Post 2: All I Know Is What I Read in the Papers

Chuck Klosterman wrote a very interesting article concerning media and the pitfalls of working in such an industry.  He starts his essay by talking about how journalists have "higher ethics and less common sense" than most other people.  He feels this way because he knows that many journalists will simply wait for the first person to call them back on a story and use that one source throughout the article instead of using all sides of an argument.  

When I was looking through news sites on the internet, I came across an article from Reuters.  The premise of this article is that McCain and his people are "disappointed" that he was not declared the winner of the debate held in Mississippi Friday night.  As I read the article, after reading Klosterman's piece, I was picturing a reporter sitting in his office working at his desk waiting for someone to call back with a quote for his article.  I can see him hearing back from McCain's people, and the reporter hanging up the phone and then typing away finishing his article.   The article starts with a paragraph stating the premise of the article; that McCain's camp is upset he was not declared the winner.  The second paragraph is a direct quote from McCain discussing how he feels that he should have been a winner in the debate.  Although there are quotes from someone in Obama's campaign, they are only quotes from a press conference which has been reported on before, and available through research.

 This article is in no way biased like the last article I wrote about, but it does fully fit into what Klosterman was talking about.  The reporter gathered quotes from the easiest and quickest source and used them and only them.  

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/27/mccain-

disappointed-that-media-declared-debate-a-tie/