Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Unfettered 'Citizen Journalism' Too Risky

Too risky for what? Unfettered control by the Establishment?

Yeah, you propagandist frauds are doing such a bang-up job at government watchdogging, that's must be why I have an entire category of examples I don't even go out actively looking for under the "Authorized Journalism" heading. For you to talk about trust would be laughable if the consequences of your daily treason weren't so destructive.


This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer."

Oh, yeah, the equivalent training and requirements makes this such an apt analogy--Stand back: I'm a highly trained liberal arts major!


So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist.
Uh...yeah. Even ones who were disapproved of. And we became better and freer for it.

Put fetters on yourself, Hazinski. And a muzzle. And leave the rest of us the hell alone.

[Via JunkFoodScience via KCB]

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nobody has the "right" to be a surgeon and to perform operations on other people without their consent.

Nobody has the "right" to be a lawyer and defend other people in a court of law without their consent.

Howevr, everyone has the right to express their own opinions, verbally or in print, without let or hindrance from the State or anyone else.

Such analogies are false right from the start.

Anonymous said...

Are we sure this man's name isn't Goebbels?

He is correct in that unfettered citizen journalism is risky. It entails a ton of risk to liars, official and otherwise and even more risk to totalitarians.

No wonder the bastard is scared. Those aren't risks he is willing to take.

Anonymous said...

If we're not careful yahoos like this will push for more restrictions on the 1st Amendment and we will have the ghost of Thomas Paine showing up to slap us upside the head with an archaic printing press.

Anonymous said...

Kinda makes you glad you're a "regular person", as opposed to...uh-hum...an irregular one...don't it?

Kent McManigal said...

This kind of "thinking" is what leads to no one being "allowed" to carry a gun except for cops. It is all just authoritarianism of one stripe or another.

Anonymous said...

Sure sounds to me like they're using the RKBA=militia model to rewrite the 1st so that freedom of speech only applies to people with press passes.

Not to be spammy, but I rolled this post, and a few others from elsewhere today, into a unified theory of sorts about just how widespread their attack on the 1st is.

http://illspirit.com/blog/21/authorized-journalists

Anonymous said...

David,
It's your **s kicking rebuttals that keep me coming back...keep up the good work!

SamenoKami said...

Wouldn't this be the penultimate irony. The 'free-press' thinking they are free because of the 1st amendment being shackled in the same way they have rallied to shackle the believers of the 2nd. Make no mistake. If the bloggers can be slowed/stopped then the MSM won't be far behind. It's a slippery slope and a tangled web.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Comrade Hazinski is trying to pad out his retirement by encouraging the government to require "citizen journalists" to take a certification course, with him, of course. I suppose that makes a lot of sense, from his per$pective.