?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

John Hinderaker points out some pretty amazing ignorance on the part of the New York Times. How the hell can you not know (or even look up to make sure) that Bulgaria is in the Balkans and not in the Baltic???

As a veteran and a Catholic, I've been putting up with this kind of ignorance for years, and it makes me very cynical and dismissive when journalists start nattering about "professionalism", "ethics", and all the other crap that they claim distinguishes them from "guys in pajamas" blogging away on the Internets. They just get too much wrong too often that just happens to coincide with their prejudices, or that doesn't seem of much importance to them. I'll never forget, for example, a network news clip during the Chechnya war that showed a Russian BTR-60. The BTR-60 is a six-wheeled armored personnel carrier with (at most) a heavy machine gun mounted in its top turret, but the blow-dried fool reading the news blithely described it as a "tank". :facepalm:

These are things that are easy to look up before you go on national TV and expose yourself as an ignorant douche. Business, not so much, which is why the Wall Street Journal is turning a profit while the rest of the newspaper business is whining all the way to the tar pits - they hire reporters who are actually smart enough to understand what goes on in a business. Unfortunately, the WSJ is an exception; in most newspapers, just about the only experts are to be found in the sports section. And I'm not talking about the columnists.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
chocol8fiend
Jan. 24th, 2009 12:28 am (UTC)
WSJ
WSJ is one of the few newspapers that can charge for its online subscription. Course its a bit unique in that most people that read it actually expect its information to be accurate.

It also has one other advantage, its niche market. Half the country, as Krauthammer would say.




wombat_socho
Jan. 24th, 2009 03:22 am (UTC)
Re: WSJ
Yeah, but most of us just read the editorial page. ;)
(Anonymous)
Jan. 25th, 2009 12:12 am (UTC)
BTR-60?
BTR-60 is armored vehicle
Tank is armored vehicle
Therefore
All armored vehicle is tank
QED

MRT
wombat_socho
Jan. 27th, 2009 09:15 pm (UTC)
Re: BTR-60?
This is my squares and rectangles analogy; let me introduce you to it.
(Anonymous)
Jan. 28th, 2009 01:09 am (UTC)
Re: BTR-60 and Squares
Squares not good against tank. Squares much better against cavalry. Rectangle best against Legions. Rhomboids may be good for something.

MRT
wombat_socho
Jan. 28th, 2009 03:22 am (UTC)
Re: BTR-60 and Squares
I daresay it depends on the kind of squares. It's a matter of record that Posleen squares are excellent against tanks, even M-1 Abrams upgraded with alien technology. As for rectangles and legions, Perseus of Macedon would have liked a word with you.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

wombat
wombat_socho
wombat_socho

Latest Month

January 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner