldn’t have even addressed the Rosen or AP situation.  And considering that the Obama administration ignored existing statutes in both cases, why should we believe they would obey a shield law when it got in their way?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Dick.

Eren on May 27, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Journalism is not an identity or a guild, but an action and a process — and anyone engaged in that activity must be treated equally before the law.

Very good point.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Thanks to the Obama administration’s attacks on the Associated Press and its representation in federal court that Fox News’ James Rosen is a spy for asking questions

Beside the general absurdity of Rosen “spying” … anyone in Barky’s junta accusing any American of “spying” is projection of the highest order. Barky’s junta has done nothing but harm and injure American security and American interests while actively giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies. This whole administration should be tried as traitors – even aside from the numerous other un-Constitutional and criminal acts they’ve committed non-stop since Jan 2009 … and before.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Journalism is not an identity or a guild, but an action and a process — and anyone engaged in that activity must be treated equally before the law. A shield law based on membership via employment in privileged workplaces or certified by guilds doesn’t protect journalism, it becomes rent-seeking behavior that ensures that only the large players get protected, as I wrote ten days ago.

citizen journalism

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Dick.

Eren on May 27, 2013 at 3:05 PM

head…FIFY

LaRepublican on May 27, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Durbin….if there’s one guy I CANNOT stand besides Obama, it’s him.

Please, oh please Lord, create a miracle and give us a conservative to run against him.
Maybe this is the guy…
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/05/kelly-considers-run-against-durbin.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZIlJFM5JI

tencole on May 27, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Liberals don’t like free speech because they can’t control the narrative and they don’t like criticism. Debate also slows them down. The First Amendment impedes all the ‘progress’ they want to impose upon us.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Durbin, Schumer, and Pelosi walk into a bar…

SouthernGent on May 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Now, the WaPo and the NYSlimes … they have engaged in spying when they published real national security secrets during the Bush administration. They should have been pursued and prosecuted then, but too many on the right were worried about “overreach”. So, instead, they watch as the retarded Sukarno goes after journalists for embarrassing the junta (and not doing anything that reveals any national security info or anything even close) and are now arguing that no one should impeach/prosecute Barky and his criminal gang … because it will be “overreach”.

You just can’t win with the Vichy Right. They are determined to lose – anything and everything.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:14 PM

They don’t call him Dick for nuttin.

petefrt on May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM

So the Second Amendment isn’t the only one the left despises…

Russ in OR on May 27, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Wonder if ol’ Durbin has a twitter acct. or a Facebook page that he uses for champaign raising?

Maybe it should be restricted….

Barred on May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM

One of the traitors of the land.

Schadenfreude on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

There are five rights granted and defined within our First Amendment. Each clause is necessary in order for the First Amendment to exist. Without each individual clause the amendment would be empty.

One problem is that too many bloggers think that publishing their ideas equates to journalism. It doesn’t. Journalism may not require schooling but it does require training. Without sufficient training you will have no experiential context within which to understand your actual rights under the First.

For instance, many on the right complain about the AP style guide. You don’t have to use AP Stylebook. But a style guide is necessary. That and other fundamentals of journalism get nixed by a lot of strident bloggers who think that blogging is the second coming.

Blogging is publishing. If you’re not publishing news you’re publishing gossip or opinion. If you want to blog news, learn to write news.

Here’s another thread wherein those who have always complained about journalism and journalists will chime in as if they agree all of sudden.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Durbin, like all liberals, is seeking a way around the Constitution to stop the things they don’t like hearing. We’re used to the names liberals call us and the accusations they make, but their arrogant egos can’t handle the things we say about them. For example, does any pro-infanticide liberal like being called a baby killer? Not that the term will change minds, but it still sticks in their craw.

Of course, too, the recent scandals are tarnishing the liberal brand. They don’t want that to happen, and can’t stand having less than total control of the narrative.

This dinosaur’s political career needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Liam on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Limit freedom of the press to hand type set, one sheet at a time presses. Or how about allowing freedom of the press to all media?

rbj on May 27, 2013 at 3:21 PM

One problem is that too many bloggers think that publishing their ideas equates to journalism. It doesn’t. Journalism may not require schooling but it does require training.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s ridiculous.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I’m not so sure about that Bill of Rights thingy.

Dick Durbin

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM

“Grandpa, please tell us again about when you were young and you could freely post information and read other peoples posts on the internet. Tell us about this first ammender…thing you used to have”

“shhhh. Yes Dear, I’ll tell you but make sure that this is just between us. You know what they will do to Grandpa if they find out I’ve been talking about these things.”

BoxHead1 on May 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM

However, Durbin’s asking the wrong question.

Durbin couldn’t possibly be as obtuse as he sounds. I imagine the obtuseness was intentional, that he was speaking for effect not message, and that he was laying the groundwork for upcoming internet speech regulation proposals.

petefrt on May 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM

That’s ridiculous.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You have such a need to disagree with me. You gave zero thought to what you said. You’re a clown. That was ad hominem.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM

The Libs love to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.

“It was written for another time…”

The sad thing is most people will brush this type of thinking aside, giving the Lib the benefit of the doubt, as if they just don’t understand the meaning of the words…

They understand, only too well.

That’s why they’re saying the things they are.

The Bill of Rights is the only thing keeping us from going under. The Libs know it so they must play to the ignorance of the low-information voter, ie, basically a hefty chunk of the voting public in this country.

Durbin knows damn well the 1st Amendment means the same thing it meant 237 years ago.

catmman on May 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM

That was ad hominem.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM

You don’t know what “ad hominem” means. You said that journalism requires training and I responded directly to that idiotic idea by saying that it was ridiculous, which it is.

You require training on the use of “ad hominem”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Modern Liberals are huge supporters of free speech as long as you speak freely in support of them and their goals.

clippermiami on May 27, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’m forwarding this link to attackwatch, Ed.

Hope your taxes are in order. ;)

wolly4321 on May 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Durbin knows damn well the 1st Amendment means the same thing it meant 237 years ago.

catmman on May 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Yep. This is it exactly. And conservative bloggers should call him (and every Dem/Liberal) out on it every time it comes out of his mouth.

“Stick that in your Liberal pipe and smoke it, Durbin!”

PatriotGal2257 on May 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Blogging is publishing. If you’re not publishing news you’re publishing gossip or opinion. If you want to blog news, learn to write news.

Here’s another thread wherein those who have always complained about journalism and journalists will chime in as if they agree all of sudden.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Considering that the Schools of Journalism began teaching “journalist majors” that giving the facts wasn’t enough but that you needed to interpret the facts in 1963. The so called new media including the AP and their style manual are publishing nothing but opinion pieces also.

chemman on May 27, 2013 at 3:31 PM

The so called new media

new = news

chemman on May 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM

One needs training in order to practice journalism. Schooling is good. Working a beat (obits or sports are a good start) is the best.

Kids report innately. Adults need to be trained.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM

One problem is that too many bloggers think that publishing their ideas equates to journalism. It doesn’t. Journalism may not require schooling but it does require training.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Uhhh no it doesn’t.

Chris Hitchens used to talk about this a lot. He was never “trained” as a journalist.

If people don’t find what you do entertaining or informing they won’t read you.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:34 PM

“shhhh. Yes Dear, I’ll tell you but make sure that this is just between us. You know what they will do to Grandpa if they find out I’ve been talking about these things.”

BoxHead1 on May 27, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Of course that dear grandchild knows what would happen. She isn’t going to become a squad leader in the OFA youth corps by denouncing non-family members.

Happy Nomad on May 27, 2013 at 3:34 PM

chemman on May 27, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Exhibit A

It’s cute that you don’t realize that your diatribe is emblematic of what you are denying.

I understand your feelings. The problem is that you allow your feelings to obliterate your fact pattern…which started out pretty well.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:35 PM

One problem is that too many bloggers think that publishing their ideas equates to journalism.

Who is the authority that defines ‘Journalism?’ You? Obama? The Press Guild? It shouldn’t matter what protected speech is called or what people think it should be called. If it is or isn’t ‘Journalism’, doesn’t matter. It’s protected speech all the same.

