We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The Times seems to have forgotten the most important aspect of the news business. For years now ’skeptic’ has been a dirty word at the Times when the subject of climate change comes up. Excuse me, but reporters are supposed to be skeptics. They are supposed to be cynical, hard bitten people who trust their mothers — but cut the cards. They are supposed to think that scientists are probably too much in love with their data, that issue advocates have hidden agendas, that high-toned rhetoric is often a cover for naked self interest, that bloviating politicians have cynical motives and that heroes, even Nobel Prize laureates, have feet of clay. That is their job; it is why we respect them and why we pay attention to what they write.
What Sam L. said. They refuse to do their job and and I pay only enough attention to them to check that nothing has changed. Flying? Pick up the NYT. Yup, still a bunch of bigotted BS. Out by Chicagoland? Pick up the Tribune. Yup, still crap.
Just the other day the local rag called, yet again, to try and get us to subscribe (canceled years ago, just a few years after canceling the NYT) and (coulda knocked me over with a feaTHER 'cause she ain't prone to such behavior) she read the poor sap on the other side the riot act about how he should stop harassing her to subscribe to a POS that gets NOTHING correct and provides no value. You go girl!
Because most of the journalists and scientists are loony liberals, they only do "their job" when they can smear the Republicans. It's really sad when the National Inquirer does a better job than the New York Times in covering the Edwards' story. I read that the so-called scientists intend to fight back now. What a joke they are.
The newspapers sealed their doom when they started hiring journalists instead of reporters. I saw an interview with a college journalism major who said she wanted to make a difference. Sounded to me like she intended to become an advocate and try to make the news instead of reporting the news.
Ray ... You make a good point about 'journalists' vs. 'reporters'. Fifty or sixty years ago, 'journalist' was a designation of honor. If you worked in the newspaper business, you began life as a reporter, a man/woman of all work. When you proved yourself as capable in many aspects of reporting, you would [if you were lucky] be designated as a journalist. Cub reporters were just that. Ernie Pyle, on the other hand, was a great journalist.