----- Original Message ----- From: "csj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:01:22 -0800 > > "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > on Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:53:37PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman > > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
