A Globe reporter who gets the bloggy thing

Michael Paulson has gotten it for some time now. His blogging of Cardinal O'Malley's elevation back in 2006 was transfixing. The only must-read on Boston.com is a religion writer - figure that one out.

Fantastic stuff.

Just a second ago I was reading a NYTimes article on the banking problems and got pissed when I noticed most of the article was being based on comments from someone at the Brookings Institution. The name set off a "BS alarm" in my head and by checking a website that details the biases of certain news sources, I realized why...Brookings is basically a right-wing think tank for putting out such talking points.

I told a colleague that I wish reporters would be more "scientific" about their approach. In science, we go to multiple sources and query 3 or more of them as to the "answer". Multiple unbiased sources to back up the point being made by the story. Instead, the news realm has gotten so bloated that it seems a reporter feels the need to jump on the first whiff of a scoop that comes across their desk in order to get the drop on the competition and put out a pile of crap that will be chewed up and spit out by the reader/viewer within 24 hours and forgotten (except that it will color the next few days worth of reading for sure). But then this article was the complete opposite!

Contrast that to Paulson who not only went to the source for info on the potential implications of this deal, but then went to multiple unbiased theologians who study these sorts of issues and have little to no bias on the Catholic church getting involved in public health money. Then, to ice the cake, he put up their entire responses in his blog, which would be like the "Supplemental Online Info" of a scientific journal article where others can go to see the actual results that led to the summarized results presented in the article. Outstanding journalism! It's a shame it's not seen more.