Journalism may not require schooling but it does require training. Without sufficient training you will have no experiential context within which to understand your actual rights under the First.

So, anyone who isn’t a ‘Journalist’ doesn’t understand their rights under the first amendment? Only the elite ‘journalist class’ understands their rights?

Ridiculous.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 3:36 PM

You regularly accept AP stories as fact UNTIL you disagree. If I am wrong name one alternative news source that you have ever cited here at HA. If you want bonus points, find a story about the AP leaks not reported on by a major news corp or run on a major newswire.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

If I have a conversation with you on the street corner is that not protected speech? If I have a conversation with you in any public or private venue are we not exercising speech and is this not a constitutionally guaranteed right?

What difference does it make if we converse in speech through the medium of verbal conversation in person or through the proxy of a place – the internet?

What that evil little thing Dick Durbin would actually do is quite totalitarian in nature. He would create a “chilling” effect that would quell the marketplace of ideas. And for what? Our safety?

Kevin R on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

And considering that the Obama administration ignored existing statutes in both cases, why should we believe they would obey a shield law when it got in their way?

Exactly right.

Alinsky on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Working a beat (obits or sports are a good start) is the best.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Let us when you make into the 21st century.

Lol.

An “obit beat”

Lol.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Who is the authority that defines ‘Journalism?’

You’re so blind you can’t hear. Journalism is news. News is derived from fact-gathering. Start there.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Liberals don’t like free speech because they can’t control the narrative and they don’t like criticism. Debate also slows them down. The First Amendment impedes all the ‘progress’ they want to impose upon us.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Debate was extremely important during the 1960′s when those liberals now controlling the narrative were just trying to get “their message out”. They then vociferously defended and promoted the first amendment to include everything from pornography to actions such as burning flags. Were they staunch defenders of the right to express opinion freely? Sadly, as their actions (and Durbin’s statements) demonstrate, no. That was merely a necessary predecessor to their rise to power. Now that they are in charge, the one thing that they cannot abide is any dissension; therefore we see the rise of the campus speech codes, corporate “diversity” programs that allow firing people for expressing and holding personal beliefs, and universal “tolerance” movements that are really tolerance of behaviors exclusively endorsed by the left and intolerance of anyone who disagrees.

Just like so-called environmental laws ostensibly passed to protect endangered species are often used exclusively to stop progress by the identification of some obscure sub-species of a subspecies; the left’s adoration of the First Amendment was used exclusively to enable their rise to power where they would then be able to start suppressing the free speech rights of those fellow citizens they deem below them.

AZfederalist on May 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

However, Durbin’s asking the wrong question. The question isn’t who gets protected, but what.

Exactly. People like Durbin love free speech as long as they’re the one’s doing the talking.

tgharris on May 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

One needs training in order to practice journalism. Schooling is good. Working a beat (obits or sports are a good start) is the best.

Kids report innately. Adults need to be trained.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Of course you don’t need training to practice journalism. I could cite countless examples. BUT, you need trained to be a good journalist. One of the truly scary things about this corrupt evil regime is the way the media does not question the administration about things that needs to be questioned. They simply dutifully report the administration talking points- scandals what scandals?- but they even defend the indefensible. They’d be howling if it were there parents who were being monitered but some guy from Fox? The bastard is probably guilty.

Happy Nomad on May 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Obits are one the best training ground for journalists. You mock what you don’t know.

How many newsrooms have you seen? What story have you ever reported?

You’re funny, but ignorant.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

learn to write news.

Here’s another thread wherein those who have always complained about journalism and journalists will chime in as if they agree all of sudden.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

As usual….you’re a pompous ahole.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

BUT, you need trained to be a good journalist.

No. You need training to be a journalist. What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline. Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

It’s just as paradoxical as the law. Why do people hire attorneys when they know they’re innocent? Even when they know the law? Because that person is trained in the field and sees things amateurs miss by a mile.

You clowns in here can’t even retort with facts. You’re talking conspiracy and media bias, etc. Those are not facts. Yet you would submit those ideas as news everyday.

