Sunday, May 08, 2005

Demise of Newspapers Is Premature

Says Tim Rutten of the LA Times who gets my vote with this assessment of the blog triumphalists:

First are the ideologically minded commentators — mostly right wing, a handful on the left — who have found a congenial home in the blogosphere. Their critique is basically an exercise in wishful thinking. They want newspapers to die because their editors just won't print the news they want in the language they demand. These folks see the world through utterly polarized lenses and don't believe any other view is possible.

He's right, the two are linked. No pun intended, I'm sure.


Anonymous john said...

Hmm... I don't know your views on newspapers, but the last sentence describes you perfectly.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

If you want to come to just insult me then I have a plan for you. Go ahead punk. Try me.

7:29 PM  
Blogger Peter L. Winkler said...

Fantastic quote from Rutten and very perceptive of you to pull it and post it here, cause I rarely read the LA Times. Not because of political bias. I just don't read the papers that often, except for the book review section.

2:06 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Thanks Peter. I like the LA Times, their environment writers are always on top of the latest events.

8:22 AM  
Anonymous john said...

not an insult, mark... just pointing out that the article applied to you, although I don't think that's why it got your "vote".

2:02 AM  
Anonymous john said...

you need to blog more, i'm hooked on it like trailer trash on jerry springer.

2:21 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

I'm not a down with newspapers and television networks kind of blogger. This is an op-ed page mostly. The bloggers, mostly right-wing ones don't know the difference between that and news reporting since they don't get out much or have training in journalism. I do on all counts.

8:29 AM  
Anonymous john said...

I don't really see a difference between your blog and right-wing blogs except for the obvious ideological difference. most righty blogs comment with opinions on current events, just as you do. i think you're trying to claim the high ground, and it sounds pretty egotistical.

12:36 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Well here's one difference. Two really. I have a recent journalism degree and credentials as a scientist working with the subjects I write about. That gives me the high ground I earned. Where does your opposing credentials come from?

11:34 AM  
Anonymous john said...

your experience in the field, but lack of a relevant degree gives you limited authority to speak on environmental issues, but hardly gains you any political ground. As for a journalism degree - Education, Physical Education, and Journalism are considered the easiest degrees to earn. Ironically, the J-school kids seem to think they're the smartest.

12:51 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

I have more credits in Biology than the 30 credits in the journalism major. The school doesn't put collateral fields and minors on the diploma.

In addition I've worked as a field biologist since 1985. I'm currently emplmoyed by the BLM. So John in short: F#@$ you.

10:28 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Since you keep coming here to attack me personally you are no longer welcome. Get out and stay out. This has gone on long enough.

10:30 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

The Environmental Webring
The Environmental Webring
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]