Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (40696)	4/23/2004 6:49:01 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

A followup by a blogger on the South Dakota story. Investigative journalism by South Dakota blogger Posted by Ryan to category: Blogging & Media 04:31 PM Apr 22 Here's a sad display: Newspaper editor Randall Beck lashes out at bloggers during a radio program, after they helped spread information on one blogger's investigation into ties between Argus Leader political reporter Dave Kranz and Sen. Tom Daschle. Beck is not impressed that someone dared raise these questions: The internet is both a good and a bad thing. The bad is that it has allowed people who hate to distribute their vitriol anonymously, um, using gang emails, using blogs, what have you, with barely a shred of proof, manipulating facts, to perpetuate an ideology. And it’s a truly sad thing. And I guess that I would suggest that I’m not going to dignify that kind of crap with an answer. This is sad on so many levels, not the least of which is that Editor Beck comes off as less professional than the main blogger he's criticizing (read Jason Van Beek's response). His idea of anonymity is a bit off, too. But the biggest shame is that Beck can't see Van Beek's work for the journalism that it is. Perhaps he's still under the illusion that journalism can only be done by someone with a press credential. Just take a look at the South Dakota Politics blog; this is someone who has invested a lot of time and effort into his investigation. Van Beek not only follows Kranz's current work and the balance of Argus Leader political coverage, he digs into history, even going so far as to find Senate memos in library archives. Van Beek certainly has a perspective on what he's writing about, but he's upfront about it. And he's compiled enough evidence to prove that at the very least, his questions about Kranz are worth asking. If this kind of journalistic effort is "crap," well, that doesn't speak well of the professional work Beck's been reading lately. It's not vitriol either, unless this sounds like vitriol to you: It is reasonable to believe, given Kranz' history, that Kranz is not an objective observer. As I've stated many times before, there's nothing wrong with Kranz having his liberal view of the world. There IS something wrong with Kranz organizing and reporting the news in collaboration with political campaigns, and cloaking it all in "impartiality." All that is required is fundamental fairness and impartiality. And it is reasonable to believe that Kranz' reporting is not fundamentally fair or impartial. Dismissing this much evidence accumulated by a blogger as crap not worthy of a response doesn't close the case, as much as Editor Beck would like it to. It only makes it look more like Beck has no case. As for me, when I talk to professional colleagues about citizen journalists and the power of blogging, I usually use Jim Zellmer as a great example. Now I get to talk about Jason Van Beek, too. deadparrots.net

To: LindyBill who wrote (40696)	4/24/2004 6:29:24 AM
From: Ish	Respond to of 793963

That's a case Jeb Bush should be looking into. If a pardon was ever called for ... I had a friend who died from cancer. Chemo just tore him up and he couldn't eat for days after. He took his last vacation in Florida and had a chemo treatment there, no vomiting and had breakfast on the way home. When he asked about the difference he was told they added an extract of marijuana in Florida. Couldn't get it in Illinois because the doctors were worried about the government bothering them.