Ched MacQuigg writes:
I believe that the blogosphere could lead in that encouragement.
A friend offered that, Terrell can't incite to riot, because he is a Journalist, and his credibility as a Journalist would be compromised by taking a side in the fight.
Why not let his readers be the judge?
Is it impossible to report the news candidly, forthrightly and
honestly, while at the same time standing up for what you believe in?
We have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The problem is addressed by full disclosure; it is no longer a problem.
Terrell could ask his readers to join him on the capital steps, and then report upon how many people showed up, and upon their effect.
So could Monahan.
So could Haussamen.
So could the Duke City Fix.
What if every blogger in New Mexico, offered their readers
an opportunity to gather together , and storm the castle?
What if every blogger offered their readers an opportunity to gather together, all together, to take back control over power and resources that are fundamentally their own?
I emailed MacQuigg and quipped, "You start the riot and I'll cover it." Let me say here for the record that I am not advocating or trying to incite a riot. That would be wrong, as President Nixon used to say. There are so many federal agents sniffing around New Mexico right now thanks to all these scandals, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding ...
But, in all seriousness, that indeed is my role as a journalist. MacQuigg's friend had it right. If someone wants to organize a protest on the Webcasts or anything else, I'll be the one with the notebook, not the one with the bullhorn. True there are advocate/journalists, but that's not what I do. It's certainly not what the people who sign my paycheck pay me to do.
Besides, like many reporters, I barely can organize my desk, much less a riot. Heath would have to drive up all the way from Las Cruces and Monahan only goes to riots where there's free food.
Posts
