It’s one of the most popular arguments on the blogosphere.

Some people — mostly bloggers — believe that they are automatically every bit as much a “journalist” as professional reporters. Others — mostly reporters — tend to disagree with that blanket statement.

The best response I’ve read in answer to that question is that bloggers can be journalists when they practice journalism. And by journalism, I mean the fair and balanced reporting of truth without commentary or bias.

It’s true — I’ve never denied — that some professional reporters seem incapable of doing so. The difference is that most of them have been through journalism school and have taken courses that should have prevented that kind of failure.

Bloggers who aren’t professional journalists likely have not. So when they pull it off, it’s definitely worth notice. But it isn’t the norm.

Working in the media, even after more than sixteen years, I am still amazed by the rudeness and resentment people toss our way. We receive emails written by people who are clearly lying in wait for anything they happen to disagree with, whether their position is based on fact or not, so that they can be as snide as they can while calling us “biased” and much worse.

There is never the assumption that anyone in the media might have made an honest mistake. There is always the presumption of guilt, of conspiracy, of mind control.

Always.

These same people, I have no doubt, would not tolerate for a moment anyone treating them that way. Yet they seem to feel some sort of self-righteousness strong enough to justify just about anything they want to say. Some of them probably never miss a church service. They probably love children and animals. Butter wouldn’t melt in their mouth the rest of the time…until they have something to say about the media.

An example of the blogosphere going on attack towards traditional reporters is in the case of the deaths of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom.

The bodies of the young Knoxville couple were found in January. They had been sexually assaulted and murdered. The couple was white; five black men were subsequently arrested for the crime.

At some point since that discovery, a rumor started appearing on the internet. Picked up by many bloggers who clearly had a bone to pick with the media — for whatever reason — as well as chips on their shoulder the size of Montana, they started demanding answers: why had “the media” ignored this story? Was it because of racism? Wouldn’t “the media” have been only too happy to report the case if two blacks had been murdered by five whites? Maybe, some began suggesting, because of the way the bodies had been sexually mutilated. Reports that the woman’s breasts and the man’s genitals had been hacked off were cited as the reason the story went largely “unreported” because, they hypothesized, if word of the sexual mutilations leaked out, it might result in an anti-black backlash. “The media” is far too “pro-black” to stand for that, they suggest.

The bloggers, particularly those who see themselves as being “better” than traditional journalists, decided that they would do what they said journalists seemed to refuse to do: “set the record straight.”

Buckle your seatbelts, friends. There are a few problems with this story.

For one, “the media” has been covering this story. This link takes you to Knoxville television station WBIR that reported the story way back on January 16th. The Associated Press transmitted the story nationally, according to this report from MSNBC that focuses on the blogger attacks. Did the national media cover it? It would depend on the media outlets, and I don’t have an immediate answer for you; I do know, however, that there are plenty of stories that get reported that I don’t see, and I work in the media. Just because you didn’t see a story doesn’t mean it wasn’t reported somewhere. Still, the story was out there and available to be reported.

Second, there is the race issue. The media is accused of burying the story to avoid portraying blacks negatively. However, the victims’ own parents say that they don’t think the crime was racially-motivated. Investigators say that they have no evidence that this was a hate crime, but rather just a brutal murder of two people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the parents and the police feel that way, that’s an angle of the story that any media outlet determined to “avoid negative publicity” against black people would have been only too eager to report, a fact that shoots down the racial bias charge.

Third, there’s a far more basic problem with the story as reported by the blogosphere: the most heinous aspect of the murder, the sexual mutilation, didn’t even happen, according to a police spokesman who worked the case. And Channon’s own father also confirms that such reports are not true:

“People have stretched it out of proportion. It was horrific. They were tortured. Most of it [on the web] is speculation.”

Perhaps this third aspect of the blogosphere’s representation of the situation is most telling of the problem of so-called “citizen journalism.”

Journalists — the real kind — are supposed to check the facts before printing them. Any time they inaccurately report something, these same bloggers are ready to crucify them for getting it wrong. Yet the bloggers find a reason to get worked up, and they do so, without checking the facts themselves, relying instead on rumors started by someone who apparently had their own agenda.

So the question becomes, Which is worse: A media outlet that doesn’t overplay a particular story — as in, “If it bleeds, it leads” — for reasons unknown, or the media critics who falsely portray not only those media outlets’ motives, but the facts of the story itself? (Not because they give a damn about the couple or their families, mind you, but because they have their own issues with prejudice leading them to want to see a story portraying black on white crime?)

I’ve seen time and time again those bloggers who fancy themselves “journalists” and who seem to feel their blog entitles them to that title. These people need to consider this important point: if that’s all it really should require to be every bit as much a journalist as a “professional” is, then they should stop criticizing the media, because there clearly aren’t enough prerequisites in terms of training for real journalists to start with.

To put it another way, if real journalists are to be fairly held to a higher standard, it has to be more than having a blog that warrants that higher level of scrutiny.

Logically, it has to be one or the other. It can’t be both.

If you’re going to criticize the way someone does something, the way you do the same thing ought to be above reproach.

The War in Iraq’s most vocal and well-known critic, activist Cindy Sheehan, says she’s giving up her fight. She blames her decision, since someone else is always to blame, on Democrats who caved on their showdown with the president as well as some attacks from the left that have targeted her.

In her “resignation letter,” she states that the toll has been too much:

“I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.”

She also takes a shot at Americans in general with this:

“I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others.”

A while back, when Sheehan first started getting attention with her protest outside Bush’s ranch in Texas, I criticized the way in which she chose to protest. Specifically, it was her line of reasoning I called into question: she suggested repeatedly that Bush lied about the reasons for the war, and that he shouldn’t be trusted. Yet she then claimed that she wanted to meet with him privately to get the “real” reason her son died in Iraq. The problem with this, I said, was that if you don’t trust Bush, then you don’t trust him: why would you believe what he said to your face if you think he’s incapable of being honest? I suggested that she was only there to make her political point and that she didn’t really want to meet with Bush for that very reason. She later made a statement indicating that she was glad Bush refused to meet with her.

Sheehan’s current potshot at the American society, it would seem, indicates that flawed reasoning is still alive and well.

The price tag for protesting, she says, is too high. Yet she seems to be angry that everyone else isn’t willing to pay the very price she says she is no longer willing to pay. Memorial Day is an annual reminder of the high price our soldiers have paid over this nation’s history so that we can have our freedom. But it is their work, their literal blood, sweat and tears, that have won the right for the rest of us to be as involved or as uninvolved as we wish to be.

Not everyone is going to be Cindy Sheehan. There are people who despise the war far more than she does, whether she would agree with that or not. And these people aren’t willing — and never have been willing — to go to the extremes she has to make their case. But in America, there’s nothing wrong with that if we value personal freedom: how willing you choose to be in letting your president, your lawmakers and your neighbors know how you feel is your business, not Sheehan’s and not anyone else’s.

If you have deep personal reservations about this war, then perhaps it could be reasonably argued that you should make them known; but the decision is still up to you. No one else gets to dictate that for you. You have to decide when your point needs to be made. No matter what price Sheehan has paid, that was her choice. No one forced her to do so. That’s why her campaign struck such a chord with so many people!

Ironically, her decision to throw in the towel comes at a time when I was most in agreement with what she was saying. As she put it in the aforementioned letter:

“I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on.”

It cannot be said any better or more clearly than that. Perhaps her son didn’t die in vain, as she has repeatedly suggested, if this clear point about the danger of falling for your own party’s lines, whichever party that happens to be, can be made and can actually sink in.

What do you say on Memorial Day? Especially while an unpopular war continues to divide the country so bitterly that little if anything seems to get done because of all of the arguing.

You send your condolences to the families who’ve lost loved ones. Not that there is anything anyone can say that can make it any easier.

You thank soldiers any time you encounter one, because you know that they could face the same fate serving this country.

You talk to kids to make sure the next generation understands what those who have come and gone before them have sacrificed so that they can live in a nation that values freedom so highly. (Depending on which freedoms we’re talking about in a given moment, that is.)

But what do you say to the soldiers who have died? If you could talk to a soldier who had lost his or her life while serving the country, what would you say? Would you thank them? Would you apologize? Would you look down at your shoes and shift your weight, hoping that words might eventually come?

I think I’d ask the soldier about their life. Their family. Their hopes. Their dreams.

These are the things that always seem to be lost in the haze of controversy. We get so worked up over numbers — how many troops have died since the war began, how many more have died this year than last, how many less have died in this war than in others — that we seem to forget so easily that each one of them was a person who had the same fears, ambitions, and desire to live that all of us have.

Some of them made a decision to volunteer for service. That doesn’t mean their death was “deserved.” It doesn’t mean, no matter how right you think a war happens to be, that their deaths were any less tragic.

