Hmmmm...on Mumbai coverage.

It seems to me that what bloggers and microbloggers did was regurgitate the news. They took stories from other sources and put it on twitter. This, I think has its pros and cons depending on what you are trying to get from a microblog source like twitter. If you want new news, then twitter isn't your best source. But, if you want a variety of headlines from a variety of sources, kind of like the Drudge Report, then twitter is a good source. Though, to me, it seems like there is A LOT of sifting to find credible, good, and accurate stuff. Who has time to sift? Especially to check credibility.

"A Twitterer owes no duty except to their own impressions and own state of mind, they'll pass on rumour as readily as fact," says Tom Sutcliffe in an article from the Guardian. This article was about the BBC's regrets with using twitter in covering the Mumbai attacks. I think credible news sources have to be extremely cautious in their use of tools like twitter. It's very difficult to "factcheck" a feed that comes from twitter before damage is already done. I think CNN uses twitter, but in a modified way where....like commentary rather than relying on it for breaking news.

I think this is becoming a big issue with blogging....credibility. Anybody can write just about anything with little accountability.

It seems that a "trend" may be the sacrafice of professionalism and accuracy for speed, competition, and beating the other guy to the punch. I love twitter. If I wanted I could "follow" a hundred different news organizations and get a well rounded feed of the day's news. I become much more weary of joe-six-packs who are trying to pose and breaking news journalists....

Just some random thoughts.

"Local News"

I was just looking at the local news headlines of my hometown paper, The La Grande Observer.

More Local News
Summit sought to address local jobless rate
Help buy bike rack for The Link
Raffle proceeds aid Halfway clinic
Have orchestra, will travel
New Baby Jesus figure to grace nativity scene
Santa's trains will depart Elgin depot Dec. 13-14

For those avid readers of The New York Times, or those who constantly check CNN.com, this news may seem a bit funny, and of little to no importance. But to the members of my little community, this is the stuff they want to hear about. I've been doing research on community journalism for a big research paper in my english class. A common theme is the idea of bringing the community together. I think from these headlines, we can see that my newspaper in a way is trying to do that.

Is this what "they" mean by hyper-localization talked about in "NewsWar" (wait is that what that documentary was called?)? Anyway, it is just interesting to go back and forth between national papers and community papers. Do you guys take stuff like fundraising for a bike rack seriously? Just some random thoughts on community journalism.....

The News is Making it Worse

I am now home for the Thanksgiving holiday. Yesterday, my Mom and I were in the car together. For whatever reason we were talking about the news.... I think it stemmed from talking about the decreasing gas prices (FYI, in Oregon it is still over two bucks for a gallon of gas). Anyway, she commented that the news makes everything worse lately.

She then went on a tangent about how the news makes everyone panic, which then causes the worse to happen. Like, the news will report that the housing market could collapse, and so all these people stop buying homes, and bam! It's crashing! Or, the news reports that a credit crisis could be looming, so people stop taking out loans, stop spending money, and then boom! Credit crisis! The news reports that Barack Obama is probably going to win the election, so people don't bother to vote for the opposing side and zing! Obama's our winner! And so on and so on. Obviously my mom was oversimplifying everything (as parents have a tendency to do), and we can't really blame the news for everything bad in the world (we already blame President Bush for that). But, I thought her tangent posed an interesting theory, which I am posing as a query to you all.

Can the news media predestinate the news? Does reporting possibilities cause them to turn into actualities? How much influence does the news have on current events?

Professional Wrestling Rings?

I recently read for another communications class an interesting quote.

Ralph E. Hanson, in his book Mass Communication: Living in a Media World, said, "Political talk shows are staged with props and costumes to generate the highest possible level of conflict. In essence, they are the professional wrestling rings of journalism."

So say I decide that commentators are indeed journalists. How can I take anything they say seriously? If they are merely on a stage in their proper costumes with appropriate props....and can be related to professional wrestling (something I will never take seriously), how am I or an average American supposed to distinguish between what is real and what isn't?

Our book author, Jeffrey Scheuer, says that "we must use journalism to see the world as it is."

I don't know what I am really getting at here, other than that I am confused. And if I am confused then so are millions of others across the country. What is journalism, what is not? Where is it okay to get our information? Where is it not? Do we label political debate shows as entertainment, or as news forums? Are bloggers journalists? Is journalism even applicable to the world that we live in? Like everything else within the realms of journalism, must our concept of the term change and evolve, or do we hold to the traditions and principles of the past?

