In years past, the newspapers have represented a source of information for the world. They have uncovered political and governmental corruption, told the truth about things people wanted covered up and brought down many varieties of criminals in our society. Such work has been a model for truth and justice around the world. Our newspapers have been an inspiration world-wide as the epitome of freedom. A voice the public can trust to bring us information in as unbiased a fashion as possible. There are three basic forms of the news: Hard-hitting journalism (the kind that makes you sit on the edge of your seat for the next bit of the next bit of the story), Yellow (sensationalistic) journalism (nuff said there – E! News), and Gossip. The last two are hard to differentiate between, one being just a cut above (or below, depending on your view) than the other. I think there needs to be a fourth entry there, newly minted since the weekend. Faded Journalism. The kind that seems to tantalize its readers and never actually delivers a point or uncovers some astounding fact. Over the weekend, a respected Newspaper became exactly that.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a news article about Governor Sarah Palin, criticizing her roles and experience in politics. It was disappointing to say the least. Not what it talked about of course, I expected the kinds of things they spoke of, particularly graft, pork barrels, and the practice of hiring old friends for powerful political positions in the Alaskan State government. Read the article for yourself for a description of the offenses.

It wasn’t this that was such a disappointment. It was the stunning lack of quality journalism. The entire article seemed vague and amateurish, more like it had been written by High School students than veteran reporters. In a story of this sort, you would think that the Times would have assigned someone with more writing experience to the task than the three people who did write the article. It seemed through-out the piece that they were building up to some damning evidence of wrong-doing that would forever change the course of Ms. Palin’s political career. Almost like a breathless teenager whispering secret gossip to the nearest ear who would listen.

You would think that in a news outlet like The Times, there would be an editor who would note this rather than allow such an unseasoned article to come to print, whether it be ink or code. Especially in such a widely read news source as the New York Times in a Presidential Election year, when the story is about the running-mate of one of the candidates. A national election story of this importance should merit a writer who can hit the punches where they need to be hit. A news story citing the facts, which oppose her cited platform, is going to affect the views of the public. And yes, this is an issue. When a candidate claims to be a “Reformer” and is in fact actually a “Good-Ole Boy” politician, that’s an issue.

At least *I* think its an issue. It represents false pretenses, and out-right lying to the public. Which we need to have less of.

Happy Monday!