Journalistic Integrity in the Digital Age? 165
MrMann asks: "Should online news agencies like Slashdot be held accountable for tabloid news stories much like paper mediums are? I know the arguments of 'Slashdot is Rob's baby and he does it for fun' that has popped up, but since Andover bought Slashdot, it has stopped being Rob's pet project and has become in the very real sense, a business entity. Since it is no longer a private endeavor (VA Linux is a publicly traded company) shouldn't Slashdot be held to the same standards as other 'news' agencies?" I've always considered Slashdot to be more of a discussion site than a news site, but the news portion is important. I'll be the first to admit that we aren't perfect when it comes to that part, but we do the best we can when it comes to corrections. Just out of curiosity, how do you all feel about how the real online news sites handle their reporting?
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot should be an online CNN for nerds! (Score:1)
I'd disagree with some points though, I think that the trolls keep this [slashdot.org] shithole [goatse.cx] open.
Without trolls, this place would be as bland as kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]. K5 has good discussion, but no character, no soul.
Deleting posts is censorship - something Taco has promised never to stoop to (and much respect to him for that). Also, bad moderation could then remove valuable posts forever. Will you claim that all Slashdot moderation is good?
One useful change could be to remove the 'Insightful' moderation option, as it is rarely used correctly. A simple point up or point down should suffice, especially considering that some posts are eg. both funny and informative.
Slashback anyone ? (Score:1)
I just wish the established medias take some inpiration from Slashdot.
Re:Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh (Score:1)
Well, what if the shareholders demand it, then?
This isn't exactly a free site anymore...
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Why could make Slashdot held accountable? (Score:1)
To make a long story short; don't shoot the messenger!
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
I'm calling your bluff. Which two are you talking about, and what makes you think they're the only two that allow it? The paper I write for (C-Ville Weekly [c-ville.com]) not only allows but encourages its writers to be accessible by e-mail. I can't believe we're one of only two newspapers that that's true of.
Perhaps you meant "major" papers, but even in that case, my challenge to you still stands. As for Peter Jennings and World News Tonight, try this feedback form [go.com] that took me all of a minute to find on abc.com. It may not go straight to Peter Jennings, but guess what: he just reads what he's told to read for the most part, so he's not the person you want to address comments on the news content to anyway.
Perspectives... (Score:1)
Time is the main enemy of the news publisher (Score:1)
The Slashdot boys (even now that they are corporate) still only have so many hours in the day to read all of the submissions and create original content to buffer and provide perspective. This fact remains in all journalistic enterprises, be they one-man weblogs or huge business interests like CNN.
Its important for readers to keep this in mind when the persue news. Search engines like Headlines News Search [nickelnews.com] help fight the problem of limited time by allowing you to find other websites covering similar news.
(I must disclose that I built and operate Headlines News Search)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
I agree. I believe in "freedom of the press", but not UNACCOUNTABILTY of the press, which
so many "journalists" seem to think is "freedom."
Re:Just the facts ma'am (Score:1)
That feature already exists. All stories with blurbs longer than the paragraph on the main page (including editorials and book reviews) have a link which excludes comments. Simply click on the link titled "x bytes in body".
--
Re:Several points (Score:1)
Personally it is that fact that makes me question why this whole thread is here.
That is why I like reading
Re:You've got to be kidding (Score:1)
It is rare that I find NPR incorrect on technical details (the last one being calling Napster a web site) but overall their inaccuracies are minimal. Compare that to the common reporting on the local TV news where each story has at least 2-3 glaring errors and the local print not being much better.
As for balance I have yet to hear NPR air a story that was one sided. This is a very common tactic when it comes to local TV and print news as well as the national news. For example, when Merriam-Webster was going to change the entry for Nigger (IIRC) they did a report on it. Three sides to the issue were presented. Merriam-Webster's view, those for altering the entry and those for removing it. All had valid points and all three were give the same treatment by NPR. None of the views were given preference by NPR at all.
NPR is also the only news source that I see actively pursuing third party candidates in an ongoing series. Most news sources don't even acknowledge there are cadidates outside Bush and Gore.
Even on the most contentious issues, Gun Control, Abortion, etc they are quite unbiased. About the only time I had issue with NPR and gun control, as an example, was when they aired an opinion piece right after Columbine. Of course, after I got over my initial anger I realized it was misdirected at NPR and should have been at the woman who submitted the peice in the first place.
I think the largest praise I can give NPR is this. Unlike many other news sources they don't comment on the news or give opinions on the news. You don't hear glib little digs out of the reporters or anchors. I lost all respect for local news when one night the achors tossed in a dig against a rock group and the people going to the concert they had just reported on when the next night they praised the talent of the country artist whose concert they just reported on.
Sure, Claudio Sanchez could do without the whole woe of Latinos dig in each report but aside from that one bone I have I don't recall any of the anchors mistake giving opinions and stupid little jokes for reporting the news.
Your not a discussion site though. (Score:1)
When/if you just were a pointer to other new sites, with a smart ass comment by the poster, and the discussions, then yes, you were just a discussion site. But your not anymore.
I, for one, am -->-- this close to leaving. Slashdot is not going down hill, it always was a dive.
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Print media generaly always puts retractions/corrections in the same place, usualy on the second page. Since people who know how to use a newspaper know this, and its standard practice, its on the up and up.
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
The sections just filter out things that are shown on the front page, and most of the other pages there are static - the online equivelent of a ad rate card, masthead, contact information and the like.
It may be true that print media generaly downplays there errors, but thats because everyone downplays there errors. Most of the retractions/corrections I see are spelling corrections, or mis crediting photographers. This is not because newspapers skip there big errors, its because newspapers dont make big errors.
Slashdot, has, on occasion, made big errors.
Pressethics (Score:1)
Of course Slashdot should follow the same rules of pressethics as normal newspapers, but I must say that I've yet to see a case where this has not been the case. The transgressions into murky waters are all made in the open fora by persons not being members of the paper-staff.
One could of course argue that normal newspapers are held responsible for what they publish, be it open letters from the readers or not, but I believe this is pretty much impossible to enforce for an online medium, eventhough there are strong movements to censor webcontent.
The number one reference in all these issues should be the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] which handle exactly these kind of issues.
Don't let people censor you; this a question of freedom of speech. Any freedom comes with an obligation however, and that is not to abuse it to hurt someone else. People not taking their responsibility risk undermining their own rights.
Now there are sites that really need to reconsider their contents, however, for instance MacOS Rumors [macosrumors.com], where a lot of the rumors seem more or less invented because of lack of real news. Oh, and how about Microsoft's allegations about Linux that now and then pop up... But I guess that's just mistakes, nothing made on purpose :^)
Re:Real sites? (Score:1)
Ahh, Tom's Hardware--the bastion of unbiased tech reviews. I just love reading one of his "comparisons" where one product is rated the highest, and coincidentally the same product is being ADVERTISED in a banner on top of the page.
