Even the blogger whom Roch cites in his article because his apartment was inspected didn't see fit to mention the incident on his blog.So here goes. In the words of the late great Bill Hicks "Yeah? And? So? What?" I didn't blog about it because A. Roch had already done the work and research and deserved any credit for breaking a story. B. I was unaware that my rights had been infringed upon until it was brought to my attention by Roch. That I did not know that my rights had been ignored in favor of expediency does not make it any less of a concern. Oh and David if you are reading this, the next time you have a question about why I did or did not blog about something have some urbanity send me an email and ask me. By the way David, how in three days did your assessment of the same article change from "great investigative journalism" to "criticism"? Can anyone here say flip flop?
12.16.2005
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
David Wharton from A Little Urbanity (apparently a very very little) seems to make much of the fact that I did not mention the incident on my blog. In so doing he has dragged me into this by saying
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So you are going to call people out by name but you don't even have the stones to post comments of those people who don't agree with you? Maybe you should call yourself out by name in your next blog. Something like: Jaun Vasquez is a pussy Libtard who has to sensor his blog because he knows he is posting pure BS.
I should add that when I was researching my story, I asked if you would not blog about it until I had the facts together. I appreciate you honoring that.
"Great investigative journalism" and "criticism" are not mutually exclusive categories, Juan. I still stand by both assessments of Roch's work.
I suppose you, too, could have e-mailed me if you wanted to know how or whether I had changed my assessment (though I didn't), but you blogged about it instead, which is also fine.
I think you'll agree that "great investigative journalism" and "criticism" have very different connotations.
Of course they do.
But are you seriously arguing that a piece of great investigative journalism cannot also be a criticism of that which it investigates?
Surely you don't mean to imply that Roch did not mean his investigative piece to be a criticism of what the inspectors were doing?
Post a Comment