Oh please, what a shabby dodge. I think he knows quite well what a calculated and craven evasion this is. So sad: I only said I had initially liked his blog persona because I felt sorry for the caricature of a consultant he had become in his current blog incarnation, boasting about how he’s sipping drinks in “the Emirates Lounge” on a junket to Davos paid for by Dubai. (By the way my next task will be to ask the Dean of the J-school at the City University of New York where Jarvis plies his trade, if CUNY considers this ethical behavior–for a professor of journalism in their institution to be taking money and favors from a crucial world financial center, regardless of whether he discloses it or not. It will be interesting to see what kind of standards prevail at their new journalism school.)
But–no good deed goes unpunished–having no other response evidently to my critique of his ludicrous idea of journalism, he tried to depict the column linked above as a matter of my “liking” or no longer liking him personally, in order to evade responding to my critique. Pure cowardice or self-aware inadequacy–having no adequate response to my substantive critique of his idea of journalism, he tries to make the argument about something trivial such as whether I like him or not. Poor Jeff, evidently not used to criticism, his ideas being subjected to any more than trivial examination, so he–oh so transparently–evades a response through a red herring.
Let’s hope the reviewers of his new Google Kool-aid book What Would Google Do? see what a fraudulent idea of journalism this journalism pontificaor subscribes to. This was the heart of my essay–his description of his own journalistic practice, a description that revealed that he doesn’t know the first thing about what journalism is, and therefore should be the very last person on earth to tell the journalism profession what to do. And if he actually teaches this “method” it’s prima facie educational malpractice, a scandal that will make CUNY look like an embarrassingly craven chaser after the “new” however meretricious.
My critique took on his own description of how he went about “reporting” his Google-worship book, a process he calls “reverse engineering”. The central tenet of “reverse engineering” is that in writing about one of the largest and most influential institutions in the world he deliberately refuses to try to speak to anyone at Google to ask them about how they think about what they do. He says he doesn’t even try on some kind of principle. He claims he wasn’t rebuffed by Google but frankly I think he was afraid to ask or at least didn’t expect them to cooperate with such a second rater, but didn’t want to admit it. (Why would they talk to such an obvious airhead who would inevitably embarass them with his suck-up effusions?) That’s reporting! Deliberately not talking to your subject! No wonder he thinks professional reporters are largely unnecessary and, in effect, encourages the foolish corporations who hire him as a consultant to fire them. He doesn’t merely think reporters are unnecessary, he thinks reporting is unnecessary. Instead he says his book will offer Jeff Jarvis’s ideas about what Google was thinking as it was created and evolved. That’s “reverse engineering”–figuring out Google without doing any of the real hard work reporters do. Of course we’re all really, really eager for that. What a worthless notion. Should White House reporters refuse to ask Barack Obama questions about his policies and instead “reverse engineer” what they think he’s doing and thinking? CUNY pays this guy to teach?! No wonder JJ thinks reporters and reporting skills are expendable or easily outsourced to the ignorant and unskilled: he appears not to have the first idea of what reporting is.
Imagine that (again, I’ll try to get a response from CUNY if they approve of teaching this as “journalism”): you’re writing about one of the largest, most influential corporate entities in the world and you decide not to even try to speak to its founders and workers because your ideas about what they’re doing are more deserving of a hearing than theirs! I’m sure the crooks at ENRON would have appreciated the Jarvis approach. Really, who cares what Jeff Jarvis thinks he can deduce about Google without speaking to anyone at Google? He’s not a stellar intellect or he would have engineered Google not “reverse engineered” it. now he’s trying to reverse engineer reporting–by fleeing from it.
It was this specific critique of Jarvis’ ludicrous notion of journalism that he refused to respond to (instead throwing out red-herrings about whether I “liked” him), a critique that in my view disqualifies him from making any pronouncements on the subject of journalism. It was this specific critique that Jarvis utterly refused to respond to, all the while saying I made no critique of his ideas. Because, in fact, his ideas are ridiculous.
