Let’s take a moment to bloviate on reporters

Rachel Maddow in Seattle.

Rachel Maddow in Seattle.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rachel Maddow, appearing on Wednesday on Howard Stern’s radio show:

“What I’m worried about with news is we’re moving to all these business models where nobody is paying the reporters. Everybody’s paying people to comment on what  reporters turn up. Nobody’s paying the reporters. There have to be reporters. There have to full-time editors. It’s got to be a professional gig.  Otherwise, the rest of us who bloviate for a living are not going to have any facts on which to base our bloviation.

“If something important happens in the country somewhere in Oklahoma, thare’s got to be good reporters in Oklahoma who go cover it, who tell the rest of the country what’s happening there. And if all the local reporters get cut, we’re screwed.’


  1. I agree with Rachel Maddow on this, except I think that Rachel Maddow is part of the problem. I am a scientist by trade and formal education. As such I have been trained to gather and report data objectively, free of bias and opinion. If an objective, scientific approach was the basis of journalism I would say yes, pay the journalists. But Rachel Maddow (like all the rest of them) is a journalist-pundit hybrid, reporting the facts mixed with opinion to the point were you cannot separate the two. So in that case, why should I pay for an opinion sprinkled with a few facts, when I can get that for free online. The media created this politically driven, unethical, anything-for-ratings, opinion heavy journalism, Frankenstein monster; which has gotten loose and is now threatening to destroy them.

  2. Where does this “free online” information come from about your city council, your school board, your planning board, your county commissioners and county departments or your state Legislature?

Comments are closed.