It is true that foreign journalists are required to get journalist
visas in order to cover stories in the United States. This is not some
attempt to control foreign media access, but a matter of being
By obtaining journalist visas, journalists can stay as long as their
media outlets require, without worrying about expiring visas and such.
At the same time, their visas are issued by the state department
through their embassies in which the journalist comes from. Going
through the state department is much faster, than, say, going through
INS, which can takes months, instead of days with the embassy.
People who are making commercial film and such, are required to get
temporary work visas to work in the United States. JOurnalists do not.
Fuck you all.
Um. Did I just say that aloud? Sorry.
What I meant to say was that there's been righteous indignation that
Blair has bewrongly been fingered as the poster boy dfor all that's
wrong with Affirmative Action.
Wrongly on the clear assumption that the individual is rarely indicative of the whole group.
The I see posts here from idiots who are willing to take their
experiences with journalists and paint the whole group with the same
You all are fools. Of course reporters make effing mistakes. Who on their !#@#$% job doesn't? Answer. No-thefuck-one.
That so many people care when a reporter makes a mistake does my
heart good 'cause I is one. People care that we get it right. Thank you.
So do we.
I guess as a journalist here for this one breief moment in time I
classify as a minority. If no one stood up for me - my profession would
be royally screwed.
Some reporters are just like other people in other professions -
idiots. It's just that their mistakes are more visible and - thankfully -
are under more scrutiny. Their mistakes can be life-changing for the
people hurt by them.
Where the hell were you when the Fairness Doctrine was getting shit-canned. That's what really damaged the industry.
Why do you care whether a journalist makes a mistake? It doesn't effect you, right?
And so you can hear the other side on quotes. I have found that when
somebody sees what they actually said in print they always think they
could have said it better, That can and often does translate into, "I
did say it better and the bastard reporter misquoted me."
I always get deep personal satisfaction when I play back a tape for a
person who feels they get misquoted - if they accept the offer - and
they hear - SHOCK - word for word what they actually said.
The satisfaction comes not in my being right - I knew I already was.
It comes in letting somebody else know that, while just seconds earlier
they felt they were part of the public that had a reason to hate "the
media" they may look harder at claims from others that they have been
And guess what? A lot of people who should know better, not just
people who've never been interviewed before, say things like this:
"Don't make me sound stupid."
"You'll clean that up, won't you?"
"You're not going to print that are you?"
Of course what they really said was
"Don'y you know, um, um, um make me sound stupid."
"You'll clean that shit up, er, um, won't you?
"Like, you're not, you know, um, going to print that, um are you?"
I've yet to receive a call that takes me to task for removing the detris
in a quote. If they've said notihing quotable reporters later
paraphrase or they ask the questions again to get a, not better, but a
slightly eloquent answer.
However, most of the time the mysterious art of the interview goes
like this: people get quoted, the sky does not fall in, life goes on,
the public is informed.
Remember that next time you try and generalize. Whe it goes right, you don't hear shit about it. Remember that.
Sorry about the profanity. It gets cut out of articles and most quotes too.
Also I'll assume Matt Welch meant send copies after the story is published.