The Scrutinator

Another must-read today: The Columbia Journalism Review accuses bloggers of being "salivating morons who make up the lynch mob" (against CNN's Eason Jordan). John Armor responds with perspective and wit.

As with all movements, the blogosphere has its distinctions between those who think through and lead the efforts, and those who either join in later or cheer from the sidelines. The difference is much the same as between English footballers, who can be sent off for minor infractions, and their fans, who can be head-cracking hooligans. Separating one from the other is a matter of research on bloggers....

The very use of the phrase “lynch mob” implies that we “killed” Jordan and that he might have been innocent. The available facts indicate that Jordan was guilty. He apparently agreed, because he “resigned” to avoid “embarrassment” to CNN. And by the way, we still want to see the tape from Davos so everyone will know exactly what Jordan said. Unlike the MSM, we are in the truth business; Jordangate isn’t finished yet....

How sad that the Review, the voice of Columbia and purported voice of the journalism profession, does not think the pursuit of the truth is basic to reporting.

Hat-tip: Powerline