Oh, please.

What we all look for in our news is, news. A reporting to us of facts about things that have occurred outside of our direct view, so that when we form our own opinions, we can do so in an informed manner.

So, we look to reporters to be, essentially, stenographers.

But reporters like the “name up in lights” aspect of the profession too much, they like to think that we all read the front page of a paper because we yearn for the benefit of their own opinions, and they convince themselves that good writing skills qualify them to skip a couple of steps and simply tell us what’s good and bad in the world.

I don’t give a rat’s rear what Joe Blow, top reporter for the New York StarTribunePostTimes, thinks about whether we tax people unfairly, or about why we should open our borders, or about how Saddam was actually a misunderstood man of peace and vision. I don’t pick up a paper or turn on a news show because I want to be told what my opinion should be. I want raw data, and from that, I’ll form my own opinon.

You list this as how you think we think of reporters: “We might expect him to have a command of, or at least a passing familiarity with the languages spoken by the locals. He should be well versed in the history of the conflict, the primary participants, and the leading power figures. Lastly, as a reporter, we would expect an engaging figure on camera, exuding competence and armed with excellent communication skills in his native tongue.”

Actually, what we really want is a scrupulous regard for accuracy in both fact and tone, we want understandable and clear writing, and we want it in an ego-less package – we want the reporter’s presence to fade away and be replaced with the presence of knowledge that we didn’t have before.

Shaw wants to be the new game show host paradigm. He wants us to love and adore him, but he doesn’t feel he needs to give us any reason to do so beyond blessing us with his feelings. No thanks. Give me a Joe, stumbles and typos and all. With Joes out there gathering and relaying facts to me, at least I’ll know what I don’t know. With the present crop of Shaws, I have to – have to – assume I’m being spun, and so I’m better off not seeing them.

Simply amazing.

Given how many “old pros” degraded themselves during the last couple of months I don´t see what the damn problem is. He is no Murrow? He is no Matthews or Olberman either, thankfully.

Rather it seem that they prefer writing about stories where it is impossible to check another source so that free fantasy cannot be challenged.

Considering the obvious bias and outright fabrication that takes place in today’s Big Media, I don’t see how Wurzelbacher could do any worse.

Is Joe’s trip a publicity stunt? Sure. Will it hurt the world of journalism and the greater good? I don’t think so. I don’t see how it could do any more damage than the current Big Media has already inflicted. My hope is that Joe might even do some good by letting folks know there is a market for a dissenting point of view.

If you are concerned with quality of reporting then Wurzelbacher may be the wrong target. He makes no claim of having been trained or of having experience. By contrast, Big Media tirelessly claims professionalism and accuracy when it is obvious to most that they rarely exhibit either trait. Which is the more deserving target for the kind of attention your post brings?