Young DUers: If you haven't decided on a career path, read this:

It might peak your interest in journalism. I have known the story of how Watergate broke for 20 years, since my first reading of All The President's Men, but this article, Bob Woodward's account of how Mark Felt became "Deep Throat," has my heart racing.

Great article!

edit: duh. wrong reporter.

and Woodward's relationship with Felt.

You are right, great article.

:dunce:

Good point. We need a new generation of journalists.

The word is "pique" I believe.

either works:

peak
v
"to bring to a maximum of development, value, or intensity"

pique
v
"to provoke; arouse"

I like "peak" better based on these defs.

Never nitpick a nitpicker! :7

:hi:

If you want to arouse interest in young people, "peak" doesn't work because it implies that during the reading of the article, interest will be at its maximum levels; therefore, after reading the article, interest would necessarily decline. I don't think that was intended.

You might like "peak" better, but you'd have to explain then why you are making a play on words. It's not really a nitpick; it's observing the difference between two words that are homonyms.

for the job, though. Remember your dignity, kids :)

I believe journalism as some of us have known it is dead. The majority of "journalism" graduates enter the PR market, not the newsroom. That's because they know that they will actually be on the front end of the "newsroom" by doing so. And make more $$.

As long as bomb makers own the networks and newspapers, there is no hope for journalism as we've known it.

There will always be a Greg Palast here and there, but ask the Average Joe who Greg Palast is.

I am, however, holding out hope for the internet. As I've said on here before, that's why it's imperative for all of us to monitor the slightest infringement on our current rights. The internet is still in its infancy, or maybe it's learning to crawl. Once the Powers that Be realize that it's working AGAINST them, we're screwed.

we all believed we'd be the next investigative reporter to bring down a presidency, expose corporate malfeasance, secure the safety of our fellow citizens. But it doesn't quite work like that. For many, journalism becomes a drudgery of inconsequential reports about meaningless episodes, or worse, a parade of intrusive stories that stomp all over people's privacy. Oh, they're "in the news" and free grist for journalism's 'grill,' but that does little to salve your conscience or self-esteem when day is done. For too many, that becomes the bottle's role.

I vividly remember the incident that destroyed my interest in journalism. Google "Bill Sipple" and see what a miserable mess the national press made of this man's life, all because he chose to save the life of a President. Weigh what was done to Sipple against the public's vaunted "right to know" and see who came up wanting.


Here are two brief but poignant accounts:

www.lambda.net/~maximum/sipple.html

www.randomhouse.com/features/americancentury/imperialpres.html

but outing the hypocrites who vote anti gay but have gay sex is appropriate in my book.