Reality Enquirer

I have received a little bit of criticism through the mail and on some of the boards about how this little blog is operated. Since Big Brother is still a bit away, and all the boards are going through their normal spring meltdown, I thought I would write a few articles answering some of the very good points made.

The first criticism is summed up in this quote:

The biggest complaint/problem is that you don’t seem to clearly identify things that you are reporting as opposed to things that are submitted to you and published as is.

Well I do try to differentiate what I write and what is sent to me. Usually something that is sent to me I will preface with something such as "from the mailbox" or "from a reader" or some such drivel. Of course there are a lot of things I publish that I don't qualify - it has been my (probably mistaken) opinion that most of it is so obviously written by someone else that it doesn't need any qualification. I certainly don't want to take credit for it, so in the future I will try to make sure you know what I write myself and what is submitted by others.

Along those lines, there are a lot of people that think that most of what is published here comes from submissions. Well duh - do you think I really have the time to read all of the reality tv sites and keep up with all the personalities and politics? They don't pay me enough to do that. It might be nice, as some have suggested, to have this blog run by multiple people so that everything could be followed in minutia, but there is no way that could happen while retaining the anonymity required to make this blog successful. So I have to rely on my sources to feed me information and articles about what is going on throughout this netnation that has grown up around reality tv.

Which brings us to this problem -

you can't build a decent blog reporting only unverified gossip focused around one source because you eventually begin to lose respect and credibility. Throw us a REAL bone now and then for a change. If somebody sends you an email complaining about a a person or a website, at least try to verify it in some way before posting it so nobody's name gets dragged through the muck who doesn't deserve it.

What most people don't realize is that I do check what people send in. Many times I get multiple emails on a hot topic. I also have sources that I have grown to trust to give me the correct scoop when they send things in. When I am uncertain I email some of the people I know that are associated with the boards or people involved. And of course I am a member of every public site out there, and a number of the private sites - so when breaking news happens, I can normally find out what the real deal is. There are lots of things I get that never get published because they don't pass this scrutiny. It may look like cut and paste, but in reality there is a lot of work involved.

Finally there is this quote

RE is doing less of it’s own research and reporting, and that it is perhaps being used by others with an axe to grind, in order to give their complains wider dissemination and credibility.

But I am going to leave that for another entry.