Get training or your just blogging. Train yourself. It’s very easy once practiced.

Here’s a tip if you can’t tell news writing from blog ranting you’re not a journalist.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

As usual….you’re a pompous ahole.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

sad face

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Obits are one the best training ground for journalists. You mock what you don’t know.

How many newsrooms have you seen? What story have you ever reported?

You’re funny, but ignorant.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Something an intern does isn’t journalism.

Sorry.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

For instance, many on the right complain about the AP style guide. You don’t have to use AP Stylebook. But a style guide is necessary.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

That’s right, Hog. The AP is the place to go for “real journalism”. How else, without the AP stylebook, would the AP “journalists” (trained and schooled and all-around certified, real, professional “journalists”) know how to properly submit a fake photo to a “real” news operation?

You crack me up. LOL.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM

The first amendment’s “freedom of the press” isn’t about newspapers, etc. specifically. It is the written equivalent of “freedom of speech.” At the time there wasn’t television, radio or the internet to disseminate the free speech. Without freedom of the press, the freedom to print multiples of copies of speech, the “freedom of speech” clause is meaningless. Today’s bloggers, twitterers or anyone else engaged in written speech, are the “press” indicated in the press clause. No journalism degree or narrowly defined “news” restrictions exist.

Usful Ijit on May 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Publius didn’t have a domain, or IP addy, or a SS#, or a bank account. The IRS didn’t have his medical records.

He may have been more free to speak his mind, but even back then he chose an alias.

wolly4321 on May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Now watch them complain that I’m commenting too much on the topic. Hilarious.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

. What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline.
Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Clown.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

You’re so blind you can’t hear. Journalism is news. News is derived from fact-gathering. Start there.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM

No. We’re talking about protected speech. You are trying to suggest that blogging isn’t in the same class of speech as ‘Journalism.’ when regardless of what the speech is labeled or whatever you want to call it, it’s all protected speech. That’s the point. You seem to be suggesting that certain speech not be protected because it isn’t ‘Journalism’ and you said that people who aren’t ‘journalists’ don’t understand their rights.

You seem to think that only an elite group be allowed to report or have opinions. This is exactly Durbin’s thinking.

Liberals hate the Internet. Any free-flow of information is bad for them. They can’t stand not being the gatekeepers.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

CH …you’re flogging yourself as we speak eh?

Get a life .

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM

sad face

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

ass face?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM

He may have been more free to speak his mind, but even back then he chose an alias.

wolly4321 on May 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Use a verifiable but anonymous source/reporter interface.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM

No thanks. I prefer reverse cowgirl.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Get training or your just blogging.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Clown.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Does the 1st amendment apply to US Senators, like Durbin ?

J_Crater on May 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Clown doesn’t even know proper grammar.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM

ass face?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Not even plastic surgery and a brain transplant would help him.

MelonCollie on May 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Clown doesn’t even know proper grammar.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM

He’s still in Clown Training.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Blogging is publishing. If you’re not publishing news you’re publishing gossip or opinion. If you want to blog news, learn to write news.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM

You see, the thing here is that the First Amendment was designed to protect the free expression of opinion. Now, given the current state of journalism, where even the news is written with opinion interlaced into the news story, if by nothing else than the use of loaded terms, I can see where this might cause confusion. However, the real emphasis of the First Amendment was to protect the citizens’ right of expression.

AZfederalist on May 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM

And considering that the Obama administration ignored existing statutes in both cases, why should we believe they would obey a shield law when it got in their way?

Exactly! But no worries, Barry and Company would obey the “new” laws.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

GarandFan on May 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Get training or your just blogging.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Can’t really think of any major stories broken by the “major media” over the past decade.

I can think of a couple broken by some bloggers.

I can remember the “major media” falsifying the news a several times though.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Ahem

Perhaps I should learn to spell the word “you’re” like I’ve told so many others. What’s my line? Something about grade-school.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Capitalist Hog, for the record, please state that, because you are not a trained journalist, you should not be allowed to publish or otherwise make public any facts that the Obama administration deems unfit for public hearing.

