The world of journalism, in my opinion, is dog-eat-dog in its own brutal way. Every news story was fair game for a desperate reporter seeking the coveted front page editorial. If they couldn't find the breaking news story they so desired, then it was time to pay a little visit to a rival newspaper's website. Like scavengerous vultures, they would scroll through the headlines, as if they were searching for a piece of fresh carrion to claim as their own. When the document was seized for the taking, they would rip and dissect it until it was stripped clean of its original flesh. Once this tedious process was completed, the reporter would revamp the story with their own personal style, carefully piecing the missing parts together with almost surgical precision, using the God-given tools that were lithe from years of schooling and rigorous journalistic conditioning. By the next day, the revived story would be the front page news, much to the delight of the struggling reporter who virtually plagiarized it. As for myself,I have always bore animosity toward the reporters who practiced this act of larceny. I often call them by the name I have chosen for them after he became a reporter: "buzzards". Like the animal itself, these reporters always jumped at the bid to land a huge story, often fighting for supremacy with their literary teeth gnashed, aimed at the second or third party, instead of the forth, which was the most important of them all- the readers. I don't believe in such tactics. What about you? Does it seem wrong or is it for the sake of readership? I'm conflicted on this subject.....Well, guys, in the words of my aunt Fairweather Lewis, until then, fair thee well,