Take Jessica McBride for example. Young Jessica is a teacher of young journalists - a molder of minds if you will. The future of journalism is in her hands, a thought that absolutely frightens me to no end.
I happened to surf on over to Young Miss Jessica's blog, and an entry of hers on the scandal involving Senator Larry Craig (R - Bathroom Stalls) caught my eye. What caught my eye was not the groundbreaking content (there's not much of that to be found in her blog), but rather the fact that Young Miss Jessica directly contradicts herself in the same blog entry. In said entry, YMJ states:
Enough with the "he's innocent until proven guilty" stuff and "if he did it" stuff that I've been hearing on some conservative shows. Regardless of what he says now, Larry Craig PLEADED GUILTY in a court of law and was convicted. That should mean something. He's not innocent until proven guilty. He's guilty.
Then she follows up the whole, "HE'S GUILTY" point with this doozy (I added my own emphasis):
Bill Clinton was accused of raping a woman. Ted Kennedy was accused of leaving a woman to die. They enjoy respect from the Democratic party and the media. Larry Craig was accused of nudging the foot of an undercover cop, and the Democrats want to put him in a stockade in the public square.
Now maybe I dwell in a different reality than YMJ, but in my reality you can't follow up a statement like, "HE'S NOT INNOCENT, HE'S BEEN PROVEN GUILTY!" with, "He was accused of..." without directly contradicting yourself. I can only hope YMJ isn't teaching that trick to her students, because it's bad form to directly contradict yourself when reporting the news.