One of the problems with mining the Internet for sources and info, of course, is verifying the identify of authors of what looks like interesting material. Such is the case here with an alternatingly funny/cynical/misguided/spot-on blog entry by a fellow named Steve Gilliard. I have no idea what Gilliard is or does. He appears to be anti-Bush and may be a Democrat (mind you, he may just be an Independent) but, beyond that, I'm stumped. He provides no active links at his blog to identify himself.
Which is a shame, really, because he just put up a post titled How To Read a Newspaper Story in which he tries to explain to his readers what a print reporter's day is like —
….they check what is knows [sic] as an assignment desk to see what the editors expect. Some days, they'll have to cover a conference or a meeting, some days they'll have to work their sources. Which means pester them.”
— then goes on to explain the difference between a copy editor and a reporter —
Daily newspaper journalism is divided into reporters and copy editors. Usually being on then [sic] desk is a quicker route to promotion, while being a reporter is the route to some public fame and book contracts.”
After quickly defining and describing how newspaper work is produced, he then dissects a Washington Post story about the selection of the new Iraq PM.
There's a ton of spelling errors in the post which hurts his credibility but his credibility is boosted, I think, by getting quite a few things right (if you've ever worked in a newsroom, you'll quickly spot the right from the wrong).
But again, his credibility would be stronger if he let us know about his own background and/or his own qualifications or experience to be the media critic it seems clear he wants to be.