Journalism in the 21st Century

I recently made the mistake of taking someone at their word. This was a PR, so yes, I realize that was my first mistake. However, when I went back to read their previous e-mail supposedly promising me answers to some questions the next day, I saw that the publicist had said "should". Should as in "we should have them to you by tomorrow". I then realized that top level publicists must be well-versed in the art of dishones-uh, I mean-putting-someone-offishness. Sorry, is there a proper word for this? Or should I hold off looking that up until tomorrow? This subtle difference is, of course, clear when I tutor ESL and have to explain to my student that when one says "should" it is not definite, but more definite than "may" and certainly more than "could". So why is it that I took a "should get it to you tomorrow" as definite? Was it because I was desperate to meet my deadline (which, by the way, has passed) or was I pr...

It's getting trickier these days. Try as I might, I've slipped a bit from those days when I sent a $10 Starbucks gift card back to a source. And might I add, I only did this after my boss admonished my hastily accepting it with a whiny, "but I looove lattes..." I've accepted free nights at hotels, buckets of pralines/gift cards/barbeque chips, free flights, dinners, wine, champagne, flattery, you name it. Am I coming clean? That said, I'd also like to mention that everyone who's bought me things is still under the same watchful eye as those who've bought me nothing (and ps, if this is you it's not too soon to prepare for my August birthday. I am a size 12.) The problem is that the line between journalist and source is becoming hazier. In the social networking age we are "friends," aren't we? And if we aren't, why in the heck haven't you accepted my Friend Request, Mr. Source? I know I am often troubled as to why I haven't ...