Thank you.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

. Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

You’re dumber than you appear. What a joke. That makes NO sense.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Bloggers break stories all the time. What does that have to do with anything?

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Perhaps I should learn to spell the word “you’re” like I’ve told so many others. What’s my line? Something about grade-school.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Considering the topic of this thread?

You’re hilarious.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM

A style guide is neccesary?

No,, I don’t think so. You cite the AP?

Good God you are a fool.

I give the hardcore left more points for intellectual honesty.

What style? Dianne Sawyer?

wolly4321 on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Capitalist Hog, please state for the record that, since you are not a trained journalist, no post or comment that you make in any medium can be considered factual.

Thank you.

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

But your first clause is idiotic Tetriskid.

Can’t really think of any major stories broken by the “major media” over the past decade.

First, whom are you quoting? FAIL!

That you can’t “think” of any is not empirical data proving anything except your ignorance. Also, aside from the few stories you’re thinking of BIG JOURNALISM breaks stories every day. That’s where you get your news idiot.

Hot Air does not have one reporter available for day to day news. They send Ed to Blogger’s Row but that’s a few days. The fact that you’re so blind and only want to complain about the media bias is telling.

I made this same mistake though. That’s why I recognize it. That’s why I know your limitations.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

. What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline.
Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

So ass face what error did you make in this sentence?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I’m starting to get the feeling that Capitalist Hog is really Jayson Blair or that idiot from the New Republic rag … Stephen Glass. Or maybe Hog is just some loser journalism adjunct?

Whatever, he is pretty funny.

Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Thanks, CW, for catching that. I totally missed that nugget. I haven’t stopped laughing since you pasted it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM

northdallasthirty on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

One, I’d be lying. Two, you’re an idiot if you don’t know the difference between comments and news writing.

Thank you though for making your distaste for me known. That’s all you care to do. You’re not engaged in genuine discourse. You just want to get in your complaint against the so-called troll.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Name one.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

The question isn’t whether the First Amendment protects bloggers, Twitter-users, and the rest of the ‘new media’.

The real question is “Why wouldn’t it?”

Unfettered and feckless use of these media are still subject to the laws concerning libel, defamation, slander, and the like.

To argue that a separate and new law is needed for these media is nothing less than an argument for censorship. It’s pure crap. Grow up; be an adult for a change instead of a petulant cry-baby.

ss396 on May 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Bloggers break stories all the time. What does that have to do with anything?

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Perhaps because it completely blows the following out of the water:

No. You need training to be a journalist. What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline. Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

It’s just as paradoxical as the law. Why do people hire attorneys when they know they’re innocent? Even when they know the law? Because that person is trained in the field and sees things amateurs miss by a mile.

You clowns in here can’t even retort with facts. You’re talking conspiracy and media bias, etc. Those are not facts. Yet you would submit those ideas as news everyday.

Get training or your just blogging. Train yourself. It’s very easy once practiced.

Here’s a tip if you can’t tell news writing from blog ranting you’re not a journalist.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

OK, now is the time where you say we took you out of context and that’s not really what you meant.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to see blog ranting, most of your posts serve as good examples.

AZfederalist on May 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Get training or your just blogging.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Just want you kind folks to know he is not related to me or Gohawgs.

arnold ziffel on May 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Thank you though for making your distaste for me known. ……

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Some irony there.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Thanks, CW, for catching that. I totally missed that nugget. I haven’t stopped laughing since you pasted it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Yeah, I’m typing too fast to too many people. But that’s what line editors are for — lucky this isn’t a news article.

But my point was that the average person does not tell stories well. Ask a cop on scene at a collision. Ask your wife next time she wants to get the scoop on what you did the night before.

I misspoke. Oh the horror. But my clarified point stands.

You realize that reporters do exactly what we just did, right? You just reported and uncovered an error of mine. Excellent.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM

many more errors to come…from all of us

If you’re writing news those errors can be fatal. In a blog post, they’re fodder for your detractors. Have at it detractoids.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Is this clown really suggesting that I first need to be trained before my written words become protected speech?

steebo77 on May 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Bernie Madoff – Missed it (only by about 20 years though)

Iraq War – Missed it (luckily we didn’t have to go to war or anything)

I’m sure there was one story the “pro” journalists got right though.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I misspoke.
Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sure.
/

You’re so full of errors. I am not sure how we should decipher your pots.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Source/reporter interface= error 404. not found.

