A while back, I published a post in which I made an epic misuse of the English language by simply leaving out some words between my brain and the keyboard, and then failing to proofread the post.
It was ugly, but I owned up to it. Because it was ugly.
I have always understood the necessity of multiple rounds of proofreading, because frankly, my typing sucks. The only thing that saves me is feeling in my fingers that I have hit the wrong key, and looking up at the screen to see the mistake. The following sentence, for example, will be published without correction:
So when I read this post from Stacy McCain, it was I nthe sirit of knowing that writers need editors to look with a fresh pair of eyes in the sam way that reportrs need editors and fact checkers to make sure a story is both accurate and newsworthy. (5 mistakes by my count)
And in that spirit, I completely agree with Stacy that the story is simply not newsworthy. I am related to people who make some low-level noise in Democratic political circles (forget I said that – QUICKLY) and if we replace Holly Fisher with any of those people, it still wouldn’t be newsworthy. I remember when President Kennedy’s dalliances with a Hollywood starlet were not deemed worthy of public interest; I remember when Bill Clinton’s escapades with an intern were.
All in all, I prefer the old way. Not my business. But times change, technology changes, the news cycle is now an insatiable 24 hour beast to be fed without ceasing, and the internet has brought citizen journalism to the lexicon. Anyone who is interested, whether they are degreed or not, can chase a story, post it on a website, and e-mail a link to the world.
And it doesn’t matter if the story is correct or not, sourced or not, edited or not, fact-checked or not, newsworthy or not. Because journalism has changed in the 40 years since Watergate, and on the whole, not for the better.