It's all so confusing to me. I wish there was clarity. Maybe you can afford me some. Though Scheuer gives me little hope when he says, "journalism has blurry boundaries."

Journalists vs. Commentators

With the renewal of Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'Reilly's contracts (see http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/11/olbermann_rewarded_with_new_co.html), I have been thinking.....

We've asked the question over and over again, "What is journalism, and who is a journalist?"

As we've discussed these questions and more we have touched on these guys, and guys like them, regularly. We've talked about sensationalism, bias, and heated "debates." Often we view them as how not to be objective in news.

But, are these guys journalists? Just because we throw them in front of a camera and have them spout off some of today's pressing topics, does that make them journalists? If we do consider them journalists, then are they good? Yes, they have high ratings (okay, maybe not Mr. Olberman), but does this make them good journalists?

We talk often about blogging. More and more reporters are turning to the web to reach their audience. Six-pack Joes with a blog can be called journalists.

But really, are these folks journalists? I would like to suggest that they are not. I would rather call them commentators. Instead of Bill's intro "Number one show in cable news," I think it should say "Number one show in cable commentary." I think MSNBC did right when they took Olberman and Chris Matthews off of post-debate coverage.

What do you guys think? Should we label them journalists or commentators? And if commentators, how do we go about making sure the rest of America sees the distinction?

The Sky is Falling

A new article out by The New York Times discusses the decision of The Christian Science Monitor to go completely digital with a supplemental magazine, and what that means for the industry (see the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29carr.html?scp=3&sq=christian%20science%20monitor&st=cse).

After discussing cuts in staffing among many newspaper organizations, the author, David Carr, says, "Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people will be left to cover it."

Carr raises an important issue for the future of news. With more and more staffing cuts, are we going to be getting the kind of coverage that a growing, fast paced, changing world needs?

Many of you out there might point to such things as citizen journalism and blogs. But, as Carr points out, "The blogosphere has had its share of news breaks, but absent a functioning mainstream media to annotate, it could be pretty darn quiet out there." Blogs usually regurgitate the hot topics of the MSM, with added commentary. Will citizens take the initiative to cover new stories and topics both locally and globally, with little to no compensation?

Others of you might say that digital versions of newspapers will easily replace and make up for the losses in printed papers. It is true, as Carr points out, websites do not have an audience problem, they have a consumer problem. We are reminded that, "The answer is that paper is not just how news is delivered; it is how it is paid for." The differences in profit between print advertising and online advertising are a key to the continued losses of the industry while it struggles to evolve.

Is the sky falling? Are there going to be people left to cover the vast amounts of news? Let me know your thoughts, and check out the article...

The Heart of Journalism

"Citizen volunteers have to understand that the heart of journalism is accuracy. You can't take shortcuts," Says Skip Hidlay, executive editor of Gannett Company's Asbury Park Press in New Jersey (http://www.kcnn.org/tools/crowdsourcing).

(Yes, I shot that!)

The statement that "the heart of journalism is accuracy," may have been true once upon a time, but is it still true? Or was it ever true?


In a time where sensationalism grabs the masses, where loud partisan commentary is confused for news, and where everywhere we turn stories are being distorted or straight out invented, accuracy does not seem to be a vital organ for the body of journalism. Is that okay?


And if accuracy isn't the heart of journalism, what is? Is it the people? The citizens? I think it would have to be.


It is citizens who drive what stories they want to hear. As we've discussed all semester, how do we tell people the stuff they don't want to hear, but we think they should? It is citizens who buy the papers, watch the news, read the blogs, peruse the websites. And at an increasing rate it is citizens who break and report the news.


Does the public not want accuracy anymore? What is it that they want? And what do you think is the heart of journalism? Was accuracy indeed the heart of journalism, and because accuracy is failing, is that why it is argued that the journalism industry is also failing?

Crowdsourcing

So, somehow I've stumbled upon an interesting website, KCNN.org, which will probably be providing me with an abundance of stuff to blog about.

Today I want to talk about a term I've never head before, called "crowdsourcing."

