[OT] Slashdot and media accuracy (was Re: Improved Debian Project Emergency Communications)
On 1. December 2003 at 7:51AM +0800,
"David Palmer." <davidpalmer@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
In practically all slashdot stories I've read (I wouldn't
necessarily call them news), there are always links to check out.
This is how I initially found out about the Debian compromise
(actually it was via a slashdot RDF newsfeed). I read the blurb,
checked the link(s?) and then went googling around. To rely 100%
on slashdot is as dangerous as relying 100% on CNN or Fox News.
> > > > 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.
Slashdot never screws up. A forum never screws up.
> > > 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.
Slashdot has editors? Now that's news. I've always thought of
Slashdot as the text-based equivalent of a talk show. Somebody
comes up with an item for discussion, and a panel of commentators
begin firing away. Of course, talk shows, like some mailing
lists (not Debian User), have moderators, who have the privilege
of deciding what initial topic gets discussed.
> > 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.
I don't know about the "instant". But most newspapers worth
their name have the equivalent of a "letters" section.
> 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.
I can understand the vetting done to so-called "embedded"
journalists.
Reply to: