Many readers know that our esteemed newspaper is bankrupt. For many here, we can believe that the Columbian has been bankrupt intellectually for years, and the financial aspect has just now got around to catching up to them.
Today's Brancaccio column serves to confirm the intellectual bankruptcy this newspaper has been mired into for the past several years.
Clueless reporters. Pathological bias. Using their lofty position as a weapon. Attacking and censoring those they disagree with on a personal level. Classic journalistic incompetence where, instead of reporting the news, they attempt to become the news.
Editorial policies that come across as they are written by the City of Vancouver and the democrat party.
And this column is a case in point.
The Cliff Notes version is that Brancaccio would like us to believe that somehow, "credentialed journalists" have any greater value than anyone else.
They don't. One need go no farther than this last election where these so-called "credentialed journalists" became butt boys for Obama to see where they have left behind the one thing that may... may have separated them from the internet riffraff, of which I am one.
And that thing... that one element... is integrity.
The duty of a journalist is to report the news. Not to push an agenda... not to substitute opinion for fact... not to attempt to sway public opinion in evil and despicable ways knowing themselves to be immune from consequences at the time of their sordid efforts.
This paper has a history of being just that; an attack organ against those wise enough to disagree with their positions and perspectives. Their editors attack and belittle those with whom they disagree on a regular basis. They endorse strictly on party lines, and that party has become the democrats as this county grows. They lie and mislead about their biases in an effort to polish their veneer of impartiality while they attempt to personally damage and assassinate the reputations and lives of those who object.
And Brancaccio tells us: "Newspapers, in fact, have always had credibility as their main focus."
Maybe "newspapers." But not THIS "newspaper." Setting up bogus polling with pre-determined outcomes to support the light rail part of your agenda does what to your credibility?
Endorsing, for example, only democrats for open elective seats in this past election does what to your credibility?
By writing a column referring to credibility without doing anything to insure your OWN credibility does what, in fact, to that credibility?
Like so many other of your efforts, it damages it further. And in the end, what little you have left is disappearing... along, it would seem, with your newspaper generally.
And Brancaccio whines about the comments at ends of the stories in this paper, referring to it thusly: "We continually try to steer folks to be passionate and constructive, but there always are a few who think cheap shots are the way to go."
Then, perhaps, if your would talk to John Laird, your own editorial page editor, he'd knock it off.
Censorship of the comments at the ends of these stories, typically aimed at those who disagree, runs rampant. Many of these stories don't even have a passing glimpse of credibility or impartiality, violating many journalistic tenants on a regular basis. A reader becomes enraged, again, and resorts to the same tone and tenor displayed by the reporter or columnist writing in the paper.
Brancaccio goes on: "Hey, most all of us wish everyone in a society would have a level of respect for others." This one almost caused me to blow chunks, Lou.
There is such a level of hypocrisy here that it doesn't even need comment. So, I won't.
Suffice it to say that before you criticize others, a smidgen of introspection and mirror-gazing might do you, and your paper, a bit of good. But I doubt it... given that, as far back as 1997, one of your own reporters was questioning this very issue:
NEWSPAPERS TRY TO REGAIN CREDIBILITY WITH READERSEleven years later... and you still don't get it.
From: The Columbian Date: July 28, 1997 Author: MIKE FEINSILBER
The Columbian 07-28-1997
WASHINGTON -- Would you believe this? A lot of editors worry that you wouldn't -- that people are less willing these days to believe what they read in the newspapers. They fear that, for a variety of reasons, newspapers are suffering a crisis in credibility, losing the irreplaceable asset of believability. The press has a lot to worry about these days: stagnant circulation, too few young readers, the Internet's ...
Gee. I hope this was both "credible" and "civil" enough, Lou.
Press Talk: Online info — from soup to nuts
Friday, November 21 9:46 p.m.
BY LOU BRANCACCIO
Is anybody home?
Who doesn’t love the Internet, right?
What’s in the soup?
Anyone out there a fan of the TV show “Boston Legal?” It’s a smartly written series about a high-powered quirky law firm. It often weaves in current events.
Take the latest episode. Attorney Alan Shore — played by James Spader — takes on an employer who fired one of his workers because she voted for Senator John McCain.
The employer’s position was — in essence — that if his employee had any sense at all, she would have realized that McCain was the wrong choice.
Shore’s defense of the employee? Americans have the right to vote for whomever they want. And every American can make that choice no matter how uninformed or unintelligent it is.
To help support his argument, Shore pointed to where many Americans get their news.
“People forgo newspapers for the Internet, where — instead of relying on credentialed journalists — they turn to these bloggers, sort of entry-level life forms that, intellectually, have yet to emerge from the primordial soup.”
Objection, your honor! I want to stand up for my blogger friends. In fact, we have several bloggers connected to The Columbian who are excellent.