Tis to be expected from a bunch of people aspiring worshipping at the altar of the MSM (or aspiring to join it). Reciprocal links would reveal their regular reading, which might make it harder for them to feign that they have no personal bias.

Why would they want to reciprocate anyways? You've hitched your wagon to THEIR horse now, Stephen. You should be so lucky....

Alexa Rank for Campaign Desk:

180,019

Alexa Rank for Vodkapundit:

98,974

Hitching what to who before what and where?

No, Mr. Green, certainly not! If they let the peasants use the front door and not the servant's entrance, why the next thing you know they'll be trundling (tumbreling?) out the guillotine, and then all sorts of unpleasantness will result.

Acknowledge your existence? No, they wish to speak at you and for you - they certainly do not wish to speak to you, and triply certain they do not want you to talk back!

My question is who are you? CV?

An alternative view is that Steve Lovelady has now joined the conversation. Whether he likes it or not, he's now a blogger.

Hey, lookie, Mark is down here heckling the peasants that dare to insult the journalist nobility.

How droll.

Of course, Mark, none of our C.V.'s include forging documents, so we are not journalists by your lights.

Yes I see Stephen has reviewed kitchen appliances at Amazon. Yeah that counts.

So you're saying the "Journalists" forged the documents? Now Robin that would be a scoop.

Got a link to that one?

Actually, Mark, I didn't say that. Misquoting ... aren't we the epitome of journalism? Evidently so, since you are allying yourself so willingly with the kind of dishonest fraudulent journalism of Mapes & Rather.

Given the chronology included within the Thornburgh report for CBS, it is clear that Mapes and Rather knew well enough that the documents were fake. That's enough for accomplice liability on the forgery by the way.

Well, so you are retracting the statement? I'm sorry it's too late for that. You know once one says something there's no clarification allowed. See the bylaws of online conservatism.

As for liability the report would have to deifne it clearly in the form of a conclusion. I don't they did that.

There's nothing misquoted on my part.

Yes, CJR is a tit.

Sorry Mr. York, but I'm an American, I don't need a license or permission from anyone to speak. My opinion is as good as the facts and logic that support it. In other words, it is as good as anyone on the staff of the New York Times or any other fish-wrapper. As good as yours. Perhaps. Perhaps better. Perhaps not. You see, we both have the same right and are now both exercising it. That's what this little blog-world is all about, and a large established industry that grew as fat and lazy as the auto industry did is starting to feel the heat and they don't like it.

Or are you saying that the news business should be free from all criticism, especially from the consumers?

No I'm saying the criticism has to be valid not inferred, perceived, overblown and conjured up. Why not write a piece about how Colorado taxes food? Oh now that's freedom?

The writer at the NY Times has training, and experience at several small papers and if you think it's easy to get one of these jobs with any resume try it.
See how far you get. Go down to the Gazette-Telegraph and tell them you feel the need to be a reporter. Report back.

I'm a scientist and I have a journalism degree from a major public university. I'm a liberal and they ain't hiring me so where's that put your little bias theory? In the fiction genre where it belongs.

Wow, I didn't know that it took real training to put such biased "journalism" out there, hire, publish and promote outright frauds like Blair. I'd hate to think that anyone could write such bad articles. That would worry me.

Mr. York:

As a consumer of a good, I can criticize if I perceive the good to be shoddy. I'm not an engineer, but I can criticize (and did) the quality of the automobiles produced by Ford, Chrysler, and GM in the 1970's. There is no license requirement for that, no special training.

The news industry is just another business and they can be criticized for any practices or products that are not up to the standard the public expects. If they act intelligent about this, they'll listen to their customers. If not, then they deserve to go out of business. Their customers are voting with their remotes and their wallets. Detroit's lunch was eaten years ago, and the process is starting to repeat itself here, and you are advocating that we lay off the news industry because we aren't qualified to criticize?

Don't think so. Hitting Detroit hard worked to the benefit of the consumers of automobiles. Hitting the news industry hard will work to the benefit of the consumers of news.

"I'm a scientist and I have a journalism degree from a major public university. I'm a liberal and they ain't hiring me so where's that put your little bias theory?"

Ah, a clue.

Stephen, I'm blanking for a minute. What's the term for when someone so envies a group that won't admit him that he worships the members from beneath?