And then of course there’s his EW (Entertainment Weekly) celebrity industrial complex view of what journalists do. When the The New York Observer (my old paper), did a profile of him a week or so after my critique, his main response was to criticize the reporter because he didn’t plug JJ’s new book, which he claimed was the only purpose of reporting on him. Of course a self-promoter would say that: a celebrity journalist’s view of what journalism is about, plugging new product at the dictates of the schedule of the publicity industrial complex. I’m sure EW, which inevitably became a whole lot smarter once he left it, would be ashamed of this.
I could go on about Jarvis intellectual impoverishment. His ignoramus-like parroting of simplistic, fashionable “wisdom of the crowd” theories that only those ignorant of history take seriously. The crowd is always right Jarvis believes. That’s why Google is so super, super special. Because they list their links according to the most popular! Brilliant reverse engineered deduction! That’s the genius idea that Jarvis prostrates himself before, which of course does a disservice to Google genuine value: Jarvis bows down to Google because they reflect the mind of the crowd (he says; poor Google to have such a second rate champion.) But the mind of the crowd is not addititve intellectually, it’s often a race to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator.
But popularity, the worship of the wisdom of the market is all that counts for JJ. (And we know now a little more about the wisdom of the market, don’t we, after the scandals of the past few months? Doesn’t trouble JJ.) You know what a crowd is Jeff? A lynch mob is a crowd, a pogrom is a crowd. The Walmart shopers who trampled to death that poor temp worker are a crowd. Crowds aren’t necessarily wise, they’re just big. Often thuggish and stupid. Even the author of a book on the widsom of the crowd distances himself from Jarvis’ mindless crowd worship. He refers to JJ’s shibboleth, “citizen journalism”, and says it makes as much sense as “citizen dentistry”. Exactly! And yet Jarvis smugly wants to replace hardworking journalists who have built up a lifetime of evaluative experience with a crowd of the untrained and ignorant. A crowd of Jeff Jarvises is just going to multiply Jeff Jarvis’ inadequacies. Which already constitute a crowd of their own.
So Jeff, despite your disingenuous denial of it, I did engage with your “ideas”–as anyone who reads my original column linked above can see. I tried to be nice to you, give you the benefit of the doubt in that column.. I engaged, I just found your ideas, upon “engagement”, to be utterly bankrupt. And replacing bankrupt newspapers with bankrupt ideas is no improvement, no matter how fat and happy you get feeding off the the daily bread of the newspaper people and their families you so delight in afflicting.
Remember when journalism was supposed to be about “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” Not for our JJ, who evidently relishes further afflicting the afflicted, and making himself comfortable with the comfortable in the Emirates lounges of the world sucled by Fubai, onthe way to Davos. Maybe it feels good in the short run Jeff, but to the honorable journalists of the world you’ll always be remembered as a dishonorable, disgrace to the profession. Congrats!
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
PJM Home
BUY The Shakespeare Wars
BUY Explaining Hitler
BUY The Secret Parts of Fortune
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
33 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Jeff Jarvis’ Cowardly Evasions:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Nov 30, 2008 - 2:35 am 2. Evil Pundit:The idea that journalism is about “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” is one of the arrogant assumptions that is driving its demise.
Journalism should be first and foremost, telling the truth. Finding the facts and stating them without prejudice.
In this, journalism has manifestly failed and is reaping its just rewards.
Nov 30, 2008 - 3:17 am 3. Michael Hankamer:What a pompous ass.
Nov 30, 2008 - 3:45 am 4. mpgrunt787:poor guy. It looks like the drive bys will not go qiuetly but lie on the ground convulsing till they bite off their own tongue’s. Pass me a beer this is going to be great!
This is sweet music to my ears or more properly called eye candy I guess.
Exit question… when will our friend fire himself for the good of the profession?
Nov 30, 2008 - 5:30 am 5. syn:Whatever journalism used to be it now is Big Brother’s way of controlling the masses; how hideous is their practice of creating crises to control the mindset.
Journalism is dead, overtaken by control-freaks; finding the facts and stating them will get banana republic mobs to harrass those who expose truth.
Mr Rosenbaum, journalism is evil Big Brother on siliconed steroids with pretty people talking stupid.
