I was one of a group that received an e-mail from a writer for the Washington Post referring to an article on Obamas comment about the 90% of guns in Mexico. On face value, as more than one person reminded me, the e-mail could have been an innocent attempt at providing us (bloggers) with a noteworthy link. I saw it to be different, and responded as i felt was accordingly.
If you would have bothered reading many of the sites you sent the article to you would know they are already all over the story, and it's inherent LIES. Please remove me from any further e-mails unless it is to renounce your "profession" and the lie it tries to sell to the American people. We are not "AUTHORIZED JOURNALISTS," simply stated we call em as we see em. Good luck in your endeavor, your article on the bats was entertaining. Flawed as the "global warming," giant fans are going to save us syndrome is. Read the sites you mailed, they are top notch and full of things you could report on, things that matter.
I acted in a way that was entertaining to me for me. I "copied" everyone the original Wash Post email had attached and expected no responses. Oops. For the record I was at first flattered to be grouped in with blogs I read daily, for I neither have their content, readership or skill. That is what pissed me of at the same time, NO WAY would anyone put my Blog on par with theirs. More likely an email blast was created off of someones blogroll, and a spam was used to increase Wash Post readership. My site is for my entertainment and to occasionally provoke discussions I see as relevant. Childish yes, do I care, not really. I am still content with my response, but I did not intend to imply I was speaking for anyone other than my self.
"What's wrong with a polite request be removed from his list?"
Nothing, just not in my personality, I occasionally feel like being an A-hole.
and "Why the need for lengthy exoriating screeds against journalists and journalism?"
Too be honest I had to look up the definition of exoriating, and no it wasn't necessary but it was entertaining, and I believe acceptable considering the source and the perceived intentions of the email. To be honest I do not accept elitism by title and call BS as I see it, I also felt the request was condescending in its content and spam like address bar.
D. Codrea stated: "To my knowledge, I coined the term "authorized journalist"--"
Would never mean to disrespect you or "steal" one of your ideas without credit being given. It was used off the cuff and ownership was not intended, I felt it fit the response perfectly. Similarly I frequently refer to your site and its reference to the "only ones" you track so well when it fits the discussion.
Others chimed in but the above statements I felt were directed at me and responded to here. Attention, easy come easy go. For anyone who did not originate the email, hopefully no harm no foul. As for the "journalist" that sent it I still say "Read the sites you mailed, they are top notch and full of things you could report on, things that matter."