![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wombat_sochoJohn 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
WSJ
Date: 2009-01-24 12:28 am (UTC)It also has one other advantage, its niche market. Half the country, as Krauthammer would say.
Re: WSJ
Date: 2009-01-24 03:22 am (UTC)BTR-60?
Date: 2009-01-25 12:12 am (UTC)Tank is armored vehicle
Therefore
All armored vehicle is tank
QED
MRT
Re: BTR-60?
Date: 2009-01-27 09:15 pm (UTC)Re: BTR-60 and Squares
Date: 2009-01-28 01:09 am (UTC)MRT
Re: BTR-60 and Squares
Date: 2009-01-28 03:22 am (UTC)