EX-FUCKING-ZACTLY
This goes back to the base argument that Chad and I have about Wikipedia not being a "source" for a paper. The information can be manipulated and changed by the masses. I am all for the free exchange of information but the sensationalism that goes along with it in today's society is the dangerous part.
Wikipedia as a source for a legitimate news outlet? Not a chance. For Shane from Centerpoint? Maybe.
Again...we get back to the line being so blurry these days. Bloggers on the net are not journalists. Some may attempt to be, and some may attempt to apply ethical standard in their blogs. But they have no oversight, and most have no training, and don't know the difference in "source" and a "rumor monger". I love Auburn, and Auburn football. I try to keep up with what's going on, and I have an opinion, but in no way, shape or form am I a "source" for ANYTHING Auburn in terms of information. The line is further blurred by legitimate news outlets allowing "journalists" or pseudo-journalist to "blog" on their "legitimate news" platform, thus giving it the appearance of "journalism" or "news". And many folks don't have a built in "filter" for all the misinformation they have to sort through to find the real nuggets of information out there. Finally, with the information superhighway as it is, the need to "get it out now" is greater than every before. I'll cite an example: The "reports" by legitimate news outlets a couple of years ago that Tubs had been hired at Ark. 30 years ago, no news paper or TV news would have run with that and been wrong. Today, they run with stories like that via "confirmed sources" who are, in fact, no source at all. I mean you can find 2 people that have heard the same rumor...that doesn't make them "sources".
And with today's younger "internet generation"...EVERYTHING they read on the net is considered "news" or "good information".