Ken Tucker On Gunner Palace
New York Magazine is now at the bottom of the list of silly publications that think anyone can be a film critic after replacing their celebrated critic, Peter Reiner, not with a gender or race motivated hire, but with another white middle aged man whose primary value was that he was less qualified for the job.
But Ken Tucker embraced the worst of all criticism with his review of Gunner Palace last week, going into full Alice in Wonderland mode. You see, because filmmakers Michael Tucker and Petra Eperstein showed the truth of what they found (subsequently confirmed in military screening after military screening) and did not make a film about how evil the Bush Administration is, Tucker felt the film was a failure. Films are much better with the political context in which he believes, apparently, assuring that audiences don’t have to waste their time thinking for themselves.
For me, this is as close as you get to evil in film criticism. Quote whores are meaningless in comparison. Any critic whose take on their beat is “this better fit my world view or not only will I say I don’t like it, but I will pillory the filmmakers as irresponsible fools.” To hide that position behind the critical veil of “bad filmmaking” is really low.
Of course, when confronted about this by actual soldiers who disagree and took offense, both at the characterization of the film and of the soldiers in the film, Tucker finally responds by trying to weasel out of what he said. You see, he claims, the view of the soldiers that he found so distasteful is not a reflection of how he perceives reality, but of how the filmmakers made the soldiers appear. It’s not that this snob, who then deigns to explain that another doc is much more accurate when as far as I know he has no point of reference for that determination other than his opinion, just finds the rank and file of the army distasteful… that he is uncomfortable with the realities of who is fighting for his country in Iraq. It is someone else’s fault. And of course, it is all George Bush’s fault… all negativity must be all Bush’s or it is bad negativity.
The last time I experienced something this infuriatingly stupid in this way was a decade ago when I saw one of Michael Moore’s first films, Blood In The Face, which showed American Neo-Nazis’ daily lives and half the Sundance audience of Facist Liberals (a specific group) raged at the filmmakers for not being clear enough that Nazis were bad. They didn’t trust other audiences – they were smart enough to get it, but those people… – to figure it out for themselves. So they would prefer silencing truth to risking the nightmare of letting people make up their own minds.
I seem to remember liking Ken Tucker at EW… nice guy… but I don’t like or respect this kind of thinking and I am embarrassed for our profession. We are, I thought, supposed to be in the work of considering the work with both objective and subjective tools. And this is, for Mr. Tucker, a clear failure.
I don’t think I can respect someone that can’t even stick to his own opinion when he’s called on it. That sure stinks of it not really being his opinion so much as an attempt to either stir up some shit on the subject or totally misreading his audience thinking they would rally behind his view.
I already wanted to see this movie, but now I really, really want to see it. I don’t feel like I can accurately comment on the Tucker situation until then, but it sure does sound like he is being a huge moron here.
Sure. This ranks right up there with one of the
worst things a critic can do. However, him being
a critic, seems to be inline with what critics are
today. All hyperbole and no real thought. Yet Tucker
pulled this stuff all the damn time at EW. He
did it in both TV and Music reviews. Ol’Ken really
seems to dig not reviewing the actual art at hand.
Rather, he enjoys reviewing his interpretation of
said art. Thus making any type of art that goes
against this interpretation bloody horrible.
DP, the evil in any critic isn’t an insistence that the movie align with his viewpoint. Everybody carries expectations into the theater, and you can disregard a critic whose expectations– whose frame of reference– is wildly different from your own.
The critic’s great sin is his fundamental lack of faith in his own opinions, as expressed in a willingness to hedge and back down in the face of disagreement. As a critic’s worth to us is found solely in his opinions, why should we rely on those opinions when he clearly doesn’t, as well?
David, how are you relating Blood in the Face to Michael Moore? As far as I can come up with, he received a special thanks but wasn’t one of the producers, writers, or directors. I don’t think that qualifies it as being one of his “first films”. Surely this isn’t a roundabout way of calling him a Nazi!
Thanks for sticking up for the Gunner Palace guys though. I’m surprised that the film is being championed by the right, as any film that shows the realities of war is probably not going to help the cause, especially in Iraq.
Lazarus: If I remember BLOOD IN THE FACE correctly, Michael Moore does several of the on-camera interviews with the Neo Nazis.
Sounds like a warning (which, I admit, I cribbed from my favorite journalism professor) that I give to my students: Anybody can write a favorable review. But if you’re going to write an UNfavorable review, you better damn well know what you’re talking about, or you will get nailed to the wall by those who do.
Yes… Ridgeway, Rafferty and Bohlen deserve proper credit for Blood In The Face. But Moore was in it, Godfathered it a bit and in a conversation I had with him, he described it as his “first film.” (I was encouraging him to use his fame to revive a film that I think is very important.)
This is the most evil that a film critic can do? Jeez Dave, glad to see you’re not overreacting again. *rolls eyes*
Did some of Tucker’s review come off as criticism of the situation rather than criticism of the film? Yeah. Was the comment about education way overboard? Yeah. Does that make him evil? No, that makes him a snob.
But he’s right, though, in that what was shown were editing choices, and his reaction to what he saw obviously left a bad taste in his mouth, especially in comparison to another film that paints a different portrait. Who knows which is more accurate? As I haven’t seen any reviews from troops on the ground about the Frontline piece, I’m going to say, they probably both are.
Because one comes to more of a conclusion while one prefers, I don’t know, a life-like chaotic structure; and one shows more troops in day-to-day combat situations rather than hanging out by the pool, does that make him an evil man for comparing them and showing a preference? Doesn’t seem so bad to me. Helpful editing and showing more of the troops in action, rather than spouting off or complaining sound like things I might prefer, and would like to know about competing films from a film reviewer.
And all reviewers go in with certain worldviews, which they rarely break out of. I refer you to the 95% of reviews of The Passion, which basically said that “Gibson isn’t preaching to me, so it doesn’t matter for me to consider what he’s trying to say at all.”
If you can’t take a review grounded in someone’s worldview, how will you ever be able to talk with anyone about any film ever again? Seeing it through someone else’s eyes helps put it in perspective. Would it kill you to see this film through Tucker’s eyes? What does that say about your worldview?
And as for Tucker’s backtracking, he doesn’t really seem to be doing a complete U-turn on his position to me. He is commenting on the editing choices, as he did in his original review. The only thing he apologized for was not making that clearer. Doesn’t really seem worth the vitriol to me.
any docu compared to a moore film will look better. he doesn’t make docu’s. he makes fiction
It would be wonderful if we could discuss Gunner Palace and not Michael Moore.
I for one am looking forward to seeing Gunnar Palace. I usually do not like documentarys because they bore me to death.
I don’t have a problem with Tucker’s review. He makes several comments on problems with the movie’s TECHNIQUE, not just its politics: he says it’s sloppily edited, a “narrative mess,” doesn’t differentiate characters well, and is inept at maintaining a consistent perspective. He ALSO attacks its politics, saying it’s naive and dishonest to portray foot soldiers negatively without the broader context of who sent them there and why they chose to go. This too seems fair criticism, and entirely appropriate for a review.
I find his response to those blackfive.net people to be craven, but there’s nothing wrong with his original review. “Alice and Wonderland mode”? Hardly.
Okay, let’s see… Poland approvingly links to blackfive.net, a notorious hard-right website (just look at its ads if ya doubt that description)… then slips a gratuitous reference to “Fascist Liberals” into his posting… Yeah, Poland, I can see ur a completely apolitical fellow, just like ya always claim whenver someone calls ya on ya politics. But if ya go around quacking during duck hunting season, ya really shouldn’t complain if someone takes a potshot at you.
David,you reviewed this film favorably early on and saw the potenial way before it found a buyer; Mike Tucker has made something unique and real and that irritates folks like Ken Tucker who must go pretty low and be really uninformed to create a minority view dumb review. To charge the filmmaker with not being empathic with the soldiers is such slander. I saw Lt Colgan’s father, Joe Colgan, whose son’s death is memorialized in the film hug Mike Tucker and bring his whole family to see it. Ken Tucker, the new guy at New York magazine should try a different career path. He is so out to lunch. For God’s sake the filmmaker lived with them, cried with them, went to Iraq on his own “dime” with no crew, and spent weeks sharing the film directly with audiences from all political persuasions across this country. Ken , listen to Wilf on NPR, get a grip!!
Wow, Doubting Thomas… smearing me now… neat.
I’ve never claimed to be apolitical. I’m a liberal. And I don’t care for facist behavior on either side of the political spectrum. I wrote about the paranoid bleatings of both Gibson and Moore this last year in equal measure (or with equal intent… Moore probably got more ink).
And Mike, have you seen Gunner Palace? Do you know that a significant portion of the film is footage of the urban combat in Iraq? Did you miss that from Mr. Tucker’s review? I think that makes my point.
Can I discuss film with people with different worldviews? Absolutely. I do it every day. But my objection is not with the conversation… it is with rhetorical techniques that are meant to stop conversation. And I believe that Tucker’s review is just that kind of device. Yes, there were criticisms of style. I don’t disagree with all of them. But the main point, as I read it, is to suggest that the film is too busy mocking the soldiers to get to the real problem… George Bush. And that is reviewing something other than the movie. No?
See, I came to Tucker’s review pretty clean as I haven’t made up my mind on the film either way, but I didn’t take it as a review of something other than the movie. I took it as a critique against the reason for the movie.
He says pretty clearly early on that while this is no doubt real, that these kids are the people with the least amount of power in this whole Iraq situation. They’re fighting the war, but did they make the decision to go to war? Do they have any real control over whether the war will continue or not? Whichever way you fall on the reasons for going to war, the answer is no.
So what are you left with if not a document of people put in a precarious position with no power to change it? And while some may find that compelling (as all the positive reviews seem to prove), others might feel that what you’re left with is a bunch of emotions and no place to direct them. Tucker, it seemed to me, was saying that he wanted somewhere to direct them. Specifically at Bush.
Is that an agenda? Yeah. Does that bother me? No, as he admits it.
Before going into this movie, as I watched the preview, I wondered if the movie would go anywhere, or just be a portrait of the people fighting, with no real conclusion. Because if that’s all it was, I didn’t really want to see it. So, personally, I think his points were fair (if obviously liberally biased) and something I’d hope to get from a reviewer.
Liberals just can’t take it when a movie congratulates Bush. They are people of failure now. They root for failure everywhere. Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, US. They can’t even come out and say and give credit where there is good. Its hard being the failure people.
And here we go again.
stella loves the group whitesnake
Mark, wow no gag reflex! You sure can swallow that propaganda whole. People of failure? I love how black and white / good vs. evil our American mindset is now –Guess who’s been training us to think that way for 5 years?
Consider this: Any time a country moves in a divisive direction it’s going to upset half of its citizenry whether that be the progressives or the conservatives. Once the minority portion of the citizenry freaks out about the horrible stuff going on… the people who agree with the direction that’s taking place are always going to try and paint the minority group with ugly colors… such as you’re doing now.
Pretend you’re on the other side (just to see if you can) and ask yourself this: How does one speak out against a genuinely divisive administration that one feels is dangerous while cheerleading them as well? And can that be done? The question is applicable to both sides of course (you just have to be able to imagine it from either direction)
I don’t recall a time when Rush Limbaugh and the other very forceful rhetorical bile-spewers on the right every congratulated Clinton on a job well done. Did they? Did people call them “a people of failure” because they relished Clinton’s slip ups? Why should liberals be expected to bow down to King Bush –if they did they’d be labelled as a “flip flopper” wouldn’t they?
See, you can’t escape no matter what you do once the citizenry thinks in these ridiculously reductive ways. When are we going to grow up as a country? What is it going to take?
Nathan, why do you hate conservatives so much? Is it because the liberal party has lost every election since 1996? The blind hatred annoys me.
Where in his post does he state that he hates conservatives? I must have missed that part. Can you please point it out for me?
liberals. all nut jobs. pick up a gun and stand a post. thats the only way u get peace. u win it.
Wow. Amazing observation. So insightful. We all learn so much from posts like that. You can only get peace by winning it with a gun. What’s sad is you’re dead serious. What does that have to do with anything being said here? And must you repeat yourself over and over again? How many times have you said “all liberals are nutjobs?” Guess who that makes look like a nutjob?
Wow, is bob still at it. I wonder what his deal is. How can you love movies and be such a right winger, bob? Movies, at their best, are about art, passion (sometimes even sex!), introspection, and understanding people who are different from you all over the world. How can you really love the movies if you’re a rightwing closed minded person? I would imagine you should be watching football, chopping wood, or reading Saturday Evening Post. (Boy, that sure does date me, huh?) I guess it’s the Terminator films and the like, huh?
wow. i forgot. the only people who can love movies are die hard liberals who don’t know anything! wow. my bad. such closed minded individuals. i weep for ur intelligence level
There is no discussing politics with the left wing crowd. Everyone should know this by now. They have their views. As warped at they are, they have them. They hate the right. They hate Bush. They hate war. That is fine. Everyone has a right to say what they want in this country because thats what America is about. That is why we fight for our freedom. What I do not get is why these left minded people always wish for failure? This is not how we acted in the time of World War II. We have our battles as political parties but when it comes to defending out country and its citizens we go together. Today it seems the left minded people want us to lose. And that is sad.
Terence, you are quite narrow-minded aren’t you? And you seem to love broad generalizations and stereotypes. Why is that? If the left hates the right, I assume that you believe it goes both ways? And if the left hates the war, I assume you believe that the right loves war? And you must all hate Clinton like the left hates Bush? And who is fighting for our freedom? I believe that I am free, at least for now. And who is hoping for our failure? Can you please quote someone on that? When did someone on the left hope that we lose? I really have no idea what you are talking about. I am a lefty, and you are totally, completely wrong. It seems like you have no clue what you are talking about.
It is amazing that Terence criticizes the left for hating war. Wow. What part of war do you LIKE, TD? The killing? the mourning families? the destroyed cities? the maimed for life civilians and young soldiers? And there was no more irrational hatred seen in this country that that directed against Bill Clinton. They harassed him his entire presidency for non-existent scandals like travelgate, Paula Jones, Whitewater. In the end they impeached him for lying about a consensual affair, which, by the way Newt Gingrich and a whole bunch of Republicans have done too. So don’t go starting with this crap about us hating Bush. At least his White House deserves the criticism. For hiring a male hustler to pretend to be a reporter so they could have him ask Bush soft-ball questions at press conferences, for committing TREASON by outing a CIA agent in the field, for lying about the reasons for going to war. Should I go on?
Clinton’s White House never did anything as bad as that and yet the rabid right wing was out to get him the whole eight years.
war is inevitable. only war brings about peace or the threat of war. u gonna reinvent the wheel now stella? take a history class and realize it. no one wants it. but sometimes its needed. u have to fight for ur rights and beliefs
Take a history class to realize that only war brings peace? That is your advice? I don’t think I need to say anything more. Speaks for itself.
For bob, the quote of the day over at the hot button.
Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.
– Hubert Humphrey
Hey Stella. When has a peace conference ever lead to lasting peace? Good thing they have those all the time betwee Israel and the Palestinians. Where would they be without those debates??? Only lasting peace is found thru fighting for it. Democracy is fought for. Not given. Look at this country in particular. So what Stella is saying is that we should have negotiated with the British and conceded and kept being subjugated. Right?
Mark and bob are just war mongers plain and simple. Guess it makes them feel tough to talk that talk, huh?
I love these Dubya sound bites. Democracy is fought for, not given. Lasting peace is found only through fighting. Priceless. So when are we going to achieve this lasting peace? Next year?
All I remember from Ken Tucker in Entertainment Weekly is that his ultimate goal was obviously to fuck Sarah Michelle Gellar, because he dropped “Buffy” praise into every damn article he wrote.
i wish the rest of the world and our enemies were as enlightened as u stellas girl. then the world would be so much better. but i live in a place called “reality”. its tough but u should try it sometime
I do not know why many in this country want us to lose these battles and wars. What happend for us standing up for our rights and the rights of others? You can’t have it both ways. Freedom is hard. You seem to like it. Why can’t others? Because its hard work? That is a cop out. If this was Bill Clinton doing this I think the amount of hate towards the goals would be much lower.
Terence– Bill Clinton did do this, in Bosnia, and the right attacked him hard him for it.
If Clinton could get impeached for the Lewinski business, you’d better believe he would have gotten it worse for starting a war under false pretenses.
Excellent point Eric. And Terence, you have conveniently ignored all of my questions for you. Who is hoping for us to lose the war in Iraq? Who is calling for us to lose?
Darn. Sorry for the double-post.
Darn. Sorry for the double-post.
stella i know ur a nut job liberal but is there really a need for us to read four of ur lame posts?
