Objectivity in reporting.
Why is someone writing on a blog (rather than a journalist working for a website) automatically and inherently less objective?
Posting a link to wikipedia does not constitute an argument.
From the first line: "A
blog... is a type of
website ... usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video."
A website with articles.
Because they aren't the same thing. By your logic, Perez Hilton is a journalist.
He is. He's a trashy, crappy, sleazy, sensationalist journalist - but he writes articles, purporting to be truth about the "news," and he publishes it in a way that is accessible to others.
The Wrap piece has nothing to do with the press release. They made the SAME bad fever puns last night.
Did they make fever puns, or just say it was hot (and save the "fever" stuff for today's twitter)?
Even if they did make "fever" puns last night, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been referring to an actual release or scoop - and that the thermometer in today's article was just a lousy attempt to cover for that (so they can say "this is what we meant by hot" when it wasn't what they originally meant by "hot").
With Batfans on Twitter. I doubt they're worried about that. They didn't PUBLISH anything that would hurt their credibility. Now we just know not to let them lead us on via Twitter next time.
The fact that they're willing to mislead fans should count against their credibility no matter what - the fact that they it was "just fans on twitter" that were fooled doesn't mean their quality of character isn't any worse than if it had been non-fans not on twitter.
I think you and I both agree that they're scum, and that they haven't actually posted any lies - but I think their sleazy behavior should count against whatever they report, simply because it's hard to trust a messenger known to be sketchy. Not saying we should never believe them, but I do think we should take a critical eye to whatever they say (regarding news or just twitter pre-announcements).
Journalism is like teaching - it USED to require a degree/professional training, and now "anyone can do it." But that doesn't discount the merit and worth of those degrees.
True, but it also doesn't automatically discount the merit or worth of those who DON'T have degrees, as I think you've done. Nor does it mean a degree automatically means you're credible.
In any given field, some of the best workers are self-taught or self-made. We should judge a journalist not on his degree, but on his behavior and publications.
Not only have we been tricked, but the fact we've been tricked twice means we have no idea when or even if there will be any major batman news in the coming weeks. 
The only indication we even have that something is coming is "Jett", and I didn't think it was possible, but his credibility seems to have gone even further down the drain since the debacle with this fake press release.