The War in Iraq makes a lot more people pause to think about Memorial Day. If there wasn’t a war, would you be as likely to take the time? If we weren’t still losing troops, would you notice when one of these “military holidays” roll around? Or would you just enjoy your day off and pay no attention to the occasion?

I heard someone today wish someone else a “Happy Memorial Day.” Memorial Day isn’t a day that should be happy. It should be solemn. It should be a day of respect that we spend counting the sacrifices our soldiers have made carrying out missions our country deemed — for whatever reasons — necessary.

The ironic thing is that these same soldiers, in performing those functions and giving their lives to see them carried out, provided the rest of us with the ability to do whatever we want to do on a day like this, without ever noticing that the price tag for freedom in America is high.

As some of you might know, I like to write out of the house using an old Macintosh laptop. That caused me a bit of a headache earlier today.

I took my trusty old laptop to a local Mexican restaurant with the intention of writing during lunch. When I opened the laptop, the desktop was grayed out and there was a strange error message telling me that some kind of serious error had occurred and that I needed to power down the computer at once. (If the computer is smart enough to know that an error serious enough to prevent me from doing anything but powering it down has occurred, it should at least be smart enough to power itself down and save me the trouble.) Anyway, I held down the power button, as it instructed, and nothing happened. It stayed on, with the error message taunting me.

After trying holding down the power button several times to no avail, I just took out the battery. That did the trick.

But the joke was on me: when I tried to restart the computer, nothing happened. No error message, no Mac error screen, no gray screen of nothingness (besides gray), no blinking question mark. Not even a flicker from the green power light.

I immediately heard a line of dialog in my head. The line in question came from a climactic scene in Dean Koontz’s Tick Tock, in which a demon attempts to break into the home of the Vietnamese woman who created it:

“This not good.”

It was more than “not good.” There on the laptop’s hard drive, which I can get to do nothing, are four chapters of my novel I’ve been working on (and re-working) over the past two months, when my Sweeps-drained brain found time and desire to actually work on it.

I tried the old pep talk that seems so appropriate at times like this: “It’ll come back on. I’ll just plug it in and give it a few minutes.”

Didn’t work.

Then I tried the second pep talk strategy: “If I sit down with the last few chapters, I’m sure I’ll remember exactly what was there. It’ll all come back to me with no problem.”

I wasn’t buying that one, either.

So I called a couple of computer repair centers and asked around. I’m not sure exactly how old this particular model of Powerbook is, but it is old enough that no computer repair stores or even the Apple Store itself will even bother to service it if something goes wrong.

I can understand Apple taking this position: they want me to buy a new computer. Got that. But it surprised me to find out that computer repair companies would be likely to turn me down as well. When I asked about this, it was explained to me that the parts are either hard to find or outrageously expensive — if not both — and I would be better off just to replace the machine. But one local guy offered to salvage what was on the hard drive this afternoon.

Holiday service? At no additional cost? This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

I met up with him and he was able to get those chapters to my trusty thumb drive. As he worked, I noticed that he transferred the files I needed into a folder on his laptop, and then from there onto my thumb drive. His laptop, I was surprised to discover, is a MacBook Pro.

“I’m impressed,” I said. “Most IT guys I know hate Macs. You’re the first one I’ve ever met who had a Mac laptop.”

“I wouldn’t trust one who didn’t.”

I love this guy.

After making sure the files actually made it to the thumb drive and deleting them from his computer (yes, I saw him!), he tinkered with the computer and was able to perform a “Power Management Reset” — whatever that’s supposed to be — and the machine actually came back to life. Bonus!

He did advise me to start shopping for a new laptop. He suggested the models to consider, and that the base model would be more than enough for what I needed. So eventually, I guess I’ll have to get something new. For now, though, I’m back in business. For a lot cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

So all you writers out there, kindly consider this as that friendly tap on the shoulder, a reminder to save everything, then backup everything to floppy disk or CD so that if your computer dies, your writing projects aren’t lost.

That’s my next task, too.

May sweeps ended this past week, and most network shows have aired their big season-ending cliffhangers. It seems that there are more and more shows that are killing off characters to keep the drama alive.

Sometimes, a show has little choice, because a popular actor who played the role dies and there is no one else who could possibly play the character convincingly. But then there are those deaths when the actor either decides to leave the series or the writers just get the itch to kill someone off. That is the kind of character death that led me to this week’s questions.

But first, Allison of “We’re All Mad Here” was first to play last week. Congratulations, Allison.