Nov 30, 2008 - 5:44 am 6. Sarah Rolph:Mr. Rosenbaum makes a lot of good points here, notably the importance of actual reporting and the foolishness of imagining there is a replacement for it. I hadn’t heard of the Google book, but the Jarvis position as represented here is astonishing. However, it also bears a striking resemblance to what I have seen in the mainstream media lately.
Rosenbaum asks, apparently with a straight face, “Should White House reporters refuse to ask Barack Obama questions about his policies and instead “reverse engineer” what they think he’s doing and thinking?” Should they? No. Did they? Yes, indeed!! (It’s certainly wrong, but it’s not a technique used only by Mr. Jarvis.)
I agree with EP in rejecting the idea that the job of a journalist (or reporter) is to comfort or to afflict. Reporting is telling the story, as truthfully as possible, in the time allowed.
It doesn’t require a degree or any special training–citizen journalism is not the least bit like citizen dentistry. Experience certainly helps, but for the most part, anyone who cares about something can report on it effectively by paying attention, getting the facts right, and using plain English.
That’s something to be celebrated, not something to be nervous about. The Internet is creating a meritocracy of writers. I think what will happen over time is that writing and reporting will get better in every medium, now that we have a chance to compare and contrast how stories are handled.
The national dialog is being conducted differently now, with many more voices being heard. But the principles of truthful, firsthand reporting and honest opinion presented as such still apply, and will always apply, whether we are speaking around the campfire, writing books or newspaper stories, or chatting over the Internet.
Nov 30, 2008 - 6:40 am 7. Rubicon:Having read numerous reports from “citizen” journalists, I and having read even more from “professional” journalists, I must say many times I prefer the almost absolute honesty of the citizen.
Nov 30, 2008 - 7:02 am 8. Thinking Person:Journalism as a profession has reared the head of partisanship under the guise of knowing better than “the people.”
Gosh, we “people” are so dumb only the elite can lead us to nirvana. “tTheir” idea of nirvana I must add. But not the idea of all & not what should be imposed on all.
Great piece Mr. Rosenbaum! Unfortunately this great country of ours is plagued by people who claim to know more than those who actually do. The old saying “Those who can’t do it, teach it.” comes to mind. Keep up the fight for the integrity of your profession kind sir. Those of us at the mercy of the journalism profession for our news will surely thank you.
Nov 30, 2008 - 7:34 am 9. Dave in Texas:When I was in J101 way back in High School, the 1970’s I believe it was (although memories are understandably dim), my J teacher taught the ‘who, what, when, where, how’ theory and told me the ‘why’ was for columnists.
I learned early that journalism as a profession had been practiced for decades by hard-bitten Marlboro-chomping WWII vets with sleeves rolled up, three telephones ringing on the desk and the old dependable typewriter clattering away in front of them. They wanted to know what happened, who did it, where and when, and how it was done.
Needless to say, it was not a profession like lawyering or doctoring. It was a job, like plumbing or electrical wiring or perhaps engineering. If you could keep a grip on facts, you could be a journalist.
This business of elevating it to atmospheric levels of professional wisdom and degrees and ’specialness’ is fairly new and VERY obnoxious. It is NOT hard to find out who, what, when, where and how. It does NOT take a degree from Columbia School of Journalism. It only takes common sense.
They have tried to create for themselves a high mountain where only special people can go. They ended up making fools of themselves before every honest and sensible person, and stars of themselves for the rest who are susceptible to such things.
They need to come back down to earth, and they won’t volunteer for it, so a system wide financial crash is the cleansing stroke needed. I like it, I endorse it by NOT buying newspapers or spending money with network news advertisers. I suspect I am not alone.
Nov 30, 2008 - 7:44 am 10. Wild Bill:Gee, Ron, why don’t you say what you REALLY feel? (snicker…)
Nov 30, 2008 - 7:48 am 11. George Lukes:Mr. Rosenbaum’s view that reporters are hard-working, dispassionate professionals hasn’t been true for a long time. What I see are smug political types who went to J-school because they wanted to “make a difference”, i.e. move the country to the left. Instead of reporting, we get political propaganda barely disguised as “news”. There are a lot of intelligent people who have stopped reading the newspapers they grew up with because they are tired of the partisan posturing.
