I think they couldn’t decide whether to go with museum or mausoleum and decided to create their own amalgam to fit the occasion.

It’s what Gay Byrne would have wanted.

I think the RTE newsroom are to be lauded for their forward thinking.

We’ll all be using the word when Elton John is buried.

I think we can all agree some journalists aren’t any good, though, and some are just plain dim, such as the RTE News journalist a couple of weeks ago who kept referring to the Bhuttos’ “musoleum”.

Are we heading towards a “some journalists are not very good” point?

I think we’ve covered that base pretty comprehensively, given that this thread is about John Waters.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said.

ie. “Most jam-makers will have attained a discipline in their field of work that journalists will not.”

Excuse me? I’ve attained a considerable discipline in my field of work, as have many other people who are not journalists. Which bloggers did you have in mind?

His own thesis allowed Fergal to dismiss him from a position of comfort. The idea that all blogs are somehow bad or a malignant phenomena is obviously prepostorous and allows Fergus to counter with the fact that his fellow Irish Times writers have blogs, Stephen Fry has a blog, Nobel prize winners have blogs etc.

Which is a more than adequate rebuttal to Waters’ witchcraft ramblings, but doesn’t further the debate anymore.

I know in the past that Damien has spoken of his wish that the media will in future include some sort of “Blog reaction” to breaking stories, where they put across the up-to-date reactions to prominent bloggers.

To me, that’s just like when MTV got Ja Rule on the phone in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. You know, if something is happening in the news, I’m going to have some answers that Twenty Major or Anton might not be able to answer for me.

Most journalists will have attained a discipline in their field of work that bloggers will not. In these moments, I’m probably going to want to hear from one of these people.

Now, perhaps I’m being slightly and deliberately disingenuous with the examples I’m using. Obviously, there are bloggers out there who are more than well-versed in what they’re blogging on and would have more to say in a more interesting and relevant way than a hack from the Evening Herald but this is where the debate lies, not in the “The internet is a malevolent sewer of pornography and negativity”.

John Waters is old and set in his ways, not to mention barking mad and an embarrassment. His view on the debate is so far removed from the reality that his opinion is more or less worthless, and shouldn’t really be given the arena that it has received. But, producers will always want an extreme view to put some life into a radio debate. So it goes.

As for “barometers of human nature”, yes, this is worth debating. I think it’s true for the most part. The *average* Irish blogger will think and say what the man on the street is saying and thinking? Probably.

So would it be such a bad thing to gauge the reaction of prominent bloggers in the wake of unfolding events, given that it would reflect would the masses are thinking? That’s another debate. The prominent bloggers will more than likely not be “average”. They’ll have forthright and established opinions on issues, and if this format were to be pursued will more than likely need to be balanced out by a blogger with a contrasting view (as is the wont of the media). If it’s average you’re after, it’s just another vox pop.

Mind you, I’d love to see a vox pop on what the average punter thinks about the view of the average blogger. Might be something to put on the iPhone.