Comments: OFF! Part 2

The Times does not disappoint!

In an article just today about the dismissal of the suit brought against the movie Borat by Jeffrey Lemerond* (the gentleman that ran down the street in supposed terror after Borat tried to hug him), Sewell Chan writes:

"Does Borat deserve the same protection as, say, a reporter for The Times? (Readers, be gentle.) "

This is just what my earlier post mentions. The reporter knows his question (which, it could be argued, has nothing to do with the story) might draw ire. He knows he's writing for the "City Room" blog -- located at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/ -- which probably encourages him to break down that fourth wall and address the readership directly.

Which again raises a point made earlier, ok, so, what's the difference between "blogging" and "journalism" when Times staff writers report breaking news on a blog? I know "blog" is a breadbasket term that describes the technology, the content and the whole megillah, but still.

As of this post, out of 63 comments not one reader had cared enough to answer Chan's question. Numerous people did however respond to the posting as if they themselves were Borat.

So here's an analogy: If you were in a grocery store, and someone had product samples out on a table, and said, "Well, that next bite might suck," would you try it? If there was a group of people standing next to the table, one of them screaming "IT SUCKS! IT SUCKS!" would you try it?

No, and the store manager would call the police.

So then why is this commenting seen as a good idea?

*Yes, this site is a little offensive, but I agree with the sentiment completely, and this is a blog, not journalism.