On to this week’s question!

THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
Name seven TV character deaths that stand out as being shockers.

Either answer the question in a comment or answer it in your journal and include the link in a comment. (To be considered “first to play,” a link must be to the specific entry in which you answered the question.)

My answers:
1. Lt. Col. Henry Blake - M*A*S*H
2. Edith Bunker, All in the Family
3. James Evans, Good Times
4. Bobby Ewing, Dallas
5. Dr. Romano, ER
6. Alice Horton, Days of Our Lives
7. Alex Borgia, Law & Order

(I realize that two of the characters listed above ended up not actually dying, but their deaths were portrayed at the time as completely real and on the level; that’s why I include them on the list.)

A customer was billed more than eighty bucks for a replacement screw by Sony. I suspect that a trip to the nearest hardware store would have been a lot cheaper, but maybe that wasn’t an option: the bill clearly identifies this one as a “Special Screw.”

For $80+, it should be special enough to insert itself.

Rosie O’Donnell won’t be returning to The View following an on-air skirmish between the former comedienne and colleague Elizabeth Hasselbeck, it was announced on Friday.

O’Donnell was riding out the last few weeks of her contract with ABC and was planning to leave at the end of the season. What set her off — this time around — was that Hasselbeck apparently didn’t rush to Rosie’s defense when conservative pundits accused Rosie of calling American troops “terrorists.”

To review, here is a sample of the exchange between the two on the show from May 16th:

Rosie: Six-hundred fifty-five thousand Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?Elizabeth: Who are the terrorists?

Rosie: Six-hundred fifty-five thousand Iraqis. … I’m saying that if you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?

Though her question was rhetorical, there is no doubt in my mind that Rosie is making the implication that our soldiers are the terrorists in this situation. You may agree with her; it doesn’t really matter to me whether you do or not. But I don’t see how anyone can hear (or read) that exchange and doubt that Rosie was making that suggestion, whether she meant to or not.

Last Wednesday, the two had a well-publicized blow-up on the air, when Rosie called Elizabeth “cowardly” for not stepping up to defend her. Elizabeth fired back:

“You know what’s cowardly? Asking a rhetorical question that you never answer yourself. That’s cowardly.”

And I would have to agree. There’s nothing wrong with speaking your mind; there’s a lot wrong with leaving so much room to interpretation, then claiming offense when someone else doesn’t rush in and explain your words for you. If we’re to believe that Rosie is so tough, so eager to “put it out there” and so thick-skinned, we should have a great deal of trouble believing that Rosie seriously thinks she needs anyone to defend what she has to say.

This is the problem I see with talking about the war: it has everything to do with snarky personal attacks and very little to do with the facts. (Are we to believe that even Rosie thinks that American troops killed each one of those 655,000? Are we really to believe that Rosie has somehow discounted the deadly results amassed by Iraqis who are bombing and murdering their own citizens?)

It is this kind of foolishness that has kept us in Iraq so long. It is this kind of attack-style argument that not only doesn’t help real discussion, understanding and solution occur, but also only encourages both sides to stubbornly dig their heels even deeper into the soil of whichever side of the spectrum they’re standing on.

You don’t solve conflicts or ease tensions that way.

If I were to use Rosie’s reasoning, I guess I’d be calling the extremists on either side, those who seem to delight in attacking for the sake of attacking, terrorists as well. I bet she’d have a problem with that.

Incidentally, in case you are wondering about the timeslot, it should come as no surprise to my regular readers that while the while the women of The View are trading their barbs, I’m watching The Price is Right, which I find infinitely more entertaining and equally effective in bringing the troops home.

I haven’t decided whether I want to see a movie today or not. It has been a while since I have seen one, and there isn’t a great deal out there that appeals to me from the write-ups. I went to a movie site that lists local theater showtimes, and I was reading a review for one of the movies currently out written by a “regular joe” viewer. Here’s what he or she had to say:

ok…go c it

it was an alright movie to c. i thoguht it would be mor suspensful and mysterious.

Would you trust a recommendation like that?

There are days when I feel like taking a drive. Then there are days when I can go without even looking at a car. I haven’t decided which kind of day this is, yet, but it at least got me thinking about this week’s questions.

But before the questions, Gabrielle of “Questions of the Day” was first to play last week. Congratulations, Gabrielle!

Here are this week’s “Saturday Six” questions. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. Enjoy!

6. Do you consider yourself the most-aggressive driver on the road, the least-aggressive, or something in between?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.