If this author really believes that papers are dying because of Craigslist, he should take a bit of his own advice and do some real reporting. Sit down with a phone, Mr. Rosenbaum, and call the people who have cancelled their subscriptions. Ask them why they did so. You will get an earful, and then some.
Nov 30, 2008 - 8:45 am 12. TexEd:I don’t know who Jarvis is but I’ll sure watch for hum. However, Rosenbaum is no gem, either. His efforts to distinguish good journalists from, well, Jarvis presumes that there are actually good journalists.
Nov 30, 2008 - 9:12 am 13. charlie finch:Journalism is a profession just as prostitution is a profession. Just because Rosenbaum tries to distinguish between the skanks and the hos doesn’t change the fact that they are all still hookers.
I never heard of Jeff Jarvis before and I get around. Count me as one of the lucky ones!
Nov 30, 2008 - 9:18 am 14. zazulu:Why is this on Pajamas Media? Used to be one of my favorite “new media” sites. On a dismal Sunday, with
Nov 30, 2008 - 9:57 am 15. Mark Poling:nowhere to go, I have to read this vitriol about Jeff Jarvis????? I was just looking for something on Mumbai
on the ever nimble internet (thank goodness for MarkSteyn.com)but what was I thinking? The NY Times had nothing on its editorial pages. VENERABLE JOURNALIST ROSENBAUM
can only hurl jealous venom about someone he feels is more successful than he is. Thought I’d check out
Buzz Machine and found some interesting Citizen(Heaven Forbid)journalism from people who had the
misfortune to be in Mumbai during the massacre. Talk about sad, Mumbai is sad, and Rosenbaum is
just downright pathetic for writing about this!!!!
While Jeff Jarvis may be getting too big for his britches (if there’s one thing the Oil Sheiks can do, it’s make you feel your britches are a bit snug) I’d say this little screed doesn’t make me feel a bit better for the print industry.
Yes, being out of work sucks. Yes, actual legwork is required for good journalism, as opposed to punditry. (And pundits should take care to at least cite sources and search for corroboration.)
But this is just indulgent. Jeff is surfing a wave you missed, and that I still don’t think you understand. That he’s not surfing it with as much class as you think he should doesn’t justify the tantrum I just read.
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:24 am 16. Harry:———-
Remember when journalism was supposed to be about “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.”
———–
WTF?? Wasn’t journalism supposed to be about getting facts straight and being accurate, and letting people be comforted or afflicted as the facts dictated??
That sort of attitude—–that journalism is some sort of calling, much like the priesthood, which must be kept out of the hands of those dreadful blogging proles—-is what will kill the “traditional journalism” Mr. Rosenbaum is so enamored with, not Jeff Jarvis.
Tempis is fugiting, Mr. Rosenbaum. Adapt or die.
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:29 am 17. Chapomatic » Guilty Pleasure:[...] can’t wait to see the Countercolumn reaction to this entertainingly nasty little shiv thrust by Ron [...]
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:00 am 18. Chap:I recommend a spell check (and a delete of this comment). Googe, pontificaor, Fubai, onthe, extra commas.
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:03 am 19. Ian Thorpe:Thank You Ron,
As a former Information Technology professional whose involvement with the internet goes back to way before the advent of the World Wide Web I have often been appalled by the ignorance Jeff dosplays when he writes of new media. he does not understand the technology nor its weakneses when put to tasks for which it was not designed.
The Free For All that is web2 is not a great expression of free speech as JJ like to claim, in fact it makes the work of those who would control the distribution of information and limit discussion so much easier viz the control freakery of the Obama campaign which managed to suppress several stories that would have sunk other candidates.
As Dave in Texas suggests Jarvis is another examle of a new breed of oligarchs that seems to be emerging from the University faculties.
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:09 am 20. Войска ПВО:Dave in Texas writes:
This business of elevating it to atmospheric levels of professional wisdom and degrees and ’specialness’ is fairly new and VERY obnoxious. It is NOT hard to find out who, what, when, where and how. It does NOT take a degree from Columbia School of Journalism. It only takes common sense.”
