Roger Simon rocks!

He responds to a Jay Rosen piece on the recent presidential news "conference." The title of Rosen's piece is:

Bush to Press: "You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That."

My favorite line from Roger:

I didn't need Bush to dismiss them. I was perfectly capable of doing it by myself.

My favorite line from a commentor:

One big reason, perhaps the single biggest reason, people are so unsatisifed with the product marketed as "news" is that so little of it is actually the result of the behavior known as reporting.

I wish I could analyze all this quickly, but it takes me longer than most to read and digest Roger's post, Rosen's piece and all the comments to both. My initial reaction to Bush's dissing of the press is "How eloquent! Uhrah!" But I guess I'd better read it all.

I've thought for a long time that reporters would be better if they had to learn the rules of evidence that lawyers study. They don't need to follow them, but it would help them to vet their questions better before asking them and maybe avoid pitfalls like asking the President why has hasn't apologized for 9/11. Lawyers get to ask leading questions in appropriate situations, but they don't get to ask irrelevant and argumentative questions. It might be nice if journalists knew what those terms meant and why they're objectionable.