Has anybody else heard this term?

http://www.kcnn.org/tools/crowdsourcing

Basically it is in reference to using crowds, or the people, for information. In other words it means, "asking your readers, or your audience, to help you solve a problem."

Reporters are supposed to build a list of solid sources from which to get the best information for our stories. The way these guys talk about crowdsourcing is basically a lot like CNN's "IReport." Asking the people to feed you news and stories. But, is the general public a good source?

Anybody can be a source. Does that mean they can be a good source?

As journalists we often get the cold shoulder and find it challenging to get "inside" and get the real story. One pro of crowdsourcing, advocated by KCNN, is that it is an effective tool when "you have people inside an organization who may not be reachable through normal channels by a reporter."

But, the article is also quick to say, "Verify. Verify. Verify." Just a new website and a new term I wanted to throw out there to the masses of 239.

Small Town vs. Big City

For English 315 I had to choose an article to do a review on. Some how I happened upon an article by Bill Reader called Distinctions that Matter: Ethical Differences at Large and Small Newspapers. It's a pretty interesting article that you can find through the HBLL.

28 senior level editors at 14 small and 14 large newspapers were interviewed.

Among findings were that all but two of the large newspapers recalled having to discipline or fire reporters over ethical issues. Only half of small papers reported doing so.

In large papers, the most common problems involved plagarism or deceptive reporting/editing practices. While for smaller papers, the most common problem involved conflicts-of-interest.

The way paper editors described the communities' views of the newspaper also showed differences between the sizes. Large papers described being seen as respected as an institution (they were respected even if they weren't liked) or by their "editorial page ideology." Small town paper editors described the communities' views in terms of "community connections," away of connecting to other parts of the community.

Perhaps the part that struck me the most was when the editors were asked if there were inherent differences between large and small newspapers. Nine of the 14 large newspapers said "no," while 11 of the 14 small newspapers said "yes." I think those responses right there give us some insight.

So, are there inherent differences because of the size of a newspaper? If so, what are they?

One big difference seemed to be the pressure from smaller communities on journalists to not print something, do print something, or take specific angles. In a smaller community you are writing about someone you know, or someone that someone you know, knows. You face your critics at the store, at the theatre, at your kid's baseball game.

Thoughts?

Paperless Paper

Remember back in the days of September when life was seemingly less complicated and the outlook of the world wasn't quite so pessimistic, unless you were a democrat, and a Hillary Clinton fan? Then you might also recall how Cressman mentioned that papers were actually looking at being a portable electronic? I scoffed at the idea, thought people who read the paper wouldn't go for it. Who wants to add to their collection of electronic devices (ipod, cell phone, laptop, etc)?

But, now I've seen it, and find it quite fascinating. If I could take it on a trial run, I definitely would. You can find a preview of the gadget here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7631596.stm

So, will newspaper readers flock to this new form of newspaper, the "paper" without actual paper? I have a hunch it'll take some warming up to the idea. Is this where newspapers are going?

Shopping Cart Critics and More...

I asked Bill Rautenstrauch, a local reporter for my hometown newspaper (The La Grande Observer), most of the questions provided for us. I improvised a little because I wanted to frame the questions in ways that led Rautenstrauch to expound upon his responses. I also added another question at the end about journalism in a rural setting. La Grande is a town of 12,000 people in a county of less than 22,000. It is in a largely rural setting and I envision myself someday writing for a rural area.... If you don't have time to read the whole transcript, I've highlighted some of my favorite lines. Look for my response at the end...

Why did you go into journalism? From a very early age I had the impulse to write. As I grew older I felt sure I wanted to do novels and short stories (actually believed for a long time I was the next Jack Kerouac, though I never got anyone to agree with me on that). Then in college I took a couple of journalism courses and wrote for the campus newspaper. I liked the immediacy of news writing. The stories were right there and the plots were built-in, no need to spend hours making them up.

How did you break into the field? While attending Eastern Oregon University in the late 1970s, I applied for a job as a sportswriter with The (La Grande) Observer. Ted Kramer hired me and I was on my way. I left The Observer after a couple of years and was gone a long time. I worked for the Klamath Falls Herald and News and the Wallowa County Chieftain in Enterprise before coming back to The Observer in 2003.

How do you define “good” journalism?It’s been said that a good reporter is one who can write it right, write it tight, and write it tonight. Personally, I pretty much strive for that.

