A writer named Cody Delistraty wrote a story on MSNBC about the possibility Robin may appear in the new Batman movie. The article, and what I can only assume was a review by an editor or editorial staff, illustrates the lack of caring, respect and fact checking done on comic book related articles. The writer states that “a goofy sidekick who spews eye-rolling catchphrases” doesn't belong in the new Batman movie considering the tone of the film. I agree; we have no argument there. Here is the part I have an issue with. A paragraph later the writer states, “he'd be altered substantially to fit the films dark, epic tone that he'd be nearly unrecognizable as his comical comic book self.”

With that statement, all credibility is lost with the author and questions have to be raised about the editorial staff of MSNBC.com. The writer mentions in the same paragraph that Robin was serious in the Golden Age but was given a campy demeanor that has 'defined his character' to this day.

OK, so let's start with the basics. The writer says Robin is Dick Grayson. Robin WAS Dick Grayson and hasn't been Robin for at least 30 years. Dick Grayson is Nightwing. There was Jason Todd, who was killed by the Joker, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown (yes a female Robin) and currently Damien Wayne (yes, it's Bruce's son). The reporter makes the mistake of taking a three year running TV show and assuming nothing has changed in the world of comics because the writer is too lazy to walk into a comic shop or do a simple search on Google. He would rather reference a TV show and two bad films as his knowledge base. He doesn't even have the decency to look at Batman: The Animated Series.

I would like the writer to look at the possibility of Robin like this; when Tim Burton did Batman with Keaton, many reporters thought it would be the same Pow, Biff Batman from the TV show and were very surprised when they picked up The Dark Knight (that would be the comic series, NOT the collected works that became what is now known as a graphic novel because heaven forbid that a person be caught reading a comic book), which came out in that time span, and saw a Batman they could relate to. When the Joker was revealed as the villain in the second Dark Knight movie, people wondered how a Jack Nicholson's over the top take on the character could be topped. This was said by people who didn't get the character from the comics so when Heath Ledger showed what us comic fans already knew about the character, we weren't surprised by the average public was.

I've said it before and I will continue to say it; if the story was about the divorce of Tom and Katie, if this story was about a financial crisis, if this story was about the movie version of 50 Shades of Grey, the reporter and the editorial staff would have done more fact checking than they do for 'comic book' stuff. Since it's only a comic book, go ahead and go off memory instead of checking the facts, even if your memories are based on things that have nothing to do with the comic book.

Being in the realm of comic-book for 48 hours had me listening to a good number of people who knew of what they spoke of, but a vast majority of people were posers. They saw a comic-book or two and assumed they could be an expert, or at least pass as one. I heard people on buses, on planes or just walking who were telling stories about Comic-Con or certain characters they knew nothing about. Reporters essentially looked for crazy people in costume, mostly women in skimpy costume, and put them on screen. A local San Diego newscast had a story about the women of Comic-Con and how a smart woman could find a cool date at Comic-Con. An on-line magazine, in a serious tone, was rating womens costumes like some might do for an Oscar red carpet walk. I know my friend Geoff scored some good comic buys from the convention, but the vast majority of tweets and comments I saw on social media dealt with what TV and movie stars people saw at the convention.

Every year since Twilight appeared at the convention things have become diluted. I saw a tweet from a local San Diego reporter I was communicating with who called Comic-Con the Superbowl of Geeks. Comic-Con has definitely become that because like the Superbowl, the game doesn't matter anymore. The commercials, the singers, the pageantry, pomp and spectacle is what people are looking for. The game is an afterthought. Yes, you bring more people into the fold, you get more people aware of football, but you have a lot of people who don't have a passion for the game. You have a lot of people going to Comic-Con, but you have a lot of people there who have no clue about comics, science fiction or fantasy.