One thing that bothers me is when journalists quote random bloggers, or blog entries, or whatever. To me, it’s the equivalent of using Wikipedia articles as sources for your dissertation. So, I was thoroughly amused when I found out that a blog entry I wrote was quoted in a MinnPost article regarding Putin’s choice of Dmitry Medvedev as his successor to the Russian presidency:
Medvedev, in fact, believes Gazprom has a bigger role in the United State’s energy future — perhaps a prelude to projecting power overseas? Just last week, Medvedev spoke at Georgetown University, and according to blogger Lindsay Fincher, told his audience that “natural gas fired power plants are the only near-term solution to meet [U.S.] electricity demand due to various state regulations and bans on coal fired power plants (i.e., California).” Therefore, Medvedev said, Gazprom was refocusing on shipping liquid natural gas to the United States. He also noted that China could cut greenhouse gas emissions by switching some coal plants to Russian natural gas. (Although both coal and natural gas are fossil fuels, burning gas emits less CO².)
My own journalistic qualms aside, the problem with this particular article is that my entry was referring to ALEXANDER Medvedev, not DMITRY Medvedev. Yes, both have the same last name and hold very important positions at Gazprom, but one will remain the captain of Gazprom’s hockey team while the other will take up residence in the Kremlin. Pretty big difference, and something one should certainly take notice of when writing an article on Russia’s future president and his supposed foreign policy machinations.
Also, I hate being labeled as a “blogger”. Dear journalists, when you quote me in the future, please use the term “Californian who holds a useless master’s degree in this Russian stuff.” Ya know, I’d even settle for Kremlinologist. Sounds much more important. Thanks.