In what ways do you feel like your news organization practices “good” journalism? Or does it? Most of our writers are well-trained and know the fundamentals, so in the main our readers get factual, clear, well-written stories they can understand.Our staff is small, but we do our best to cover all the beats, including county and city governments, crime, courts, schools, health care, social services, business, sports and more. We cover the news that matters.
We also place high value on the well-being of the community. We promote good causes, help people in need whenever we can, and recognize the folks who work to make this a better place to live. I am not trying to make us sound perfect, for surely we are not. But I do know that the people I work with practice journalism in a principled way. They have conscience and they take their jobs seriously.

How would you define the journalism you do? I have regular assignments including La Grande city government, business, police and courts, and social services. I cover breaking news, do an occasional investigative piece, and, every once in awhile, I get to write an upbeat feature. The job description doesn't say “general assignment,” but sometimes I feel like that’s what it is.

How does your organization allow you to do the type of journalism you want to do? Like most of my co-workers, I’m a self-starting, self-directed individual. The editors here are comfortable with that, and for the most part, they trust that I will cover my beats. I’m very grateful for the freedom to follow my curiosity and develop my own stories.That’s not to say I work entirely on my own, or even that I would want to. A certain percentage of the stories I do are assigned to me by editors. Good ideas come from that direction often enough.

How does the journalism you practice serve your community? I hope it helps readers to better know and understand the community. That goes for the routine stories that simply state the who, what, when, where and why, and the in-depth stories that explore the issues. Both have their place.

What is your opinion about recent movements such as community, citizen, civic, and public journalism? I think most news people practice so-called civic or community or public journalism as a way of life. The tasks include going to the meetings, questioning the policy makers, digging out background from public records, checking one source against another, writing objectively and truthfully. That kind of journalism is essential to the success of this newspaper, and most others.

While I like some of the ideas behind citizen journalism, I think it’s got a long way to go. There are many examples of good citizen journalism out there, but a lot of what I read - especially on the Internet - is poorly researched and poorly written. Worst of all, many citizen journalists have a way of stating their own opinion as if it were fact. My training and experience say that’s a big no-no. Opinion must be labeled as such.It’s great, though, that we live in a country where all are free to write what they want. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

What has been an experience in which you felt your work as a journalist really made a difference? I mentioned earlier that my newspaper goes out of its way to promote good causes. This week I wrote one story advancing a music benefit for the local domestic violence shelter, and another about an effort to fill community food banks before winter sets in. If those activities are successful, I can always say I helped.

Over the years I have written hundreds of such stories, so it’s hard to pick out a favorite. Cumulatively, I think they’ve made a huge difference. I just feel fortunate to be in a position to influence outcomes.

How have your views about journalism changed over the years? I have come to understand that it is not an easy job. It’s like having to take your final exams every morning of your life. And dang it, I always fall short of getting that “A.”Perfection is impossible, but you have to try for it day after day. I have learned by experience that writing doesn’t get you where you want to go, re-writing does. I like doing journalism way more now than I did before, both for the reason that I understand it better, and for the reason that the technology is marvelous.Remember, you’re talking to a guy who got his start writing stories on an old Royal typewriter.

Have you been affected by dropping circulations, ratings, layoffs, and growth of citizen journalism? So far, I’ve not been affected much. I’ve made a living at this for 30 years, through many ups and downs. I am well aware, however, that times are changing. Just about every paper in the country is suffering from falling circulation. Competition for the reader’s time and attention is fierce these days. Many papers are downsizing or even going out of business. If I was just beginning my career instead of nearing its end, I’d be worried.

Is journalism in rural communities different from journalism in a metropolis? If so, how? Way different. In a big city, you can write your story, then go out and get lost in the crowd. In a small town, you face the critics every time you go to the supermarket.

I was pretty enthralled by both Heather Bowser's presentation today, as well as Bill Rautenstrauch's responses. Both work for a small town paper. I found they had similiar experiences and similiar responses to questions.

The first thing that stood out to me was how both reporters responded that the changing industry hasn't changed their local papers as much as it has bigger papers in bigger cities. That brought back to me the idea of hyper localization, an idea mentioned in NewsWars. The thought that if a paper wants to survive and even thrive it needs to shift its focus and really localize its content. It's an idea that made a lot of sense to me and in fact got me really excited that there is hope for us silly print journalists. Though Rautenstrauch did say that if he was beginning his career -- like me -- he'd be worried.