You are so right, Dave! I am so surprised that any of the MSM gets any traction at all considering it’s loaded with such self-congratulatory drek..
..especially since one finds some outstanding commentary from blogs written by the “common man” (and, or course, the “common woman”).
Pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are growing tedious, among them folks like the self-righteous George Will, the menopausal Peggy Noonan, and the terminally self-referential Bill O’Reilly. It is amazing that these folks command an audience.
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:52 am 21. James Westlake:Ron Rosenbaum,
I have never heard of you nor have any idea who this Jeff Jarvis character is but wonder how you could possibly fail to see that having to resort to copy and pasting un-attributed quotes in support of your argument smacks of embarrassing desperation.
This is especially ironic as, as I understand it, this dispute is over journalistic standards themselves. I just thought I should point this out before you further embarrass yourself. This is the kind of ineptness that gives online (would be) journalists such a bad name.
regards
westlake
Nov 30, 2008 - 12:05 pm 22. QuickRob:Back when Pajamas Media was OSM briefly, around the time they had their debut party at the Rainbow Room, Jeff Jarvis was on his BuzzMachine blog poo pooing the entire idea of this new venture, declaring that he “just doesn’t get it”, that there was no point at all in the effort.
Welp, PJM is a great site and is progressing into a larger vehicle as time passes. If Jarvis was so darn good at spotting new media trends, then why didn’t he “get it” 3 years ago when Pajamas Media was launching? (http://www.quickrob.com/weblog/?p=411)
After I blogged about his lack of understanding of the concept of Pajamas Media, he came and left snarky comments at my site and accused me of misquoting him (despite the fact that I directly copied and pasted), and then personally attacked me. I wasn’t exactly bothered by the experience, but after reading this piece here and the Slate article I can see that this is precisely the kind of character that Jarvis IS and HAS BEEN.
Nov 30, 2008 - 12:13 pm 23. whiskey:Ron Rosenbaum –
You and Jarvis are BOTH wrong. Wrong in just about everything.
The media are nothing but a monolithic bunch of shills for the Democratic Party and worship Barack Hussein Obama as their living God. They really do. They censor the news, refusing to report anything negative about their tin God, and making him look like the Second Coming. Literally.
Meanwhile much of the Web stuff is nothing but a rehash of links and content, nearly all of it junk, generated by the media itself.
An example would be Obama’s donor base. The media simply repeated Obama’s lie that it was from small donors. In fact, it came from big donors, bundlers, and (illegal) foreign money, most of the latter from Saudi and Muslim terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.)
The few independent citizen journalists, most with a partisan agenda of their own, pointed this out during the election. As they did Obama’s website allowing illegal and foreign donations, with no credit card verifications (deliberately turned off with connivance with the credit card companies).
What this leaves is an information “gap” and most people are simply going to believe rumor an innuendo. The media by being nothing more than shills for Democrats and worshipers, quite literally, of Obama as their own Personal Jesus, are not trusted. There are no alternatives that are “trusted” either.
What this does is legitimize rumor and innuendo as a social and political means of communication. This will stay the situation until a new brand of media establishes itself as “trusted” and that will take decades. We are now facing a run of at least 20 and perhaps 50 years of rumor and innuendo taking center stage as how people receive information.
Let me add that when the Media leave “gaps” that are easily exploited, particularly with a Media Image and inconvenient videos, written statements, and other bits of information that contradict the Media Image, rumor and innuendo are readily believed. This was the case in the USSR and Eastern Europe during Communist domination. No one believed the state-run media and everyone subscribed to the wildest of rumors and tales. Particularly when they could see obvious “gaps” … such as showing the “Grapes of Wrath” to demonstrate how poor Americans were — Soviets picked up on the fact that the Joads had a CAR!
Nov 30, 2008 - 3:41 pm 24. Judy, NYC:the marble headstone for journalism can be found alongside serious novelists, painters, dramatists, newly conceived musicals and william schirer.
in any case, there are no journalistic standards because there is no demand for it. (there is however, as we have learned to our great sorrow, quite an intense demand for walmart’s price-slashed 50″ plazma tvs).
the intrepid journalist and compulsively driven editor with a flurry of fact-checkers exists only in the nostalgic fog of memory and mourning.
the common sense variety of interpreting information is gleaned from reality shows, CNN’s mostly baffled looking hosts and barbara walter’s moronic the view. it will have to suffice.
pajamas media gets it mostly right, nonetheless. i like visiting.
