Anderson Cooper was tenacious when it came to reporting on the BP Oil Spill crisis - in fact - he reminded me of a scrappy lttle pit bull when he nipped at the heels of the execs at the beleaguered global entity and politicians on Washington Hill.
Quite the thorough reporter, the silver-haired "Daddy" - known to squire around a handsome male stud or two in the Village in NYC - managed to attack from all fronts and rustle up a bit of crow for a disgruntled few to chow down on.
Andy was definitely on the rag the other night, with a bone to pick when it came to the subject of - ahem - Internet journalists.
"Are blogs driving the conversation?" - was the night's lament - as Coop continued to blast the blogosphere throughout the course of what amounted to a hysterical news report.
The tirade was prompted by revelations about a dim-witted blogger (Andrew Breitbart) and the controversy that erupted over "context" and how it dovetails (or doesn't) with the concept of ethics in journalism.
"It's all about hits," a disgusted Cooper uttered up - as he pointed a lily-white finger at B-level Bloggers ("B" for bombastic) - foaming at-the-mouth around the country.
Rightly so, Anderson criticized the practice of some to post just about anything - half-truths, lies, fabricated evidence - with the specific aim of drumming up mighty traffic and fifteen minutes of fame.
Although the scorn was well-grounded in reality, it was much ado about nothing, when you reflect on the obvious.
Once a journalist or lowly blogger loses his or her credibility, the game is over!
Surely Anderson recalls the cautionary tale about the boy who cried wolf?
An "out-of-context" video-tape, photo, or recording may be used for a story provided it doesn't seek to mislead, give a false impression, and/or distort the truth.
I, for one, often facilitate old clips, but they're generally woven in to effect a satire, send-up, or sly poke at the individual.
Years ago, folks thought Tom Cruise was a control-freak, when he demanded that journalists only use profile materials (tape recording, still photographs, quips from dog-eared magazine articles) that were gleaned from an interview agreed to.
For good reason.
People change, go through transformations, and - hopefully - experience spiritual growth along the way.
A writer who offers up a ten-year-old quote -and infers that it is the subject's current frame of mind - is unethical and dishonest.
In contrast, a writer who is upfront and honest, will properly reference the material to ensure there are no misunderstandings.
As Anderson Cooper sees it, it all boils down to factualism.
In respect to the issue of "hits" and "traffic", his criticism is out-of-line.
Doesn't CNN care one iota about his "hits" (ratings)?
You're only fooling yourself, Anderson, if you think otherwise.