David,

I think you are right that too many people involve themselves in matters that they don't understand. When I read that the reporter thought the Rose Bowl had something to do with food, I actually "guffawed" out loud. I am not surprised, though, that people have come to accept this form of journalism. Honestly, the stories are likely written the same way most Americans view the news - as sound bites and ticker information that scrolls across the bottom of their television screens.

I will honestly admit that I don't watch local news because I can figure out the weather by walking outside and the last thing I care to hear about is growing crime or personal interest stories that flood the news industry. Gone are the days when the credibility of reporters like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow actually existed.

Too often, we see news reports about local issues reported as though they are national problems. I cannot stand when I see a person on TV who has less than perfect English interviewed when you and I both know that the reporter chose that person specifically to drive home another message. I get so angry when I see a poor white family portrayed as the only person being affected by plant closings, or an underprivileged black person standing in front of a store that has just been robbed. But, the media seek out these people to heighten stereotypes.

Can you imagine a crisis happening in some off-the-map Louisiana parish and an Indian reporter contacting the person who speaks only in a thick Creole-French-Southern U.S. accent. The colloquialisms alone would leave the reporter scurrying for a dictionary, let alone allowing them to grasp the true nature of the tragedy.

As an aside, I will tell you, David, when I was in college I only had one teaching assistant/professor who wasn't native to America. While her teaching methods differed from other professors, she understood this nation's various idioms. My university staffed its J school with knowledgeable, talented professionals who emphasized the need to be accurate and honest before all else. I think most journalism schools still try to enforce this. But, maybe I am just being naive.

Robert, I tend to agree that too often the 24-hour news media has helped destabilize the credibility of good reporters. But, I don't think that the majority of reporters, journalists and news editors would agree that their jobs should be outsourced because of shoddy work on the part of a few errant, well-placed news anchors. There is definitely a difference between a news reporter and a journalist. Too often, this line is blurred by the behavior of individuals like those you identified.

Can you imagine if this was the only type of news available to us, to our nation's children? It's bad enough that colloquialisms and the endings of words get trampled on by our political leaders. But, in a world where all our news was outsourced, the already troubled educational system in this country would be even shakier.

I find it beyond reprehensible that this newspaper owner held a conference where people from The New York Times and other great bastions of journalistic integrity were present and told them that there work could be outsourced. As David said, journalists are normally the people who strive to shed light on wrongdoing, and here they are falling victims themselves to a world where news stories don't need to be polished, they just need to be cheap and fast.

Well, that's my 2 cents, and most of those who read this will probably think I gave more like a quarter's worth of opinion, but I got a little fired up. Maybe you agree with me; maybe you don't. Either way, I know I'm not willing to gather my news from an individual who doesn't possess the knowledge to decipher the difference between a recipe and a football game.

Best regards,
Jarrod A. Clabaugh
Editor, Source of Title