Nov 30, 2008 - 5:48 pm 25. Bleepless:Midget-mindedness? Probably not; his raw I.Q. very likely is all right. But his soul? Another issue entirely.
Nov 30, 2008 - 7:31 pm 26. A. N. Pierson:In any event, you chose a target which richly deserves it.
I remember Jarvis’ reaction to the debut of Pajamas Media as well – pathetic envy. Nowadays I rarely read him. He doesn’t have much of interest to say. My only quarrel with Rosenbaum why he wastes his time on such a person.
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:36 pm 27. David Thomson:“comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable”
This is truly a gross misunderstanding of the role of a “mainstream” journalist. It may also be the number one reason why bias slips into their reporting. Why should the so-called comfortable be afflicted? Did they do something wrong? Is it immoral to be “comfortable?” And no, I am not being facetious. The job of a journalist is be fair to everyone, to report the facts, and stay away from editorializing as much as possible. If someone indeed wishes to engage in advocacy writing—that is fine and dandy. They should therefore immediately seek employment with the National Review, Nation, or The New Republic. But this sort of writing is forbidden to the journalist hired by a legacy media outlet claiming to be “fair and objective.”
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:36 pm 28. Eric Gauvin:“comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable”
I think we need to understand the spirit of the meaning here. It’s not supposed to be taken literally. It means that truth can be a comfort to the afflicted and an affliction to the comfortable.
(in trying to be clever by switching around the nouns and verbs, the meaning gets a little poetic, don’t be so picky…)
Dec 1, 2008 - 2:59 pm 29. Vivictius:While I don’t really care for Jarvis, you sound like just another whining journalist crying for attention as the entire profession circles the drain.
Dec 2, 2008 - 11:48 am 30. Bryan:Ron, I would like your take on what some real journalists Mark Halperin think about how fake journalists, the people you seem to stand up for, handled the election coverage?
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:07 pm 31. Zim:Do you really think they were completely unbiased and held true to journalistic standards they learned in J school?
How do you not think this has something to do with the lack of respect many of us have for so called “journalists.”
I for one have cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes, and it has nothing to do with my desire to read more blogs.
Halperin called the election media coverage “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”
What is your take?
The MSM were so in the tank for Obama only the willfully blind could miss it. I don’t blame Obama for using this to his advantage, but the actions will have lasting effects on an industry that was already in trouble.
How is becoming the American Pravda, a bought-out sold-out entity to be used as a propaganda vehicle for the powerful, “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.”?
Dec 2, 2008 - 12:52 pm 32. Swen Swenson:Didn’t get invited to “Fubai”, eh? Or is this the last of the rats eating each other as the ship sinks? Just wait until you sober up and see what you’ve written.
…
Oh, sorry. That would be reverse-engineering this little hissy fit, so I should probably just ask: What occasions this ill-tempered and embarrassingly ill-becoming display?
Dec 2, 2008 - 9:30 pm 33. dragonfly:If one is afflicted, the truth comes as no surprise,- and no comfort. If one is comfort able, who gives a damn bout the truth. The “saying” is not only not wise, it is truly stupid,like most things related to the “journalistic profession”. Once a craft or trade, It is now a calling pursued largely by dim-witted children of affluence, persuaded by socialist academics that they can “make the world a better place” by attacking greedy capitalism and lecturing their readers on the glories of deconstructionism and diversty, and the idolitry of vacuous incompetents like BHO, Something like being a “Professional Environmentalist”, a category formerly known as” Tree Worshippers”.
Like many others here, I know nothing of JJ or RR and the reason for their little spat over their noble means of livelihood. But I have been realizing of late that most of those I follow closely and trust in reportage and commentary are lawyers (!!), engineers, historians, economists – rational thinkers and serious searchers after the truth (like Steyn), rather than graduates in the “social sciences”, which apparently now includes journalism.
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:57 pm