pukeimmediately

snowball fight turns into 'snowball v gun; fight turns into 'washington post v washington city paper' fight

So it snowed in DC a couple days ago, and some aspiring social media worthless decided to tweet the internet to plan a snowball fight in dc. all of the unemployed and basically unemployed 20 and 30 yr olds went to the snowball fight. someone brought an anti-war sign! just for fun! there were like 200 people there! then they started pelting snowballs at hummers, which the wapo says is due to the ‘political sway of the crowd’ or sthg.

then some man in a hummer that got pelted got out of his car, and he brought his gun with him.

so then it was like a major bummer,man, and he didn’t shoot at anyone, but like, ‘you don’t bring a gun to snowball fights’ as the hecklers at the snowball fight put it in chants they figured out on the spot and started chanting at the dude with the gun. the dude with the gun never ended up shooting anyone, and admitted he was just pretty pissed about the whole pelting his hummer thing. so, ok. snowball fight over.

but journalism fight just begun! because as it turns out, the guy with the gun was like an officer or something. so, like, he was pork! and the wapo did a story on it all. so like, fuck. the washington city paper called the wapo out for maybe being too kind to the gun-happy hummer pork:

“Let’s recount what evidence the paper had…

1) An eyewitness account called in by an editorial aide shortly after the incident occurred. The aide said that the cop actually did pull out a gun, not that he “may” have; and

2) Video and photos that clearly corroborate the eyewitness account of the Post newsroom employee.

Yet the Post still couldn’t bring itself to say that an officer had actually taken out his gun at a snowball fight. Not, at least, until the print editions hit the streets over the next couple of days—-which is among the great points made on this issue by blogger bsom.

Take a close look at that 10:20 update on the maybe-gun-pulling cop: “The plainclothes D.C. police detective may have unholstered his pistol during the confrontation with participants in the huge snowball fight,based on video and photos posted on the Internet.”

Bold and italics are mine. They’re mine because this is the most cowardly, selfish, arrogant news conduct out there today. What the fuck is “video and photos posted on the Internet”? How does that help readers? It’s as if I can go to www.internet.com, and there, on the first screen, will be the video and photos of the snowball fight and the maybe-gun-wielding cop. “Posted on the Internet” would be acceptable if this were 1997.

The reporters used this hazy phrasing because they were too chicken-shit to do something that we all have learned to do over the past, say, decade or more. And that’s to link to competitors and acknowledge their contributions to stories.

What is important is that in one item, Fisher articulated a longstanding WaPo policy:

1) Link to other organizations only when belittling them;

2) Be sure to contrast the inadequacy of the linkees to the greatWashington Post;

3) Make sure the link to Washington Post content spans many more words than the links to lesser organizations.

Not done yet. Fisher’s item uses the term “on the blogs” in a disparaging fashion, as if this is a place where rumor and sleaze abound. You’ve heard this too: “Oh, he’s getting crucified on the blogs.” Or: “You just can’t trust what you read on the blogs.”

Sounds antiquated, just like “posted on the Internet.” But however it sounds, you can never disparage “blogs” with a broad brush if you’re a staffer at the Washington Post: The paper publishes at least 80 of them.”

so, like, pukeimmediately again, here— the city paper is annoyed that wapo wont link to other blogs. i mean, admittedly, wapo doesnt know how to use the internets yet (they still dont have an iphone app!)

this is wapo:

BUT STILL, the washington city paper is nearly as trigger happy as the gunman they so desperately want to implicate. it is NOT the media’s job to ‘create’ a story. u report the facts, and if u do more, ur worthless as fox news. if the facts aren’t there, they aren’t there. if the facts are on a blog, that doesnt fucking count. blogs do not necessarily have accountability, and its irresponsible for a subscription based paper to base any evidence for a story on a thirdparty media source. so, city paper, cede 2 ur point that media orgs need to, in general, figure out how to combat the internet. but, honestly, to simply cite another source, even link directly, is poor journalism-and if that’s the standard, citizens should prepare to kiss fair and balanced stories goodbye.

the answer to the internet media crisis for mainstream media is to increase their reporting to the level that is unreachable by dumb story-breaking bloggers- not fall to their level.

and honestly, can we implicate the real scumbags in this story for one minute? the 30 somethings who were childish enough to throw snowballs at cars? get a life-and blogging doesn’t count- 30 something nutjobs that participated in that.