Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Hi,
reading some of the replies MJ[0]'s post has received, I feel it's
necessary to express my opinion on some of the points. I wasn't going
to at first in order to keep the noise down, but IMO some views and
opinions expressed by DPL candidates have turned noise into signal.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:26:20AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> * Neither feels that the groups it reports on are their main
> audience.
This might be a style issue or a perception issue, but I concur,
nowadays I don't get the feeling that DWN is written _for_ developers
even if most of topics deal with them.
This has certainly changed over time and I don't recall it being always
like this. *My* recollection is that DWN started as a sort of "digest"
which would allow concerned parties to notice a discussion that could
otherwise have gone unnoticed.
It's certainly entertaining reading sometimes.
> * Any item included in either has to be sexy enough to match
> the red top and that means accuracy sometimes gets left out.
>
> * They are not afraid to pull cunning stunts like reporting
> statements single-sourced from fairly new contributors as if
> it's a consensus view of a group, or "inflating" articles with
> inaccurate or irrelevant spin.
This is my major gripe with DWN nowadays: it's not uncommon that it
manages to find consensus where there's none! "Uh? We agreed on
_that_? Really?"
Sometimes after having read a discussion through the week and then
reading the digest that shows up in DWN I get the feeling that I was
reading a different discussion. It's the editor's prerogative, yes,
but this feeling is much stronger with DWN than with, say, Kernel
Traffic, perhaps only due to the fact that KT provides much more
detailed views on a topic.
> * They have friends who get puffed regularly, but "good news"
> stories about groups on the blacklist can get ignored and/or
> stuffed at the bottom of the issue.
I wouldn't go as far as suspecting malice -- particularly after reading
Martin's summary on how DWN gets out the door, but yes, it does
sometimes read like that, too.
> * The editors take the traditional approach of completely ignoring
> most criticism and either accusing the complainer or trying to
> game them in the broken system. There is no recommended route
> to seek clarification or retraction and those misrepresented
> or injured just have to punt.
I *suspect* that whatever gets perceived as "flamebait" won't get
airtime (which is in general a good thing). Problem is that is seems
as if the epidermic tissue has gotten thinner over the years and
therefore the level for something to be perceived as flamebait
(opposed to genuine, and probably valid, criticism) has dropped.
But yes, I do get the feeling of some amount bias being present. It is
_my_ feeling so don't bother asking me to cross-reference it for you.
Marcelo
[0] Yes, I'm using MJ instead of something else, contrary to what I
asked for on this very list recently. That _is_ his nom the plum
and MJ uses it consistently to the point of being known as MJ in
this community.
Reply to: