Is it becoming more difficult to survive as a TV journalist? One might think so, and if you get a chance then you might ask E.D. Hill of America’s Pulse. I hear she had a hand on it, but the word is she was cutting off the circulation.

In print journalism, there has always been evidence if a reporter was skewing a story a certain way, omitting essential facts, or editorializing. You just simply had to look at the story. And if it was bad enough then someone complained.

With TV news, it was a little bit more difficult. If you didn’t watch a particular news segment then you only had someone’s word for it. And that someone likely didn’t have a transcript of the program to back up any allegations. The news station had the transcripts and if you wanted a copy then you had to pay for it. Even if you videotaped a news segment, there was always some question as to how you could use it without violating a copyright law.

But with the advent of the Internet, the rules have changed. This story from Wired Magazine illustrates just how TV news is no longer immune from accusations of editorializing and bad news judgment. News personalities now have a mechanism in place to hold them accountable, like it or not.

Anyone can video a news segment and upload it to YouTube within minutes. The record speaks for itself. And if a journalist is out of line, makes a comment that is unfair or which characterizes a party in the news then everyone in the world will witness it within a matter of minutes. There can be no backtracking, guffawing, or smoke blowing. It’s all out in the open and the journalist must decide to offer a public statement or let his comments ride. And that’s the way it should be.

Conservatives who claim that the news has a liberal bias can prove it. Liberals who claim that the news has a bias toward the power structure, which is allegedly conservative, can prove it. Or we can just sit back and watch it all play out on YouTube and let the chips fall where they may.