I appreciated, in my interview, the reminder that journalism is great for the writer who likes to write without having to be so out-of-control creative. He responds in the first question that the stories are here, with the plots built in, no need to make them up. Which I believe is very true, there's a plot to every story, you just have to find it. In that sense, journalists need to be creative. With so many true stories out there, I don't see why so many have felt the need to fabricate.

I liked how Rautenstrauch brought up the idea that many citizen journalists state their opinion as fact. This really ties back to what we've been talking about all semester, who is a journalist, or what makes a journalist? I think that's very true for both citizen journalists as well as those we watch on the news when we get home. Opinion as fact? Glenn Beck? Lou Dobbs? Bill O'Reilly? I'd prefer to call them, "commentators."

Finally, I loved his closing remark. You face your critics in line at the grocery store in a small town. I want to ask some follow up to that, like, does Rautenstrauch think that this affects what he writes about and how he frames it?

I much appreciated this chance to talk to someone who's worked in the business for so long. I was glad to see that the issues we talk about in class are still relevant in some ways to small town papers and old time reporters.

"We all got it comin', kid."

"We all got it comin', kid." A quote from the western, "Unforgiven."

I just went online and checked out the redesign of the three newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, The Oklahoman, and The Hartford Courant.

We've been speculating for a month in our class as to how papers would go, I think we are seeing the initial stages of change.

I believe in one of our major class discussions Professor Cressman asked what we, who were going into print journalism, were doing if it was a dying industry. I said, "Magazines," and heard ripples of agreement from those around me. I found the following quote from the Poynter Online interview interesting:

"I think what we've managed to do is take the way that you're used to reading a big-city broadsheet daily and just sort of turn it on its ear and make it into a daily magazine about Chicago." Jonathon Berlin the Tribune design director said http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47&aid=151331.

Huh. I'm anxious to see how these "redesign" trial runs go. I really feel like papers won't necessarily die, they will change, adapt and each will have to find its niche. Whether that niche be the greater Chicago area, Suzie Homemakers in Utah, Jazz enthusiasts in New Orleans, or political junkies across the United States.

Papers are no longer the public's first source of news. I think more and more, people are going to the newspapers for the details on stories they hear on CNN or the Nightly News. Whether papers need to take magazine form (with glossy pictures and smaller page span) in order to survive, well that's an argument to be had on another day....

"The public doesn't give a damn about integrity."

My title is a quote from the western "High noon." Don't tell my bishop I typed a swear word....

I am following my hometown newspaper, The Observer. Which is "Union and Wallowa Counties' News Leader." I think those two counties have all of a population of 30,000 max. Anyway, today I was skimming through the op-ed section of the website and found a "letter to the editor" by the editor, Ted Kramer.

In it, he explicitly said that letters to the editor that attacked one candidate and without endorsing the other, would not be published. Or letters where facts were not documented, would also not be published.

Kramer mentioned the idea that web sites and e-mails were not "held to the same standards that apply in newspapers." He also went on to state that his paper would not be used as a "web-style free-for-all where anything goes."

I wasn't sure how to take this letter from the editor. Defending the integrity of the institution of the newspaper? Impeaching upon the first amendment? Discounting civic journalism? What is the role of the editor? What are our roles as readers? Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

You can find this letter at http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/Opinion/Guest-Columns/Letters-and-comments-for-September-27-2008.

"Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?"

"Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" A quote from "The Outlaw Josey Wales."

I've watched bits and pieces of the three major interviews that have been conducted with Sarah Palin since she was announced as John McCain's running mate. I found three different approaches by each interviewer.

Charlie Gibson, of ABC, at times appeared above Sarah Palin, using a condescending tone, etc. I have seen other interviews of Gibson's and immediately noticed his colder and, at times, almost patronizing demeanor. He asked tough questions with no mercy, and pressed issues when not given a satisfactory answer (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHnzTN95kRc).

Contrast that with Sean Hannity of FOX news. From the offset Hannity wore a warm, adoring smile. He posed questions in a casual, kind way, asking about family and her thoughts on the world's issues - almost like a backyard bbq. Hannity, a Republican, obviously was going to help his girl out (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVR2QCH3-fg).

