Comments on: Pot, Meet Kettle. http://www.inadequate.net/2007/12/04/pot-meet-kettle-2/ A few thoughts. Sat, 17 May 2008 23:26:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Deborah Dera http://www.inadequate.net/2007/12/04/pot-meet-kettle-2/#comment-6726 Deborah Dera Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:09:40 +0000 http://www.inadequate.net/2007/12/04/pot-meet-kettle-2/#comment-6726 Karma. Enough said. Deborah www.therhythmofwrite.com Karma. Enough said.

Deborah
http://www.therhythmofwrite.com

]]> By: Dave http://www.inadequate.net/2007/12/04/pot-meet-kettle-2/#comment-6724 Dave Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:49:00 +0000 http://www.inadequate.net/2007/12/04/pot-meet-kettle-2/#comment-6724 I love how in his June 30 post he says on one hand that he is a "professional journalist" and that his "obsession with “verifying” often causes me to spend more time than I should checking with multiple sources on a single point before posting a comment". He then goes on to say that he read two pieces in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer that confirmed his hypothesis. Where is the sleuthing? Last time I checked contacting primary sources and doing serious journalistic research is not equivalent to reading a couple of stories and blogs that confirm what you already believe to begin with. I guess he leaves himself a way out by saying "Had this been for one of my articles and not a blog post, I can assure you my sources and verification would have gone even deeper." What a tool. If he is going to go on some holier than thou tirade about how he is a "professional journalist" he should at least do something which verifies this claim and combats the blogging ethos of "shooting from the hip". I suppose he is now revealed for what he actually is: someone who reads what other professional journalists write and believes anecdotal statements from random people that fit in with his ideology. Bravo professional journalist, a Pulitzer should be on the way any day now... I love how in his June 30 post he says on one hand that he is a “professional journalist” and that his “obsession with “verifying” often causes me to spend more time than I should checking with multiple sources on a single point before posting a comment”. He then goes on to say that he read two pieces in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer that confirmed his hypothesis. Where is the sleuthing? Last time I checked contacting primary sources and doing serious journalistic research is not equivalent to reading a couple of stories and blogs that confirm what you already believe to begin with. I guess he leaves himself a way out by saying “Had this been for one of my articles and not a blog post, I can assure you my sources and verification would have gone even deeper.” What a tool. If he is going to go on some holier than thou tirade about how he is a “professional journalist” he should at least do something which verifies this claim and combats the blogging ethos of “shooting from the hip”. I suppose he is now revealed for what he actually is: someone who reads what other professional journalists write and believes anecdotal statements from random people that fit in with his ideology. Bravo professional journalist, a Pulitzer should be on the way any day now…

]]>