Without being at all flippant, when are you going to take on a role as an official Blorge columnist? You frequently provide a good measure BS detection when it is desperately needed.

I concur on your sentiments about providing references for info. Anyone who does tertiary level study and essay writing is forced to do that by convention – why do some journalists and bloggers find it difficult to do the same?

This is especially true of any journalist who has a degree, because they should have learnt such good practice in the course of their education.

Surely, being seen to consistently provide links as to where you get your info from, and taking care to ensure its veracity, enhances your own reputation as a commentator or reporter.

And if one has made an error in judgement, being gracious enough to readily admit it can only help to preserve one’s credibility.

Thanks also for clarifying the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” comment that I have seen apearing in your posts lately.

I was starting to wonder if you were one of the deluded; now I realise that you are simply sick of being reminded of the bleedingly obvious.

We had our own version of the same problem in Australia until November 2007 (John Winston Howard). Thankfully he is now almost a thing of the past.

Probably my fault, I’ve gotten tired of pathological Bush bashing, and it seems every blog by non-US residents needs to work in a comment regardless of relevance.

The internet has been a game changer, and will have a profound influence far beyond even Gutenberg.

There are undeniable benefits of a basically free printing press and zero cost distribution, to the blogger, of a potential audience of millions.

The drawback is it totally blew credibility into tiny pieces. People now need to be their own fact checkers.

Many have embraced the freedom of “citizen journalism” but have blown off the responsibility. You used to be able to have a reasonable amount of confidence that a fact was indeed a one. Fact checkers and a legal department were used. Retractions and corrections were listed.

Sadly, in an attempt to compete with the various advantages of 24/7, instant access and real time reporting, the traditional media has decided to expand the editorial page to the entire paper. In the States the old separation of broadcast news and entertainment management ceased to exist.

Do bloggers break stories? Of course. The Smoking Gun and The Drudge Report and many others are actually journalists. If a fact is used or a an argument advanced you’ll get links and references. It has little to do with glibness, a greeting card or one of those calendars with a thought of the day might be glib.

It is not the turn of phrase or a clever quip or any training in language or a degree. If I read an article where a figure is just tossed out with no link to where the info comes from, I’ll usually try to run it down.

A blogger who seems to give great weight to putting information in the hands of the people wrote an article extolling the success of OSX with a figure and no link and went on to gig the failure of Vista.

I did a search found the source and a second chart by version of OS that showed Vista had 3 times the share. Posted it and asked for a clarification.

Unlike yourself, most of the stuff like that is just ignored, I guess with the rational of not feeding the troll and he’ll go away.

I’m frequently an abrasive ass about such things and if an article is an obvious opinion piece fine. This wasn’t, it was reported as a news piece.

Bloggers should at least take responsibility of making sure sources are cited if they are acting as a news reporter. Readers are going to take it at face value.

If they are spreading errors from your writings because you are a sloppy author or lazy, you aren’t a journalist or credible.

A diary or opinion blog has a lesser expectation, but if you want to be taken seriously advancing opinions with references showing the process is both instructive and a service.

Fairness is not in the slant, it’s in the airing of the process so readers can draw conclusions.

It doesn’t deal if it’s recorded or not, just changes the release criteria.

And Nixon wasn’t under this particular act, it was enacted in 1978 and for Presidential records starting in 1981.

http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

It states the documents belong to the country, not the President. There are valid points on both side as to conditions for releasing them. It may be to ensure the advice being given to a sitting President doesn’t get slanted when the adviser is aware it’s going to become public in 12 years with no 5th amendment protections. It doesn’t have to be a plot to murder the public right to know.

The Bush comment had nothing to do with anything relating to Obama getting his Blackberry pulled and it’s pretty clear you didn’t understand the law making it needed.

Mr. Powell doesn’t seem to under the sway of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I agree it’s found a good place to thrive here. Saying fairness is unattainable implies no sense in trying.

Journalists might have a blog, but bloggers are a long way from journalists.

What exactly do you mean by that?