Ignored what questions per say? How can you deny there are many on the Left who want us to fail in the War on Terror. They would like nothing better than to “win” that by losing so they could try and take over. Problem is they are weak on security and defense. Their leader, Howard Dean, is even weaker on defense and security than anyone right now. Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid. Have they ever said one positive thing about our victories? No. They have not. You think the moveon.org types don’t want us losing in Iraq? They are practically begging for a loss. So how can you defend some of those groups and prominent leaders? They are not true blue Americans. They care more about their own power and influence.
Terence, I would love to have a reasonable discussion with you, but at times you come across as a raving lunatic. When did I defend some of those groups and prominent leaders? I did not, so I’m not sure why you claimed otherwise. Of course I deny that there are many people on the left who want us to lose the “war on terror.” That is simply not true. There may be some, but it’s a small number. Should we judge all lefties based on them? Would you like us to judge all righties based on Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh, to name a few? The problem with some (I said some) conservatives is that they are so incredibly narrow-minded. Everything is black and white to them. There is no gray area. But the real world is not black and white. Nothing is that simple. Most things are much more complex than that. You seem to be one of those people who only sees things in black and white. I think that is foolish and a mistake. And what do you mean when you say they want us to lose so that they can try and take over? I have no clue what that’s all about. Seriously, man, open your mind a little. Everything is not easily reduced to good and bad, right and wrong, left and right. The world is a complex place. And you think Cheney and Rummy are true blue Americans, concerned more with others than their own power and influence? If so, you are crazy my friend.
when a liberal nutter like stella calls someone a raving lunatic u know its crazy
Mr Stella, you can bash the Right all you want and the people and their views but they have never wanted this country to lose. At anything. You may disagree with everything they stand for and believe but they are always about America and what it stands for. The Left of this country seems to want to see failure and loss. All this negativity. They don’t want to work with people. They just want to disagree and take the opposite view no matter what. Like Social Security. In 1998 all these voices of the Left said it was a problem that needed fixing. Now that Bush has a plan they say its perfect. Stella, I didn’t make this stuff up about the Left. If you are sensible you can see it for yourself. You do see it. I am not lumping every Democrat into this please USA lose group but there are enough of them there for me and others to say it. Now can we see Gunnar Palace in harmony?
It is sad that some on that side want to see failures and losses. They should move to France.
Terence, just because a problem needs fixing– Social Security, for example– it doesn’t mean that any proposed solution will work. The Democrats are right to oppose Bush’s Social Security privatization plan, because that particular one will inflate the national debt without even solving the root problem.
There’s plenty more to respond to in your post, but that particular passage is a perfect example of the way you like to use false logic to make a point.
the social security mess has been a problem from day one. just because the administration has a plan the dems have to go against it. its what they’re doing now. the party of opposition. the republicans can say the sky is blue and they’d have meetings and press conf’s to oppose it
I do not see the Left coming up with a plan to fix Social Security, Eric. Like I said and you cannot go against it is the party and people of Obstruction. If some of them are not careful they will pay at the ballot box. Ask Tom Daschle how well that went. Privatization is the only way to go on SS. Its about time we got money back that we could use instead of waiting til we hit a certain age. Its better for the economy. If you cannot see that you are living in an ivory tower or have a nice trust fund or don’t work.
Terence, you clearly don’t even have a working knowledge of the logistics of privatization.
You’re not “getting money back” any sooner than you would with the traditional Social Security system. The money in your private account would not be accessible until you retire. (And even then, you wouldn’t get all of it back, and your guaranteed benefits would also then be reduced.)
Please go read a breakdown of privatization– I don’t care if you go to a left-leaning source or a right-leaning source. But you at least need to understand how it works before we can have a discussion.
With the present system we may never see what we put back. As a younbg worker I would rather have some of that in my account or in stocks or in mutual funds. At least i know it is being used for something I need. I hope it passes.
That’s the whole problem Eric. These people don’t even have a simple, basic understanding of what Bush is trying to do with Social Security. They are sheep. They do not think for themselves. Whatever Bush says and does, they agree with. Whatever the Republicans stand for, it is right, and whatever the Democrats stand for, it is wrong. They don’t seek to educate themselves about the issues. Everything is black and white. Sad way to live your life.
the problem eric is that the left doesn’t want to reform something that was made over 70 years ago. why? cause they need something to fight and argue over. they need to appeal to older voters and divide and conquer them. thats really it. anyone that says there is no problem with social security is obviously a die hard liberal kook
The logistics? It is a government initiative that is 40 years outdated. It needs to be reformed. It needs to be improved. The only problem you have with it, Eric, is that its this administration that has come up with a plan. The only plan the Left has right now is status quo. And thats not going to work. You are going to see the American public be swayed more and more as the nation heres the plan. The Democrats are a party of irrelevance right now and this is not helping.