MY ANSWERS:
1. Burgondy

6. In between. I’m generally a “live and let live” kind of guy, unless I get behind someone who’s going about twenty miles UNDER the speed limit.

I got a generic email from my gym yesterday, the kind of thing they send to members just to encourage them to keep showing up.

This particular newsletter listed several reasons to stay motivated when exercising. The first item on the list was this one:

Healthy and good? I feel a little more energy since I’ve lost weight. Not a lot, mind you, because I still have the same sleep issues. But my endurance is definitely improved.

Maybe healthy and good are states of being I can look forward to when I’ve lost a little more. At least that’s the story I’m telling myself now.

Today was my final appointment for the 15-week MUSC weight loss plan I’ve been doing. This time, I met with the exercise physiologist, who measured my Body Mass Index (BMI) and the percentage of body fat I’m carrying.

My “official” weight tonight on their scale was 234.6. This morning on my scale at home, the reading was 233.0. (Guess which one I’m going with!) When I started on their plan, my weight was 280.9. I actually started my weight loss plan a couple of weeks earlier, and my real starting weight was 290.0.

My starting BMI was 38. It is now 31.8. Normal is between 18.5 to 24.9. Anything above 30 is considered obese. But at least I am now on the low side of obese. I’m not going to sweat that.

As for my percentage of body fat, I started off with 34%. I’m now at 26.7%. A body fat percentage of between 18-25% is considered “acceptable.” At 26.7%, I’m in the obese category here, too. But again, I’ve made enough progress toward “normal” that I’m not about to get depressed about that.

I then asked him to have a look at my blood work. He was the only one of the specialists I’ve been meeting with who hadn’t seen those numbers, yet. I saw his face light up when he saw the 80-point drop in cholesterol.

He then said that he wanted to use my results as a case study for a class he’s teaching. I told him that for anyone who knows me, the fact that an excercise physiologist wants to use my fitness plan as a success story would come across as the biggest punchline in the world!

At the end of the session, they gave me an option of either re-signing for another 15 weeks, signing up for 5 sessions that I could schedule up to a full month apart just for “maintenence” or to just walk away. Figuring that a little accountability is better than none at all, I opted for the 5 sessions. My next session is in June, and I’m hoping to have dropped down to about 227 by then. At least, that’s my plan. And at least once a week, if not more, I’m going to post a weigh-in. More accountability.

Regardless, I now believe — more strongly than I’ve ever really believed it before — that I can reach my long-term goal. I made some changes, the kind of common sense stuff that really anyone ought to make, and in just 15 weeks, I went from absolutely lousy cholesterol and blood sugar levels to levels that fall well within the green zones. Or, as the exercise guru said, my risks for major problems like diabetes, heart attack and stroke have plummeted.

And I note this for one important reason: if I can do it, anyone can.

Weigh-in: 233.0
Total Lost: 57.0
Lost on MUSC Plan: 47.0
Left to Go: 34.0
Days Until Deadline: 188
Most Recent Blood Pressure: 111/67
Waist Sizes Down: 3

USA Today recently published a list of the 25 Most Memorable Books of the last quarter-century. Leading the list, as you might guess, is the first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

I must admit feeling pretty culturally-literate at the moment: I’ve actually heard of every book on the list. I haven’t read most of them, mind you, but I’ve at least heard of them.

It’s official. Apparently, there are people who will deep-fry anything.

It’s bad enough that carnivals and state fairs offer deep-fried fare ranging from Snickers bars to Twinkies to pickles.

In Wisconsin, they decided to deep-fry something else.

I can’t bring myself to type anything more on the subject.

Over at the CW Network, the big news is about three of their most well-known series. (The full upfronts report is here at TVSquad.)

Veronica Mars apparently isn’t coming back. One Tree Hill is coming back, but with major changes: when the show returns in the fall, it will have advanced four years into future, by which time its characters will have graduated from college. And Chris Rock will finally appear on his Everybody Hates Chris.

Of the eight shows making their debut, there’s only one that looks remotely interesting to me: Reaper, about Satan’s “bounty hunter.” Still, it doesn’t look interesting enough for me to actually make an appointment to watch it.

What about you? Does anything there look more exciting to you than it does to me?

I found this over at Wil’s “The Daily Snooze:”

Mingle² - Free Online Dating

My grandmother would have scored about 150%. She had an old-school percolator and always had a cup of coffee next to her sewing machine. I swear she drank about fifteen cups a day!