Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The downside of "citizen journalism"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The downside of "citizen journalism"

    CNN and CBS, oops!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000

  • #2
    I've been sounding the wiki concept alarms for some time now. As everyone crowds in for their 15 minutes, the credibility of the internet as a news source will continue to fall. The real problem is - in the very near future, it will be the only game in town.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Marlow
      I've been sounding the wiki concept alarms for some time now.
      But were they ever meant for "news"? I have no problem with the citizens internet in the sense that one once burned twice shy. It may actually help critical thinking rather than destroy it.

      Comment


      • #4
        I can personally testify to the damage "citizen journalism" can cause.

        I publish an expatriate Iranian/Canadian woman author who was unbelievably and profanely slandered/liabled on Google, Wickipedia and numerous websites concerning the dissident anti-mullah movement.
        It required an expensive New York lawyer to identify the poster, force a personal and public retraction and apology, removal of the offending blogs and locking out future unapproved postings.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Daisy
          Originally posted by Marlow
          I've been sounding the wiki concept alarms for some time now.
          But were they ever meant for "news"? I have no problem with the citizens internet in the sense that one once burned twice shy. It may actually help critical thinking rather than destroy it.
          Were encyclopedias ever meant to be written by whoever felt like it? Wikis will indeed be the wave of the near-future, and then all the negative ramifications will become evident and make wikis extinct.

          Comment


          • #6
            The value of reputation. For stories of real interest I look for sources that have something to lose if they get things wrong. Usually going through NYTimes, Wall Street Jo, Wash Post, CNN, and a subset of Google News will turn up flaws in stories. Uncorroborated stories start to stand or fall with/without additional sources coming through. Not foolproof but more reliable than blogs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 26mi235
              The value of reputation. For stories of real interest I look for sources that have something to lose if they get things wrong. Usually going through NYTimes, Wall Street Jo, Wash Post, CNN, and a subset of Google News will turn up flaws in stories. Uncorroborated stories start to stand or fall with/without additional sources coming through. Not foolproof but more reliable than blogs.
              That's exactly what I do. It amazes me how susceptible some people still are to internet gossip.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 26mi235
                The value of reputation. For stories of real interest I look for sources that have something to lose if they get things wrong. Usually going through NYTimes, Wall Street Jo, Wash Post, CNN, and a subset of Google News will turn up flaws in stories. Uncorroborated stories start to stand or fall with/without additional sources coming through. Not foolproof but more reliable than blogs.
                That's because many of those rags get their stories from the Daily Kos. The NYTimes is particularly bad at this, recently publishing two categorically false FRONT PAGE stories about Sarah Palin the day after her nomination. The retraction - buried deep in the paper days later - as is their m.o.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by malmo
                  Originally posted by 26mi235
                  The value of reputation. For stories of real interest I look for sources that have something to lose if they get things wrong. Usually going through NYTimes, Wall Street Jo, Wash Post, CNN, and a subset of Google News will turn up flaws in stories. Uncorroborated stories start to stand or fall with/without additional sources coming through. Not foolproof but more reliable than blogs.
                  That's because many of those rags get their stories from the Daily Kos. The NYTimes is particularly bad at this, recently publishing two categorically false FRONT PAGE stories about Sarah Palin the day after her nomination. The retraction - buried deep in the paper days later - as is their m.o.
                  What stories are you talking about? I really would like to know.

                  It is silly, this talk of the NYTimes being this left wing paper. No one did more nonsense reporting on WMDs in Iraq than the Times Judith Miller.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Conor Dary

                    It is silly, this talk of the NYTimes being this left wing paper.
                    Wow.... just .... wow.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by malmo
                      Originally posted by Conor Dary

                      It is silly, this talk of the NYTimes being this left wing paper.
                      Wow.... just .... wow.
                      Very cute, but again what are these stories you are babbling about?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        malmo, where have you gone?

                        I suppose one of the stories you are referring to is related to Palin's involvement with the Alaska Independence Party. It is true the NYT mentioned falsely that Palin was once a member.

                        However, it is also true that, her husband was a long time member and that in March, 2008, Sarah Palin recorded a video welcoming the convention of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), saying "we have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest working, most grateful Americans in our nation."

                        http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/john-m ... -prob.html

                        Here is more on this story today.

                        http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... print.html

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X