Joe Fitz, I disagree with you, but I appreciate that you’re talking about the issue itself, and with civility.
Private accounts are a huge risk, with very minimal benefit. Allowing individual investment with SS funds undermines the whole concept of Social Security, which is a guaranteed minimum standard of living for the elderly. What’s worse, the people who rely on SS the most– the poor– are the least likely to do well with private accounts, because they have the least investing experience and little access to good financial advising.
And diverting the current taxes into private accounts will deprive the system of the funds it needs to pay for the benefits of today’s retirees. Yes, Joe, if you play it smart, there’s a chance that you’ll benefit from your private account– but there are people who have been paying into the system for forty years, and it’s just not right to tell them now that they’re out of luck.
Of course, the government doesn’t have to cut their benefits, and it would have two options to meet those costs. It could raise the SS tax– unlikely, these days– or it could borrow. We’re already carrying the worst deficit in history, of course, and doing this would add about $2 trillion to the debt. And that would be bad for our whole economy (already hurting), for the value of the dollar (already low), and for the stock market (which, of course, will negatively affect your personal account).
I’m genuinely interested in talking further about this, if you like. I’ve barely gotten into the ugly numbers.
Oh, and Terence, I’m still not seeing any indication that you actually understand what we’re talking about here.
In the words of Stella, you never answered the many questions put to you, Ericson. It is a government program that has not been reformed in over seventy years! It was designed to give Democrats a beholden group of voters and they will play to that. Problem is it doesn’t work in its present state and needs to be reformed. I think any thinking person can see this. It’s too bad Clinton was too worried about pardons for his buddies and where to get the next bj then this issue he brought up in 1998 then forgot about.
Mark, Social Security reform happened in the 1980s, under President Reagan. It was called “the Greenspan Commission.” Look it up. That commission is responsible for the slight increase in the payroll tax, which resulted in the large SS trust fund that exists today.
What doesn’t work about the current system, exactly? Try to answer the question without resorting to personal attacks.
The fact is sad that most on here decline to hear each others views. I myself find that, if the critics badmouth it I will usually like it. It does not matter if you are talking about Ebert or this guy “Ken”. I will say that if you believe it was wrong to go to war, that is ok with me, as I have served and help to keep that right intact for all of us to do so. But it is also my right to say, they left us with no other choice than the one we took.
I want to see this “Doc” just because I would like some perspective on what our men and women are going through. Even though I have received combat pay, ever situation is different. So with the doubt that this will ever play in Indianapolis, does anyone know if it will make it to DVD?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS NO MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU’RE ON!!!
Very well said Jim. I just think too many people in this country want us to lose. Which is sad.
I think we have reached a point of sheer idiocy when a film critic cannot criticize a movie without being accused of it revealing his underlying political agenda. Ken Tucker’s (unfortunately unpopular) opinion of a film has lead to accusations that he is right-wing or advocating the censorship of art. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Although it should be irrelevant, he happens to personally be “liberal” and a defender of free speech.
Perhaps before hypocritically pointing figures and ironically labelling media figures as opposed to free expression, we should examine how our own quickness to create villains itself represses future speech.
Pez –
It was not Tucker’s criticism of the film that caused the anger. I’m sure he is not alone. I have not bothered to check. It’s not an issue for me.
What is an issue is the kind of political spin that Tucker actually wrote into his “review.” I’m sure Ken is a good man and a defender of free speech. But he also went beyond writing about the film.
A similar thing happened this week when the LA Times’ David Shaw wrote, theoretically, about whether “bloggers” should be considered journalists by the law. It took him most of the piece to get to the true opinion… for him, “bloggers” are journalism wannabe hacks.
I have no problem with him having that opinion. But I do have a problem with him cloaking it in the guise of objectivity. Moreover, once he offered that opinion, I would have expected him to make his case and to suggest a standard that he considered appropriate.
I am guilty of trying to put the genie back in the bottle myself, more often than I would like. But in a weekly publication… unacceptable.