Told you so!

What did I post about TNR and the ownership of Chris Hughes? What did I post? Perhaps I can yet hope for at least one byline under McCormack, as if my indigence would suddenly go whoosh, as if it doesn't come too late. Told you. Liberals would say this isn't about the homosexual nouveau riche, like the dandy heir apparent, Tim Cook, who can zap me to death through my 5s serial number. And I'd tell progressives to go royally fuck themselves. It was you who told us all that an egalitarian radicalization would allow people like me to play. Name me one, just one, nationally recognized journalist with my type of brain damage who actually got their fucking foot in the door with their condition, rather than acquiring it?

But I got one right, preceding Erik Wemple, fucking A. 

I'm sick. I have a cold, and pea soup, consumed.

Wemple Dowager Roll

In response to Wemple's post on Buzz Feed's dismissal of Benny Johnson, I commented thus, and raise an interesting issue on ownership of what we voice to our favorite editorial staff, as I am re-appropriating my own content:

Erik, I have a question to which I do not expect an answer, and it is: Does excoriating Johnson serve any reader's interest, including a disability journalist on the skids? You feel rushed; I am rushed barely hanging on by my fingernails, and I am not sure, at the end of the day, what the point is. I've skimmed BuzzFeed, briefly thought of presenting myself as a humble fact checker, decided against, and the lack of trust the public feels in the fourth estate is only confirmed by the seismic upheaval of social media on the traditional beat reporter, who, by not being allowed to show bias, lies anyway. In my view, plagiarism is a manufactured form of criminal conduct except in extreme cases, but that's me. Aggregating content exhibits this tension, as it is summarily copying, then gets slammed by Google for thinness of content, and then the people doing it are encouraged to be real journalists for commissions worth peanuts. Your flag waving heartens me with the reassurance that Wapo stands firm making the trains run on time.

I think I have a few concerns here more or less over money and ethics as much as we all worry about the practice of bad attribution. Erik's column-- Wapo doesn't need to game a hipness its Graham family accouterments deny it by calling some of its staff bloggers and others opinion writers when it is simply an overdone bifurcation -- is aesthetically displeasing, one, and two, we demonize Johnson by keeping the issue afloat, raising the question as to whether media sensationalism is more ethical than Johnson's practices. I have used Wikipedia without attribution, but I have never cited an entry verbatim, and always considered Wiki open source, as any of us can, and have, edited entries. 

Erik did respond to my critique indirectly by publishing about digital plagiarism the next day. The actual impetus driving all of us batty is economic amoralism. Within my memorandums, I've written I want to end my career as an investigative journalist. This is not to convey bullshit for a paycheck doesn't rankle. I am not finished with this issue; it is beginning to annoy me.