Wanna try again?

wolly4321 on May 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Is this clown really suggesting that I first need to be trained before my written words become protected speech?

steebo77 on May 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Durbin or Capitalist Hoglet?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM

The main reason I suspect conservatives don’t go into journalism is because it really is a p*ss poor way to make a living.

Journalists are among the shabbiest professionals outside of school principals. I suspect that if more of them wore suits and ties more conservatives would find the profession appealing. Yes, that’s shallow.

But I really do liken the group to AA — a lot of smoking, drinking and denial of drug use is common. There’s a reason they’re not first responders.

Don’t go into journalism for money. You won’t make any.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I’m not a trained journalist or anything fancy like that, but I do believe it’s a fact that this statement is too dumb for words.

steebo77 on May 27, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Is this clown really suggesting that I first need to be trained before my written words become protected speech?

steebo77 on May 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM

In a nutshell, yes. Once in awhile the mask of a Progressive comes off and you find a Fascist underneath it.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 4:05 PM

No. (1)You need training to be a journalist.(2) What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline. (3)Getting the facts right is impossible for the untrained.

May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Hilarious.

Three strikes.

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Durbin or Capitalist Hoglet?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Fascist Swine.

steebo77 on May 27, 2013 at 4:06 PM

What your distinguish as “good journalism” is the baseline.

So is this simply a spelling error?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:07 PM

The fact that you’re so blind and only want to complain about the media bias is telling.

I made this same mistake though. That’s why I recognize it. That’s why I know your limitations.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

“Because my journalism professors showed me this”.

/accepting the premise for now that CH is actually a journalism major.

Now, the thing is, that the longer you are out of school, the more you realize that those “facts” that some of the liberal arts profs told you were really them imparting a specific worldview that advanced the prof’s agenda. Some facts, such as those from the physical sciences (e.g. F = d(mv) / dt) ) are not subject to opinion or agenda. From the softer sciences and humanities — not so much.

AZfederalist on May 27, 2013 at 4:07 PM

The 1st applies to everyone, stoopit Dick…

ladyingray on May 27, 2013 at 4:08 PM

In a nutshell, yes. Once in awhile the mask of a Progressive comes off and you find a Fascist underneath it.

Corporal Tunnel on May 27, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Scratch a Regressive and you’ll inevitably find one of two things – a village idiot who in more enlightened times would be sitting gagged in the stocks, or some degree of closet tyrant. Some would be quite happy being the minions who get to do the dirty work, some want to be the big cheeses (they’d quickly be disappointed).

MelonCollie on May 27, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Well the troll got what he wanted……

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I’m not suggesting that. I am the one person who consistently defends journalism at Hot Air. Find another.

Durbin or Capitalist Hoglet?

CW on May 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM

You’ve probably commented on over a thousand so-called MSM journalists stories. Not a day goes by that you’re not being fed news sourced by a MSM reporter.

Do you realize that? Do you?

I will continue to defend the First Amendment. You will likely continue to rail against it, obliquely albeit. You will continue to read those sources about whom you complain.

Capitalist Hog on May 27, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Something an intern does isn’t journalism.

Sorry.

tetriskid on May 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Actually, an obit writer is one of the many entry-level and time-honored reporting jobs at a newspaper, for which a person can progress to a beat reporting job or remain where they are if they wish. You may not think so, but that job takes a certain level of talent for a person to have in that they must have an attention to detail and accuracy with the relevant details of the deceased, and an obsession to getting it all down correctly. Otherwise, that newspaper is in for some angry calls from the family, and there is almost always a rerun/correction gratis from the newspaper.

I know because I once worked at a newspaper with people who did exactly that, who later moved on to another newspaper as a reporter, and who eventually became an editor.

And there were interns in every department — copy desk, reporters, advertising, etc. The obit department was one of the few that didn’t have interns.

PatriotGal2257 on May 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4