That brings us to the most recent interview with CBS's Katie Couric. In my opinion, Couric seemed to be the most balanced of all three interviews. She didn't appear overly warm, asked tough questions, but respectfully, and even cracked a slight smile from time to time. She wasn't condescending, but she wasn't idolizing Palin either (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc).

After watching these interviews, I wonder to myself, who was the best journalist? Who delivered the story? Who presented the story in a way that gave unbiased context and meaning to it? Who constructed the social reality of Sarah Palin as a possible vp most effectively? Who, in effect, best represented the public?

Is it okay to show bias? Is it okay to be borderline disrespectful if it is someone you don't neccessarily respect? How do you hide your personal opinions, whether it be in print, online, or broadcast journalism?

Just to lighten things up on a Monday morning...

Corporations, Congress, and Communications

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's how the first amendment reads.

So Congress can't limit freedom of speech or of the press, but what about corporations?

As I've been firmly planted on my bed or on the couch (thanks to an ankle infection) for a couple days now, I finally decided to catch up on some Comms 101 reading. This past week in class we were discussing Media Ethics. I've found it all very intriguing and thought provoking.

Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine formed a commission that sought to study the press' responsibility within the United States. The commission was headed up by a scholar named Robert M. Hutchins. In the textbook, Mass Communitcation, Robert E. Hanson summarizes the commission's findings:

...the commission concluded that the First Amendment, by itself, might not be enough to protect the free speech rights of the public because a small number of corporations controlled a large number of the available communication outlets. Although the government might not be limiting free speech, corporations might do so.

Hanson further suggests that, "This problem of a conflict of corporate interest extends beyond suppressing stories; it also involves actively promoting the company's interests."

What does all this mean for up and coming journalists? If we choose to follow the idea that it is a journalist's prerogative to deliver the truth to the masses, to give meaning and understanding to news, how can we be independent when dependent upon "the man"? I don't know what I am trying to say...I just found this idea interesting.

How Far Do You Go?

This weekend I had the oppurtunity to see a new film called "Traitor." It has Don Cheadle from "Hotel Rwanda." I highly reccommend this film. It was a very thought provoking film for me. It had me pondering different aspects of life at different levels, from my faith, to whether or not the U.S. is like a terrorist organization in that it is willing to kill innocent people for the cause of greater good, and my future career as a journalist, among other topics....

In this film, a man becomes firmly entrenched in a role in order to accomplish "greater" things. He does things in this role that he otherwise would not do, all the while trying to convince himself that it will be worth it in the end.

In journalism there are many examples of people going to extremes to get the story and report it. To be the first, to be the best. Nellie Bly (as mentioned in class) is an example of a journalist who went to the extreme of going undercover in an insane asylum. Daniel Pearl, a journalist for The Wall Street Journal, was beheaded in Pakistan in 2002 while trying to uncover and report possible links between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl). In 2006 Reuters pulled 920 photographs taken by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj after it was learned that many had been "photoshopped" (see http://tiny.cc/G8Dhs).

We all want to succeed in our professions, but to what extremes? How far do you go?

What/Who Is a Journalist?

To me, a journalist is someone who feels compelled to say something, and does, through whatever medium they can best use to express themselves. Whether that is spoken words, printed words, sounds or images.

This is what makes the likes of you and me journalists, as well as the Christiane Amanpours and Fred Barnes' of the world. We see something, we read something, hear something, and it causes us to react, to speak up, speak out. This is what makes someone a journalist. Not only do they experience the world around them, like everyone else, they record it, they act.

The Bush Doctrine

I finally got to sit and watch some of Charlie Gibson's 20/20 interview with Sarah Palin. I had heard one of her blunders was that she didn't seem to know what The Bush Doctrine was when Charlie asked her about it. I watched the segment and thought she responded as appropriately as a VP candidate could. But, I thought to myself, "I don't even know what the Bush Doctrine is." Is it okay to admit that? Does everybody else and their dog and their Liberal Book Club friends know what the Bush Doctrine is? I quickly went on Wikipedia.org for a quick definition.... Here it is:

"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."

So now you know....question is, do you know what the Clinton Doctrine was? Do you know the Monroe Doctrine? What about Nixon, or Carter? For details visit
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-United-States-Presidential-doctrines