Re:I probably won't be reading your novel. (Score:1)
Re:Several points (Score:1)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I prefer "Slashdot" style to "classic" (Score:1)
What ends up happening is some reporter files a report with his bieses laced in. They aren't cought and the story gets reported.
Small newspaper someplace nobody really notices.. tucked back on page 5.
Annother reporter sees it and gathers more data. But the original bies remains intact. The inital mistakes aren't allways checked. Deadline deadline hurry hurry gotta get it out before someone else dose.
Now it's bigger.. and even more slanted.
Now CNN picks it up.. the slant gets even worse.. deadlines etc.. no time to backcheck facts.. report the story "as is" and move on to the next big story... It's a big world...
Now it's on CNNs webpage
Slashdot picks it up.. in all it's glory.. Slashdot has vertually zero resorces to fact check. Just link back to CNN and give a summery and maybe a rant.
Then the Slashdot readers kick in...
"Thats BS.." "No no wrong..." "Are you nuts?" "Totally bies" "Slashdot is tabloid trash"
I get really annoyed when I see TV and print news report things with horrificly messed up slant.
Not everyone will catch the mistake.. far to many don't know enough to recognise it..
They are doing the best they can but it still bothers me a great deal that this is "the best".
There is no real room for corrections.
There is no dialog..
Retractions are a day late...
And for many the news is gospel... challanging it is blasphamy... "It was on the news"
But with Slashdot when even a minnor you can talk about it.
Or maybe there is more to it than is reported..
The dialog helps improve Slashdot...
Slashdot itself needs it's own reporting staff so it dosn't need to rely on other news sources for it's news storys.. So that it's own staff can go out and check up on storys. So the Slashdot staff itself can add to the dialog.
It seems like right now Slashdots own staff is just linking to existing news and the real value of Slashdot is our replys.
Re:Several points (Score:1)
I would also add the following:
1) An article has to be "signed off" to be refused too. I don't like the idea that the editor who looks at a submission might find it boring, while another finds it interesting. In other words, 2 editors to post, 2 to refuse.
2) Actually *print* a retraction. Most noticeable is the RedHat 7 is Infested With Bugs [slashdot.org] article, which claimed that RH7 had 2500 bugs. The story was not updated when proved wrong, nor was a retraction found in the following Slashbacks: here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org]. The claim "they should read all the comments too" is an invalid one as if that were the case, I wouldn't need an article title or summary. In addition, how many sites get the slashdot headers and put them into their site? A quick peek of "redhat 7 is infested with bugs" as a title could possibly scare someone (albeit a naive someone) away from it. This is as bad as Kent Brockman's "The President DIED
In summation, don't be afraid to improve. It's a great site, there's lots of viewers, but they won't stay around if the site stagnates.
In today's day and age... (Score:1)
Same concept of not being able to sue any single person because of the action taken by the company.
The main difference here is that andover doesn't seem to lose face. It's providing a free service, even though it is wrong somewhere between 10% and 2% of the time.
---
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Yay, Slashdot.
Not news, Slashdot is actually a pimp. (Score:1)
You:Could you hook me up with some news?
Slashdot:Sure my friend. I can hook you up to some very hot-looking news, but it will cost you.
You:How much?
Slashdot:Just look at the add, then you can go and have some hot and kinky news!
Corrections? (Score:1)
How often does a correction become front page news in the old newspaper world? They're left to the back pages! The "corrections" column in tiny print where no one can really see (or care about) it.
At least with forums like we have here, the corrected stories are right up front for us to all see.
News has long been about the sensationalization of facts, no doubt that it will continue. Newspapers, television, or online, it will happen. At least online its corrected quickly and visibly.
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:1)
Are print media unable to, because of some physical restriction, to put thier corrections and retractions on the front page? I doubt it. i tend to think they put it on the inside (and quite often in smaller text), because they are not as interested in presenting the news correctly, as they are in presenting whatever makes them the most money.
why would they want to use precious front page space to show that they goofed? I'm quite sure they would rather make a buck.
Re:General Principles and Slashdot (Score:1)
i think a larger problem with print media (that is rarely seen on slashdot) is the bias that is put on non-editorial news articles. sit down with your local major paper, and read an article on the front page. take two highlighters with you. mark each FACT that you see in the article that is backed up with something. then with the other marker highlight everything that is an assumption, doesn't have a source, is speculation, etc. I guarantee that you will have more of the second color in ANY article than the first color.
Journalists today do not report the factual news, they report the news that best suits the newspaper, or television media for that matter.
check out in a local paper that talks about a couple local TV stations, and how they distort the facts. [louisville.com]
the paper (Louisville Eccentric Observer), is one of the few papers I have ever run across that plainly lets you know the bias they have against a particular news item, and reports the facts.
Re:Several points (Score:1)
Which of these doesn't slashdot do? (Score:2)
Re:Storys should be validated, but... (Score:2)
Slashdot is Slashdot. It are what it are and it ain't what it ain't. I have always liked it the way it is, and hope like hell it never loses its character by trying to be something it isn't.
- Robin
Don't try to dodge the bullet... (Score:2)
I believe Rob and other Slashdotters have been willing to don the "new journalist" clothing in interviews and comments they've made on Slashdot - how important Slashdot has been to the "new" online journalism. If you're going to claim the title, take the responsibility. If you're not journalists, remove the word "news" from your tagline.
I love Slashdot for a lot of reasons, but as a journalist, Slashdot does make me cringe from time to time. Would it be so difficult to grow up and do things right?
As far as other online journalists...it's really a matter of who they work for. I've found that sites like Linux Today do fall short of journalistic standards, but usually news sources that have newspaper equivalents are pretty much meeting the standard. That's probably because they're mostly re-printing stuff from the paper edition and the paper edition gets more attention and is held to a higher standard because it's actually being printed. (Never underestimate the subtle value shift between print and electronic media...)
Quite frankly, though, I think most news outlets these days fall short of meeting ideal journalistic standards.
(Wondering what they are: read the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics here:
http://spj.org/ethics/code.htm [spj.org]
Responsibility for own work (Score:2)
Most of the stories 'published' on these sites are from contributions by readers, and even then, they tend to be links to other major old-media news sites. In this regard, the site doesn't have to have responsibility on these stories, though the selection of which stories to go with is a matter of bias and the like.
However, Slashdot or other sites will have a scoop, a story which either they wrote or that a submitter informed them of but with no strong evidence. On the former, these sites need to have a strong responsibility ot make sure their facts are straight, they take an impartial look to both sides when appropriate, and similar concepts from print media. In some regards, Slashdot gets this (many of the interviews of late have been very good), while other times, they could do some more in-depth reporting to show a more responsible position.
On the latter, stories that are basically rumors or accounts experiences by one or two people, there's even more resposibility on Slashdot to make sure to check the story out as fully as possible before posting the story. A good example was the early hoopla on the Cuecat stuff. People were reporting that a couple C&D letters got out and in the articles that were posted, there was a definite bent against DC for their arrogence. (Sure, I think that DC is completely in the wrong for what they are trying to do). But no one at Slashdot tried to get comment from DC on this case, taking the text of the C&D letter as DC's statement of opinion. A more responsible journalist would have attempted to at least make contact, and most likely they would have gotten the same speil as the C&D letter stated. However, that would have strengthed the story -- both confirming the C&D letters were not hype, and also showing the attitude that DC has. Even if Slashdot couldn't make contact, at least including a statement to that regrade at least shows some more intrigity in reporting. I certianly don't think that scenario was a blight on Slashdot, but it was a recent example of what needs to be improved to move it from hype-gathers to responsible reporting.
Requesting a Global JonKatz Filter! (Score:2)
Ghettozing and homogenizing public opinion on op-ed pages and stuffing all ideas into a "left" and a "right".
Ok, from now on the NY Times will print (daily) 7000 pages of letters to the editor, color-coded along a banded continuum so we can easily select only the opinions of vegetarians who are pro-death penalty. I'm sure they won't have any problems with the practicality of that.
Exploting (sic) parents fears by sensationalizing issues of technology and safety?
Yes, better to have you exploit "geek" fears by sensationalizing issues of technology and safety.
Covering technology ignorantly and ineptly?
Horror of horrors! From a guy who posted apostrophes as question marks for a year. Let's see, are there any areas Slashdot covers ignorantly and ineptly? Um, yeah, just about everything but nano-tech and the GPL. You couldn't cover a recursive function if it bit you in the ass.
Becoming part of a disconnected elite?
Jon, you won't get this, but that fits you to a T. In my experience, getting one of your pat email answers is pretty much the same as having email ignored. Really.
Oh wait, and the corporate sky must be falling again.
Standards? We don't need no stinking standards! (Score:2)
What standards? We never really have had any standards of integrity, nor is there any real punishments, beyond litigation and subcribers going elsewhere for the "news". Now that we have media giants, our "news" is in complete hell. I have seen so many outright lies that have gone without full correction, it is rediculous!
I hold Slashdot up to higher standards than the media giants. I expect follow through, and follow, up on any news posted here. I expect the truth will be told on any matter, and certainly not covered up.
If not, I get my immediate say in the matter!
The real question is, how do we hold the media giants to a standard that shows us something closer to the truth?
Re:News agencies are not held to any standard. (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
You are ducking the issue (Score:2)
I think this columns stereotypes new media as inherently inferior. I'm not sure which community owned sites you refer to, but if you'll point them out, I'll be happy to go take a look at them..plse e-mail the sites to me.
The point isn't that all journalists in new or old media are ethical or n ote. The point is that traditional media has enormous and largely unacknowledged ethical issues, and presents itself too often as superior form of communications. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. The ethic dramas in traditional media are serious, and I think to demand to know what standards new media are using in the context of the virtuous old culture is a bit self serving.
But of course no media is perfect, slashdot least of all.But you're ducking the issue.
P.S. Acknowledging imperfections (Score:2)
The risks of responsability (Score:2)
There have been examples of pure hoaxes being published. Correct,
There is some tendency for yellow journalism and less real news/opinions. Right, the opinion of the author may not be the one of the editorial board. Unfortunately the editorial board is to emotional and less analytic/critic/impartial. Many times we may see how the editors speak about their emotions about the news. Pressing an emotional point on a news is a way to manage the masses.
Following this point I have noted that the control for the news has been quite weird. You post an article, get rejected and later you get this article with a dumb commentary and less information. For the two years I have been reading Slashdot I have seen some flagrant examples of this. In the mean time I have noted that if we catch news criticizing someone/something then other "positive" news about the same stuff get rejected. This may be correct for situations when the posts are still going on. But if a week or two are gone then no one can get the stuff that matters to pass through the "bunch of..." Sometimes the inverse happens. This is not information but manipulation. Most people may stay uninformed about "the other side of the story". We stand on the what
In the mean time I should call for the "beware responsability". What makes Slashdot the "effect" is the fact that many things pass through here that barely we would see somewhere else. In the meantime Slashdot is a news gatherer of high quality even today. News and information that would go unnoticed are remarked here.In the meantime comments are moderated but never censored. And even some flamebaits are of peculiar importance. Specially if the person is an expert on the field but he can't hold his tongue...
There should be a mean on this stuff. I think comments should remain the way they are. Anyway they are the pure responsability of the author and there is nothing for
I sincerly consider that the selection of news should be made much larger than now. And create a voting system much like Meta-Moderation. How large it should be I don't know. There could be several technical and moral issues here that may turn this into a headache. The idealistic way would be to have a separate Slashdot much more as a "voting boot". People post and people choose what should be or shouldn't be news. Maybe here Rob and his team should still have a "last voice" on the stuff. A Supreme Court for some critical issues that may happen. However this would made
Moderate authors (Score:2)
For example, many of Taco's posts about the upcoming presidential election, particularly ones where he goes out of his way to stereotype and vilify Bush, would have been moderated away as trolls, offtopic, or flamebait had they been subject to the same moderation that any other slashdotter faces.
The Nader supporters should be even more offended by the slashdot biases... how many Nader headlines do you think we would see if Nader threatened Bush's base as opposed to Gore's base? Probably three or four a day...
It is slashdots site, and they can and should do what they want, but it should never claim to be balanced (which it cannot be) or terribly accurate (which it has never been).
It's main claim should be that it is interesting and entertaining (which it often is).
It would be nice if some of the editors who seem filled with such irrational hate for Bush would take a deep breath and be less driven by emotions though... and stop for a second and think "maybe my motives for this article are not very pure, perhaps I should allow other more subjective individuals to judge if it should be published".
Censorship (or to put it another way, limiting use of taxpayer funded internet terminals in public areas) is another laughably unbalanced topic... There is a valid argument on either side if the issue, but you would never know it from the sensationalistic reactionary headlines.
But again, it's their site and they can do what they want, and I can vote with my feet whenever I want.
But you did ask, so there's my opinion
Bill (slashdot old timer)...
Re:Which of these doesn't slashdot do? (Score:2)
When
So are its good qualities, but
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Score:2)
I've listened to more than a few "jouralist" go on about the purity of their profession, the need to be wholly objective and unbiased. The simple truth is that everyone, even
I'm NOT arguing to stop editing. Rather I'm saying that the question itself is flawed. Ethics or otherwise, is
Holding
Profit doesnt change responsibility. (Score:2)
The argument there, as I grasp it, is that since Slashdot is now part of a business, it should be held accountable. And conversely, if it were not a business, it wouldn't have to be.
Explain to me: why wouldn't it? How does being part of a business change your responsibilities as a source of information? Is it okay, in the general (non-cynical) ethical sense, to be irresponsible with the information you spread if you are not owned by anyone? No. This sense of "we're a company now, we have to be ethical in our news" is only coming from a sense of corporate fear -- a sense of "we'll get fired if we're irresponsible and cause grief for the parent company" -- and has nothing to do with your actual responsibility to the reader -- which never changed.
In the two years that I've been reading Slashdot, even before it was bought by anyone, it has committed nearly every journalistic mistake a news outlet can make -- favoritism, sensationalism, inaccuracy, bias, even a few alleged cases of censorship. If being bought by Andover, and in turn by VA Linux, causes the staff to take their responsibilities more seriously, then great -- but in truth, being bought didnt change those responsibilities. It only hit the staffers on the head a bit harder.
Slashdot's responsibilities to present accurate and informative news (ignoring that they only really became a "news outlet" fairly recently) existed ever since the day they were quoted by another media source, and attracted a significant readership which began to rely on it for certain kinds of news. Just because the staffers have finally grown up enough, in that sense, to realize it, doesn't mean that those responsibilities have changed at all.
Which ethics? Just the basics, please. (Score:2)
Journalistic integrity has never been near perfect, but it is still important to have ideals, if nothing more than to know how badly you are lost. The trend of discounting these was in full swing before the rise of new media as news organizations became less independent and more tangled into multi-media conglomerates.
But -- does the abandoning of public integrity by traditional media outlets excuse the same behavior by new media outlets? Should organizations who become sources of information ignore these values, restore these values, or create a whole new set of values?
The interesting thing about Slashdot is that it turns the usual balance of editorial and response on its head. This creates a counterbalance to editorial bias -- a way of pursuing old values using new technological opportunities. The moderation system is a key piece of this. It allows every post to become immortal, even the worst trolls. Without the moderation system, Slashdot would be overrun by autoposted trash, or it would require somebody to hand trim out posts that don't meet editorial muster.
Re:Storys should be validated, but... (Score:2)
There are many things that make slashdot what it is, but I don't know that the details of story selection are really a huge part of that (other than an annoying part such as when rejected submissions turn up days later as "news" or the 101th one-click-patent story gets run).
For my money, the real flavor and value of slashdot comes from the collective personality and knowledge of the posters more than anything else.
Re:Real sites? (Score:2)
--
Re:Slashdot is not the topic here! (Score:2)
Speaking strictly for myself, but in the context of working for an online operation that occasionally covers NBA basketball...
We've been given second-tier status for a few reasons. Allow me to speculate:
In addition to myself or our online sports producer, my company generally sends two beat reporters, one columnist, one or two reporters, and a few times, a third reporter on general assignment to cover non-game related news (fan/player human interest). Now, most of those folks occupy prime space with the radio and TV broadcasting crew on press row. The rest of us get first row balconey seats. Why the unequitable treatment? Well, for one thing, the bulk of my company's coverage is in print. My material is transitionary only (until we update with print in the morning). My organization gets a few choice spots. So, I sit elsewhere.
But why do the other online folks sit with me?
For one, we compete with NBA.com for viewership/readership. It's not a problem in regards to game-day access to players or the game itself. But, at least to me, we're not being given the choice seats with the competition in mind. Secondly, I don't think college or professional athletics fully takes online sports journalism seriously. Why? Because we're not Espn, TNT or NBC? Currently ESPN has a sweatheart deal to put NBA.com together. NBC and TNT own the broadcast rights. TV gets the prime access because that's where the cooperative revenue comes from.
Outside of the big players, there really isn't an solitary online crew that can easily prove they aren't just a fan with FrontPage. It will take a while to get in the door. Until then, we need to show up consistently, file consistently and pay our dues. We need to build our credibility, something ESPN, NBC, TNT and my employer's print side has already done. My online collegues have a ways to go.
Ultimately, we need to do such good work that it raises the attention of the teams we cover. It needs to be better and faster than other mediums. They need to take their own notice of what's good and what's crap. And that's hard. We can't tell them. Everyone needs to discover it for themselves. It's only when that happens will our access equal what others get.
As for the Olympics, you'll notice that NBC got preferential treatment across the board. No online only operations since that would compete directly with NBCOlympics.com. No simultanious US TV coverage, since that would abridge NBC's exclusive broadcast rights. When the Track and Field Trials were in town, the local NBC affiliate couldn't get all they wanted because it was reserved for the network.,
My point: online Journalism has a ways to travel yet. I'm very happy to travel the path. Yes, I bitch about inequity. But the hard work of convincing others of our quality is our burden. Until then, we do the best work we can possibly deliver. It's the only way these "slights" in favor of the established players will change.
Re:Several points (Score:2)
"The Inquirer would like to apologize for some articles in the last edition. After closer investigation we found that there are not, in fact, aliens living amongst us in the form of movie stars. Also, the werewolf baby was a hoax, and Elvis did not kill JFK."
Re:You've got to be kidding (Score:2)
you as a conservative find NPR to liberal while
I has a "card-carrying" liberal find it to conservative.
That's usually a good sign of objectivity.
RobK
---
RobK
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:2)
You can say this if you like, but Katz has always been very much FOR the mass stereotyping of anyone reading Slashdot AS geeks. And he has claimed to speak for all of us "geeks" in almost every one of his pieces. I for one am sick of the label, and sick of my point of view being co-opted by this questionable "writer".
Take it will a grain of salt. (Score:2)
Imagine that, on a whim, I registered 'citizencsnewszone.com' and posted an article titled "Linus T, Creator of Linux, Killed in Car Accident," I would (most likely) get tons of visitors, who, after reading the story, assumed it had some kind of merrit, and would start spreading the 'news' around.
I'm not against ALL online news sources, however. I am particularly fond of CNN [cnn.com], due to the fact that they have a reputation.
------------
CitizenC
Re:Which ethics? Exactly!! (Score:2)
Just recently I saw a pretty good film that did a good job of putting together the whole scenario. We encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait in order to assert ourselves in the region, and we've been punishing the people of Iraq for 10 years now simply in order to maintain our dominant position in the area. Why? Because we're totally dependent on cheap oil.
The sanctions there do nothing but help keep Saddam Hussein in power while directly killing a lot of innocent people. It's a nasty proposition, but, logically, one that makes a sick sort of sense for the U.S. - if we didn't have cheap oil, we might very well see a similar kind of suffering here that we're currently inflicting on the people of Iraq. But it certainly goes to show who's the bully in the global schoolyard. Gee, makes ya wonder why some people in the Middle East might be a little pissed off, huh? Oh, that's right, we're the good guys, and they're just pissed off because they're a bunch of religious lunatics... that's right, thank you, CNN...
The funny thing is, this is all totally obvious to anyone who bothers to look into the situation. All of the evidence is in plain sight and the principles involved are barely even bothering to deny it. Madeline Albright even fessed up to a CBS camera crew. I don't remember the exact quote, but when asked about the needless suffering inflicted on Iraqi civilians by our sanctions, her reply was, basically, it's all worth it.
That footage, however, has been censored by CBS. They will not allow that quote to be shown anywhere at any time for any reason.
Even though all the cards are on the table in plain sight, the spin from the major media is unanimous. Americans were told "Saddam was a Hitler" and the media fell right in step. You'll never see the real, full story, with all its attendant complexities, in widespread print in this country. You'll never see the story that should have come out of the Gulf War: "For Fuck's Sake, Let's Work Like Crazy to Develop Alternative Energy Sources So We Can Stop Killing All These Innocent People Over Stupid Goddamn Oil". Nope, all you'll see are the same old easy lies. And who the hell are they accountable to? No one but whoever signs the paychecks.
And this is just one example. How many more are there, going all the way back? This is the way it's always been - the people with money and power write the news. They decide how history is written, they pick the agenda, and if it involves killing little people like you and me in order to advance their investments, then so be it. The internet is the first time that we have a chance to change those rules. It's the first time in history we don't have to accept the lies force-fed to us by those in power. We can educate ourselves and each other and leave behind the pervasive influence of the modern corporate media, the bastard mutated offspring of Hearst. OK, a little melodramatic, but c'mon...
And you're asking if we should hold online news to the same standard of integrity as those old, paid-for, toadying media dinosaurs?!?
For the love o' God, I sure hope not.
slashdot != journalism (Score:2)
As Slashdot is not a primary source, I hesitate to say it must be held to any sort of journalistic "standard".
OTOH, I observe two things: first, Slashdot should make a little more effort to verify a submission's claims. Take for example the story about Compaq violating the GPL [slashdot.org]. Once somebody bothered to read the licence agreement for the package in question, it was observed that Compaq wrote it and that it was under no obligation to GPL it, and so what?
Second, Slashdot does update a story with a correction/retraction once it understands that one is necessary. Just over six hours after the above story broke, an update appeared:
Also to its credit, unlike some places, Slashdot keeps the updated story out there, warts, corrections and all.
Ultimately, the marketplace will determine Slashdot's viability as a place to do something more than shoot the shit. its journalistic integrity, not its journalistic ethics, is what makes us decide whether the "News for Nerds" is news at all. If every third story is incorrect, then Slashdot is just another messaging board where owners and posters alike are spouting random nonsense of random validity.
Perhaps we need a kuro5hin-style submission queue, where stories get voted onto the main page by a team of moderators/bullshit detectors. If enough submission moderators decide a story has enough karma, it gets published. That way, we can have a cabal! Whee!
--
Re:News or META-News (Score:2)
As a result, we see highly biased filtering of submitted links and politically charged editorials.
I read in an earlier post that personal opinions of the articles by
Regarding editorial content, it has its time and place. But, as the political discussions on this board have borne out, such content is often highly slanted in one direction or another, put this content in a seperate area rather than in the main stream headline area. Perhaps marking it as "politically charged"
Finally, Slashdot is unlike many other news agencies (you do have a substantial subscription, so the term applies). Slashdot gives one the ability to comment on a variety of topics as well as read up on interesting material that might not be common knowledge. Everyday, I find something worth reading (if not commenting upon). I may not always agree with the slant, but
Like it or not, what you say or exhibit influences a lot of people. That influence represents true power. Use that power wisely.
RD
Re:You are ducking the issue (Score:2)
I don't get that impression at all. Despite the title and the first sentence, the story is pretty specifically about Slashdot, and not about "new media" in general.
To me, the questions this story is asking can be phrased as, "Is Slashdot in fact, a commercial news site? (Yes.) Shouldn't it act like one, instead of pretending to still be someone's hobby? (Yes.)"
Andover should pay for journalism classes (Score:2)
To me, that's the only sure-fire way that Slashdot will get any journalistic integrity. They already have the real-world experience, but obviously it's not enough. What they need is some good academic learning in order to really understand what it takes to be a journalist.
--
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:2)
I don't know if this counts, but my hometown's newspaper The Monroe Evening News [monroenews.com] publishes the telephone number and email address of it's writers.
Jon, you don't post your business telephone number, do you?
Slashdot sure could use some improvements (Score:2)
- Check the stories before posting
- More eyes need to see the stories before they are posten, to get rid of low-quality stories and multiple postings of the same story
- Check the stories before posting
- No need to post almost identical stories 3-4 times the same week
- Check the stories before posting
Did i mention: Check the story? Of course, that would kill some of the large articles (e.g. the "2500 bugs" one, which turned out to be "everything", including enhancements, suggestions/ bug on the website, crossplatform RPM issues, lots of entries on bugzilla etc. etc)What do you want? (Score:2)
Personally, I'll take the occasional typo or repeated news story in favor of the brain-dead commercial news entity. Here we know that people are thinking, and that they are paying more attention to the industry than to pleasing the audience. Do you think that Dan Rather really gives a rat's nads about the stories he reads about? No -- He's just some guy they hired because he's got a nice voice.
Wow! Does this mean /. needs to get more corrupt? (Score:2)
Indeed, these times it seems that no one wants to take accountability for what they do. Last time I took my Grand Prix GTP [tinfoil.net] to the car wash, my rear spoiler got cracked because one of their machine decided to break, falling on my car. What did the owner say? The sign says "We are not responsible for ANY damage done to your vehicle" What did I say? Talk to my lawyer, dumbass. He did, and I got a new spoiler. Had this been a huge company and had I not been the easily-angered and very stubborn Irishman that I am, I would not have gotten one cent from them.
Where am I going with this? There IS no accountability anymore for anything. If /. posts an article about a company that has invented some mindblowing new product, and you in turn sink your second mortgage into said companie's stock, only to find out that the article was based on (here's the catch kiddies) ANOTHER (clear enough?)publication's articly was a hoax or was misleading, can you sue /.? No, you should sue the bank that gave your dumb ass the second mortgage.
Re:*News* for Nerds (Score:2)
I would never trust a news program produced by a major network. Because of ad revenues you will never see:
A story that is critical of a NFL/NBA team owner(s) other than the winning losing record. i.e. bad business dealings, fraud, etc.
A story that is critical of Procter & Gamble, the worlds largest advertizer.
If anything, I think you're getting more to my point that those presenting the news should be neutral. If this is truely not supposed to be media controlled by the Man there needs to be seperation.
That all being said there are some stations do make an attempt to be neutral about the stories that are presented. They certainly aren't the most watched programs out there. But they do exist.
*News* for Nerds (Score:2)
There are several things
However, old skool news does have a couple things that I think are right. If you look at Television media you have anchors, reporters and (although rare these days) editorial staff.
The anchor is a very importent person. They are totally neutral about the news they report. With
This is all good, however there are times that those I view as the anchor is not neutral. Even if I agree with there stand on the issue it should be up to us the readers of slashdot to evaluate the facts and post our comments.
Real sites? (Score:2)
For tech news, I check BBC Tech News [bbc.co.uk], Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com], Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com], or ARS Technicia [arstechnica.com]. ZDNet has become way to sensational and biased. And all the crappy banners! More like The National Enquirer of geekdom.
For discussions, I check K5 or Rootprompt. And Slashdot. But it's tough to have a discussion here anymore.
I'm sorry to say, but Slashdot, while I check it regularly, is starting to have too high a signal-to-noise ratio. Not enough "discussion" too much "babooey to natalie portman's beowulf cluster of hot grits and penis bird on toast."
It's safer to stay off the main page if I want some interesting discussion. As well, I don't tolerate mistakes in my profession. No matter what I do, I like it to be as perfect as humanly possible. While I know mistakes happen, there have been far too many here, adding to the signal-to-noise ratio, and reducing my faith in accurate articles.
I get my news elsewhere, but I still come back, hoping the old days will return.
General Principles and Slashdot (Score:2)
Well, I believe that regardless of the media, news agencies should hold to good journalistic standards. I'm not sure what accountable means exactly, but I imagine if a news agency were to deliberately print or broadcast a false or misleading story, they would be liable for damage done to the affected parties. Good examples in recent memory would be that bogus Gulf War story CNN ran and the Izuzu flip tests on ABC--correct me if I'm wrong. And, as has been decided in court, if the reporters falsify their story without their superiors' knowledge,the company is still liable. Which brings us to Slashdot. I do not think that Slashdot can even be remotely considered a news entity. Like the person who posted the question noted, Slashdot is more of a discussion forum. Slashdot does not report the news, it merely collects stories from other sources and provides forums for discussion. In one respect Slashdot is very much like the Reader's Digest of the tech world. In another sense, Slashdot is sorta a coffee house that does not serve coffee. People hang out, talk, and express views on the establishment's grounds, but the establishment does not necessarily agree with, endorse, or condone the views expressed therin. Can Slashdot be held liable for a defamtory statement made by a patron--for lack of a better word? Recent decisons seem to indicate maybe so. Meanwhile the brick and mortar establishment would never be held liable, even if they did maintain a bulletin board on which people could post defamtory statements. Whatever transpires at the coffee house's bulletin board or on its open mike is between the defamed party and the defamer. I hope that's how the courts will regard forums such as Slashdot, but the justices are obviously searching for a precedent in the past with a narrow view. As a result, I have a bad feeling that courts will wind up treating discussion forums as something other than a place where people express individual views.
Re:Accountability (Score:2)
Why is the business / for-fun distinction so damn critical? Justify this statement:
Once you cross the threshold of being a business versus a site that you run for fun you should feel obligated to be as accurate as possible.
Why? *WHY?* What law, what regulation, what principle, what amendment to the constitution, what commandment from god, what lame-ass-line-of-bs makes this true? That's just a total non sequitur.
What's inherently wrong with a business that strives only for so-so accuracy in exchange for other things, such as immediacy, pleasant informality, an opportunity to flame MousePotato, etc? Are you just concerned that it won't be a successful business? Don't fret on that score...
Is is that Rob & Co are now getting paid and its their job? If that's your rationale, then why aren't his obligations a matter between HIM and HIS EMPLOYER? Where do YOU come in? Please tell me what you're getting paid and send me monthly reports so I may decide whether you're working hard enough. I note that you posted at 1:21 PM on a work day.
we deserve to have it be accurate
Why do you *deserve* anything from Slashdot when you get it for free? Please send me $500; I *deserve* it from you.
Criticisms of Slashdot are great and all, but thoughtful criticisms should take into account that (1) it's free (2) Rob works his ass off; you can't ask more of him-- there are only so many hours in the day, and (3) while Slashdot has grown immensely popular, its still produced by Rob and his semi-illiterate gradeschool buddies from Holland, Michigan and that makes it special. Not CNet, not ZDNet, not Salon or NYTimes-- just kooky, quirky, idosyncratic Slashdot. And I, for one, hope that never changes.
The ethics of dollars (Score:2)
making truth-spewer, the news has changed.
The Walter Cronkites of the world were pariahs, their purpose being to at least attempt to be the "public service" aspect of using our airwaves.
Later "reforms" made broadcast media less a public service and more an avenue towards high profits at relatively low cost per show. (A million dollar anchor job has to work five days a week, forty-eight plus weeks a year, whereas a sitcom whore making a million a year has months of free time per annum.) \
This is why I trust foreign news services more than domestic. I listen to Radio Taipei International, NHK (Japanese broadcast company), the Canadian and British Broadcast Companies over the shortwave and ITN News, BBC News, and Ta Nea tou Antenna (from Greece) on TV.
Re:Just the facts ma'am (Score:2)
Just the facts ma'am (Score:2)
Re:keep slashdot pure (Score:2)
Really? I read slashdot only for the articles!
Slashdot does publish: (Score:2)
Likewise, despite the very grassroots-adhoc nature of the postings, they are too a form of publication, albeit communal in nature. It seems to work, but can improve, and by viewing it in this light more insight or changes/improvements may fall out.
The nick is a joke! Really!
All the news that fits, in print (Score:2)
If it was wrong, do a retraction.
If it was wrong and apparently malicious, CYA
If it was a leak, it's not your fault, no matter what anyone says.
Slashdot needs more women.
--
Slashdot should be an online CNN for nerds! (Score:2)
In one word: YES!!!
Right now, there's misspellings in the body text of stories, broken or mangled links, and a band of overzealous karma whores churning out stories by the minute. This seriously needs to be changed. No more frivolous "stories" (e.g.: "JonKatz is an idiot", etc) in the submission queue! Ban trolling as we know it! And give users the chance to edit their post once, as well as giving the admins the right to delete posts altogether. Personally, I think that any post moderated to -1 should be deleted, its post id being retained to fill the gap.
The only thing holding Slashdot back is the troll population. With them, Slashdot is on the same level as sCary's ShugaShack [shugashack.com] and another site which I'll leave unnamed (it ends in .cx).
Other typos commonly seen (Score:2)
Postal Service
Government Worker
Country Music
Jumbo Shrimp
Microsoft Works
Military Intelligence
Absolutely not! (Score:3)
/. messages are clearly not validated, and they are clearly subjective. There is no excuse for the reader to turn of his brain. It is obvious that you need to crosscheck information you get on
I find this a very refreshing change. With traditional media you contsantly have to remind yourself that "even though this is _appear_ to be a well researched news item, it probably isn't". And even though this _appear_ to objective reporting, there are likely hidden agendas.
Anyone who have first hand information about events covered by traditional media knows how far off the media "truth" can be. Unfortunately, most people just assume that their case was an exception, and that the media usually is relieable.
People who dislike thinking themselves will prefer this, and will want
News agencies are not held to any standard. (Score:3)
Nothing bad happens to a news agency for distributing bad stories. It's not like they get fined, and they don't lose readers. Libelous stories can be done with impunity, few people can afford to sue, and when they do, they lose.
Bruce
Have it your way... (Score:3)
They reprint press releases almost verbatim, presenting them as their own reporting. Ever wonder why so many times the exact same phrase or even whole paragraph shows up on 3 or 4 sites? Now you know why.
They use reporters insufficiently familier with the areas they're reporting on & unwilling or unable to do sufficient research into the topic. Thus we get incredibly credulous stories rarely ever noting somethings potential problems, context or competition.
Feedback mechanisms are simply seen as a way of increasing a website's 'stickyness' and not as an integral part of the content. ZDNET's, CNET's, etc. 10-most-recent comments on their stories (generally saying "/whatever/ sux") are a pale shadow of the interactivity /. & other sites offer.
OK, now lets look at this the other way. /. refuses to acknowledge that folks really REALLY want to discuss the problems /. is facing but as one can see, lots of people are disagreeing & doing so anyway.
Some editorial checking has to go into the process. Too many stories are slipping through innacurately presented or just completely missing the point. This is why other organizations have more then one set of eyes go over every story and do a quick reality-check on them.
There needs to be some sort of 'phrase filter' that users can select to use. Something that would use phrases from a standard /. 'abused' dictioniary eg "Natalie Portman", "First Post", etc. Those interested could then set /. to omit those flagged postings from our view.
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:3)
I'm eager to hear of the ethical, accountable accessible papers you read.
Slashdot has plenty of imperfections,b ut a great record of acknowledging them and permitting critics to get at them. Vastly better to the majority of traditional media outlets. Try leting Peter Jennings know what you think of ABC News tonite! Or the Washington Post. How many stories and facts are corrected in those media? And who has done a better job of serving readers on important issues like technology over the past few years?
Re:What accountability? (Score:3)
And you know what happened. From just this phrase that damned journalist made a half-page news. A tabloid commentary where this jerk cites my colleague, then remarks the "I believe", bashes him and then writes an Armageddon scenario. On how we will line in front of banks, storm shops, eat under candleligths and see the World ending... A whole half page of this trash. All he needed from us was to have a name to start from. He got it and surely had a good reward because several lamers started calling us and asking for redemption...
That is what 90% of present journalism is. Make noise. If you have something for them they'll be after you. Even your name is enough to create news. I am the "69th most dangerous hacker in the world" in this region because some damn journalist decided to write about me. He didn't get nothing, so he INVENTED me! Now on every computer place I come in and say my name, people ask "aren't you?.." Yes I'm Ektanoor - "The BlackStar" but I don't know the HELL WHERE Soho Bank, UbiSoft OR DODOSOFT ARE! And what considers NASA, waters there are much more muddy than this jerk may ever imagine!"
Tag a name to it... (Score:3)
The same applies to Slashdot. We, the users, know that other users submit stories which are mucked with by the editors and, rarely, posted on the front. We blame the editors for what crap makes it to the front page but not the actual content. The actual content we blame on the person submitting it (or Rob in the case of an AC).
You take what you read with a grain of salt. If RMS posted something about GNU, you may see it more credable than if Bill Gates posted something about Linux.
Bottom line; no matter what the site, credability comes from the author, not the agency. However, if an agency (eg. Slashdot, MSNBC, CNN, whatever) plays host to a lot of non-credable people, then you will loose the visitors who are looking for credability.
Sigh.. Whatever.
Verbatim
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:3)
Paper publications generally aren't nearly as good a Slashdot about printing retractions -- Slashdot's are *always* on the front page, as visible as any other story. Newspapers seem to feel that they have to uphold an image of respectability by pretending they never fuck up. Rob et al. are refreshingly free of that particular flaw.
Storys should be validated, but... (Score:3)
What I'd really like to see, which would actually address the above is to get rid of
People who want high quality timely news would view
News or META-News (Score:3)
What accountability? (Score:3)
A news outlet can say anything they want about any public figure just so long as they use the magic words "sources allege". (Newsflash: sources allege that Vice-President Gore is having an affair with a major cinema star, film at 11!)
They can do the same thing about private individuals, too, if the private individual is for some reason "newsworthy". If you're "newsworthy", it doesn't matter how private you are--your name can be slandered, drug through the muck, and every lie imaginable can be published about you, while you have no recourse whatsoever.
Ask Richard Jewell, the hero of the Atlanta Olympic bombing, if he asked to be turned into a criminal. Note that Jewell did nothing wrong, and the attorney's office eventually ended the investigation into him after concluding there was no evidence to substantiate any allegation against him. (That's DA speak for "either he's got a great lawyer who got our evidence thrown out, or else we were so totally wrong we deserve to be laughed at... so we're going to release a statement implying he's got a slick lawyer.")
Did Jewell ask the news media to pay a woman to go on a date with him, just so she could wear a wire and try and get him to say implicating things? No. Did they do it anyway? Yes.
The news media, as a whole, has one objective and two ways of achieving it. They want to make money--that's their ultimate objective. They know that people will buy newspapers if they write stories about a hero, or if they write stories about the fall of a hero.
That means the news media is in the business of creating heroes, just so they can destroy them again, just so they can sell more newspapers.
Think I'm making this up?
Ask yourself this: which major news outlets which, after completely destroying Jewell's life, bothered to print an apology and retraction? As far as I know, only one--and they did it as part of an out-of-court settlement to avoid a libel lawsuit, because Tom Brokaw once forgot to use the words "sources allege...".
Slashdot is, in my mind, one of the finest online news services there is. Because we know where Slashdot's bias is, we know that the stories are skewed and how the Slashdot staff skews them, and we know that, journalistically speaking, these guys are totally incompetent.
Their incompetency gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of my stomach. It tells me they probably haven't learned yet that they can get a lot more pageviews by following the make-and-break-a-hero cycle.
Re:*News* for Nerds (Score:3)
This is quite untrue. In the first place, anchors really aren't even journalists; they're actors. When was the last time you saw Dan Rather walking the streets of NYC with nothing more than his wits and a laptop, tracking down a story?
He doesn't do that anymore. Other people, real journalists, track down the stories and do the legwork. Dan Rather is just the guy who "presents" the story. There's a reason why anchors are called "talking heads".
Insofar as their bias... they are terribly, terribly biased. Ever heard of a movie called Network, or maybe Broadcast News? Both of them are reasonably accurate in their portrayal of TV anchors. They can be petty, bitter and vindictive with the best of them.
More than that, anchors don't write their own copy. Their own bias gets compounded with the bias of the copywriter. If the anchor happens to be a Democrat and the copywriter a Libertarian, you can figure out the kind of treatment a conservative Republican is going to get.
Anchors are also professional liars. Remember that: every anchor is a professional liar. When you see the evening news and one anchor makes a joke to the other, and the other anchor laughs at it like it's amusing... it's not amusing. They're about as excited as an organ donor. They rehearse those jokes and bon mots every day. They practice how to laugh so it sounds genuine. A lot of anchor teams who appear to have really good chemistry on-air really hate each other when the cameras are off.
Anchors aren't journalists; they're actors. They aren't honest; they're professional liars. They don't know beans about the stories they cover; they just read the text the copywriter gives them.
How is it you think that anchors are in any way neutral observers and reporters of events?
Slashdot is not the topic here! (Score:3)
This question is about so much more than Slashdot. We had stories about how online-only pubs were not welcome at the Olympics. Led by the Big 12 Conference and the University of Colorado in particular, schools nationwide are making it clear that online-only publications are not welcome to cover college athletics.
Why? Because I and hundreds of millions of others can do a pretty fine job (or a very poor job) of news coverage with little more capital cost than our computer. That's great but at the same time it creates a problem: how do you distinguish the good from the bad? In the specific case of sports coverage, does the fact that you can create a fan site with Front Page give you the right to press credentials? Why not?
Legitimacy is going to become an issue as everyone who can find the "Any Key" starts a weblog and becomes a "New Media Journalist(TM)". As a reader, I don't have time to sort through 95% of online news services. I want the best. Slashdot (here we go back to that) has, to this point, been among the "best" for its audience. There may be better.
The question may not be about standards or journalistic "ethics". But with the sheer volume of crap out there, quality of content will become important differentiating characteristics for a site, and how that site conducts itself will play a big part in that.
Would this include proofreading and spellchecking? (Score:3)
Slashdot could use some full time editors, as opposed to the seemingly slaphazzard volunteerism going on now. A small group of people who coordinate between themselves which stories are going to be posted, to prevent numerous duplicate posts, and to check the authenticity of the stories. A little research to provide some additional links wouldn't take too much time. Some extra depth or thoughtful insight added to a submission before posting a story would help even more.
Slashback is a great feature, the first sign of becoming professional. Lets continue the trend with the addition of spell checkers and some proofreading before posting.
the AC
keep slashdot pure (Score:3)
I browse slashdot for the community discussions, and frankly I rarely even read the articles. I'm pretty sure that's true of others, because god knows there's a lot of uniformed posting going on. The pleasure I derive from the site comes from the educational exposure to lots and lots of smart people who are kind of like myself. It's like a window into my own consciousness and motives.
When I want news, I go to CNN. They do a far better job than any other professional outlet and slashdot's "news" stories aren't even comparable. But if I'm interested in invigorating discussion, humorous flames, or trivia, I come here.
Basically,
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Really News? (Score:3)
I use slashdot more as a news clipping service- where I can find out about things without having to scan all the news sites myself.
And how are the "real" news sources held accountable anyway? They can be pointed out as "wrong" by their peer journals, or they can be sued in court for libel. Anyone is free to point out something as wrong right here, and nothing prevents prevents anyone here- including the comment posters- from being sued. There is no guarantee that any media is free from bias, and it is pretty fact that the editors of slashdot have biases. Very often those biases match with the readers, so they aren't noted as biases.
The title says "Journalistic Integrity" - typo? (Score:3)
Bullseye! (Score:3)
Accountability (Score:3)
On the contrary, YOU are ducking the issue (Score:3)
The simple fact is, Slashdot does a LOT of things wrong how well this compares to ZDNet is irrelevant. However, it IS useful to compare to orgs that do a GOOD job. Like Linux Weekly News. Like NPR (.org). Like some of the "employee owned newspapers" the previous poster mentioned (and you misread as "community owned sites").
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
What /. is to me (Score:4)
As well
And besides, how many newspapers let you comment on the stories, and give you the chance to *moderate* the comments (arguements aside about the elegance of the moderating system), and even meta-moderate the moderations? Or how about kuroshin (sp?), which allows you to pick the stories they post? How many newspapers have that level of accountability?
Most newspapers have obvious political agendas that are unstated. At least the
As for the fact that
And why should
Who's doing the reporting? (Score:4)
Re:Which ethics of old media would those be? (Score:5)
Jon, I don't know what newspapers you subscribe to, but perhaps you should find out who the local employee-owned papers are and read a few of them.
But to be perfectly honest, yourself, and Slashdot as a whole are not perfect. In fact, I would say /. is far from it. You yourself overstate things a tad too much. It's less often we see real news, instead seeing the sorry excuses for editorial content on this site.
If I had it my way, when news was posted in order to inject a topic of discussion, it would be kept to "simply the facts". If the poster wanted to put in an opinion, he can put it in as a comment, and see how it's moderated.
Mr. Katz, you've always been against the mass stereotyping of geeks, such that I find it rude that you would do the same to real news outlets
/. = News AND Opinion (Score:5)
Comments are owned by the poster, so the posters then collectively share responsibility, through answers and moderation, for making sure that meaningful viewpoints are aired and responded to. This works exceedingly well at Slashdot, not so well in other online forums.
Several points (Score:5)
2) Slashdot SHOULD be held to the standards of other news orgs. For those cynically saying "what standards?" I agree that some orgs do a better job than others. However, ALL orgs print retractions and corrections (something
3) Specifically what improvements could Slashdot make?
a) Have someone (else) read your post before you submit it. For that matter, create a Kuro5hin-style "posting queue" but accessible only to
b) From snippets picked up here and there (including the fact that this story was posted on the front page), I can tell some of the
c) Take a journalism class.
d) But the biggest thing that Taco/Hemos could do to improve the site is: Get involved. You two used to spend a lot of "quality time" with the site--posting comments, responding to questions, etc. You used to listen to us, use our ideas or tell us why we were dumb. But the last 2-3 years you've been sticking us in virtual daycare and rarely if ever talking to us. No wonder a lot of us are turning out to be Anonymous Delinquents.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.