Re: Slasdot and media accuracy (was Re: Improved Debian Project Emergency Communications)
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:01:22 -0800
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> on Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:53:37PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman
> (spam@bounceswoosh.org) wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 at 03:22 GMT, John Hasler penned:
> > > Monique wrote:
> > >> The difference is that, by allowing replies to accumulate and
> > >reading> them filtered to +3, you have a decent chance of finding
> > >out when a> submission was likely off-base.
> > >
> > > That's what I meant by corrections. Whenever Slashdot screws up I
> > > can be fairly certain that several of its thousands of
> > > knowledgeable readers will gleefully point out the error.
> >
> > Agreed. But I wanted to be clear, both to you and to everyone else,
> > that slashdot's front page is *not* in any way guaranteed to be
> > accurate. Taking any of their blurbs at face value tends to make an
> > ass out of you ...
>
> The blurbs are written by the article submitter, and (generally) not
> Slashdot's editors.
>
> The submitter may be wrong, misinformed, biased, or have an axe to
> grind. Or not.
>
> The "mainstream" media have gross factual errors in about 30-50% of
> stories. Without, as noted here, the instant feedback offered by
> Slashdot and other online sites.
>
The mainstream media also have an extremely high 'tame' factor.
The political strategy is always involved with maintaining a common
doctrine so as to maintain a population mass proceeding in what is
perceived as a 'common productive direction', for example.
This is a marketable commodity.
It is also a path that diverges from that of the honest one.
There are reasons why, for example, that journalists in warzones have
their stories 'vetted' before they are approved for release to the
outside world.
Regards,
David.
Reply to: