Re: [OT] Slashdot and media accuracy (was Re: Improved Debian Project Emergency Communications)
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Hoyt Bailey wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "csj" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> 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." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:01:22 -0800
> > > "Karsten M. Self" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > on Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:53:37PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman
> > > > (firstname.lastname@example.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)
I'll agree Fox is for the stupid, but it's better than 40 movies being
made about the president getting some poon on the side :-)
> > > > > > 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.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org