“I bet not one of them had the guts to put their name behind the remarks they gave to Todd Purdum (Dee Dee Myers husband) either!!!”
I get so very sick of journalistic. Not that you can ever completely get rid of it. But you can make a dent in it by refusing to publish quotes, paraphrases, and implications by people who refuse to give their names. Follow up on their information, sure. Only you have to do the work. Don’t capitalize on it unless you find substance by yourself.
That would prevent broadsides like “sources say,” “word on the hill is,” “according to some,” “we have it on reliable word,” etc. Without such phrases, articles might end up reading like wildly arbitrary speculation, but that’s fine. That’s what they are already.
Of course, journalists would never accept it. They thrive on “scoops”. Gotta get the “dirt”. Can’t risk losing the story due to tight lips. Have to make it as easy as possible for people to “dish”. Basically, they’re lazy.
I don’t know if you caught the post the other day, but a man wrote in that he wrote for a paper, and his daughter, when describing what he did, in school, called him a “Gerbilist”.
I think that precisely describes them.
Spread it around.
Unfortunately, headline blurbs and and mini-soundbites are the most convincing articles for the vast majority of the populace. I am astounded daily by supposedly educated people who absorb CNN and AP title bars, and are totally convinced that they are fully informed.
The downfall of this nation is that so very few people can bother themselves to examine or discuss ideas and concepts.
Welcome to Idiocracy.
Simple people talk about people.
Mediocre people talk about events.
Superior people talk about ideas.