Personally, I find the regular, intense defense on DU of third-rate pundits, [View all]

who are really only known to the online community, to be rather odd. Beginning with Twitter stars like Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor and extending to people like Thom Hartmann, who was formerly a DUer, any questioning of these minor players brings a wave of negativism against those questioning them immediately.

I find that odd, really. None of those erstwhile pundits or, as some call them, "citizen journalists," really have any credibility beyond the Internet. They operate from free accounts online, and their names never appear in any other sort of media. They may tweet, or operate a random blog that they hope will generate revenue from advertising or outright donations. They have "sources," but never name them or even supply any legitimate corroboration, nor do they follow up when they get things wrong.

And yet, their musings, predictions and "breaking news" are posted on DU the moment they appear, whether anything such sources have said has been confirmed or not. Then, when someone on DU posts skeptically about the veracity of what has been reported by these unknown "heroes," attacks rain down on the skeptic as if from a supercell thunderstorm.

The illogic of instant belief in such unknown and unschooled reporters is astounding. If they say something that some hope is true, nothing else matters. If critical thinking should ever be applied, it should be applied to the utterings of these would-be political geniuses. It is folly to accept what they say simply because we wish what they say to be true.

We can do better. We should do better.