http://www.glendaleoregonnews.com/articles/index.cfm?artOID=195107&cp=10977
You can reply in response to it, apparently under the piece.
“if anyone who gets divorced is an asshole, then there is quite a bunch here…”
And I’d be one of them.
This “writer” is a joke. People like this deliberately write to shock or annoy. Otherwise nobody would bother reading them.
I don’t think divorce causes you to be an asshole - there are plenty of married assholes out there.
Thanks for sharing the link. I didn’t care for the article. It seems to make a lot of assumptions about Armstrong and his marriage.
I wonder if the journalist really knew if Armstrong’s former wife was “devoted”?
Or what she was “devoted” to.
Reaching conclusions based upon scant or no evidence is a risky business.
This guy was obviously having a slow news day and decided that opening his “mouth” and removing all doubt about his stupidity was preferable to silence.
I’m convinced that this sort of journalism is on the rise in the U.S. and is amply exemplified by The Fox Cartoon Network, although Rush and Drudge will do in a pinch.
-Robert
The article is further bizarre, in that it is written by the publisher of that newspaper.
Isn’t it pretty obvious that Armstrong started dating Crow AFTER the divorce, unless he knows something we don’t. And, I thought, Kristen filed the divorce complaint.
The guy is a complete freaking idiot.
"I’m convinced that this sort of journalism is on the rise in the U.S. and is amply exemplified by The Fox Cartoon Network, although Rush and Drudge will do in a pinch. "
Don’t forget Michael Moore… Bad journalism is not limited to the right.
I started thinking about this yesterday.
Out of 9 of my best friends in college, all of whom got married. 8 of them have gotten divorced. Two of them, twice. Each time, the woman filed the divorce, because she was “unhappy.” No abuse, no drugs or booze. The majority of them had kids. The guys are all great dads. Had it been up to them, they would have stayed married.
Just unhappy. Go down to the lawyer’s office, bringing a few tax returns and pay checks. Look at the support chart, yeah, I’ll take that, payment. I’ll take that right now.
Amen, except for the possible quibble that he is a film maker, not a news man. Unfortunately, most people can’t tell the difference.
-Robert
I dont think Micheal Moore ever claimed to be a journalist.
You are what you are - not what you call yourself. He is as much a jouranalist/reporter/etc. as O’Reilly and Rush - but his medium is film, books and the Internet rather than TV, radio, magazines or newspapers. If you don’t like the Moore example, try Garafolo or Franken or others from Air America…
None of those people are journalists. They provide commentary or editorial, not factual accounts or news. A subtle difference, but one that allows them to say whatever they want, short of slander, without any real repercussions.
The author seems more interested in how someone could ever divorce someone as “beautiful” as she. I wonder if he would be so enraged if she was homely and chubby, but equally devoted?
“A bike seat between a pair of gonads” got me. The guy doesn’t even know how many nads Lance has. Think he knows what kind of cancer Lance is a survivor of? Real class Journalism guy. G
Umm… yeah. Gee… Wow. Do you really want to get in to this?
Ok, let’s start with my original post, which was in response to Robert’s comment that the editor guy at this podunk paper was a real jerk, and if he wanted bad journalism based on scant or no evidence he could tune in to Fox, Limbaugh or Drudge - all right wing wacko types of news outlets. I simply wanted to point out that the right is not the sole dispenser of questionable journalism, and that the left has their share, too. I pointed to Moore as one of them - not because of his movies, per se, but because of the whole package.
Now, someone called me on that and said Moore was not a journalist. Here’s where it gets a bit tricky. See, I think Moore is a journalist - as much of one as Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. All of them posit views and then back those views up with “facts” - either through citations or other evidence. O’Reilly uses TV, books and radio to get his views out, Limbaugh uses radio, books and newsletters to get his views out, and Moore uses movies, books, a web site and newsletter to get his views out - the media may be different, but the intent is the same.
So is your argument that someone who posits views, and then attempts to back those up with facts, then presents the views and facts to an audience is not a journalist? I suppose you would call them commentators or something? Well, commentators are journalists. If you want to argue that one, I will point you first to a dictionary and then to Robert Novak and Dan Rather - who would be shocked to hear that his daily commentaries are not journalism.
You also argued that Moore simply an entertainer. Ok. Cool.
So, you know Moore started a paper in Flint, right? And that paper expanded in to a statewide paper called the Michigan Voice? And that he used this as a springboard to become the editor of Mother Jones? And he parlayed the Mother Jones gig (ok, his severance package) in to Roger and Me?
Journalism is his bag, baby. It’s in his blood.
Yeah, the serious “journalism student” types might get a bee in their pants to think of him as a journalist (mostly because his journalism, like Limbaugh’s, can be a tad yellow), but Moore, and his movies, books and web site are a source of news and information to many people.
The discussion on what a journalist is and isn’t and if Moore is or isn’t could go on for days, and perhaps it would be better to discuss on a Big Kahuna training ride. Before I go to bed, though, I want to touch on something you brought up. You said the movie F 9/11 was like a long SNL sketch, but REAL LIFE. Do you know which parts of the movie were entertainment and which were real life? Would you consider any of the content that was presented to you, that you perceived to be real life, to be “news” or a “report”? A lot of people do.
I have friends, in Texas ironically, that believe the Lance and Kristen should not have gotten divorced and that Lance is a man lacking in family values. Awfully "Leave it Beaver"ish attitude. Sometimes divorce is the best thing for the family in the long run, I commend Lance and Kristen for doing what was right, in their eyes, for the kids.
I admire Lance for his courage in overcoming cancer and his ability to ride up steep hills better than anyone else. Everything else, I have other role models for.
They can call themselves whatever they want, and get offended if they please, but my Webster’s say that journalism is the “occupation of gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or broadcasting the news.”
A commentator is the person who “discusses news or other topics on the news or radio”
Editorial is an articale that “presents the opinion of the editor, publisher or owner”
Michael Moore may have been a jornalist at some point, but was not acting as one when he made any of his films. He was acting as a documentary film-maker. One of the ways I know they are not the same is that he doesn’t enjoy freedom of the press while making his movies. Dan Rather may be a journalist, but his commentary doesn’t qualifiy as journalism. Neither does Limbaugh’s or O’Reilly’s.
I would like to thank this thread for degenerating into the most ridiculous argument of the week.