Re: [OT] Slashdot and media accuracy (was Re: Improved Debian Project Emergency Communications)
----- Original Message -----
From: "csj" <csj@zapo.net>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 18:25
Subject: [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.
>
Exception CNN 0% Fox News 90% +/- (depending on source)
> > > > > 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: