LXer is becoming a Media Scold
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Nov 23, 2005 7:24 AM EDT |
And I like it! It's about time someone started calling the alleged "professionals" on their terrible reporting and analysis. Well done, Don. |
| Inhibit Nov 23, 2005 7:52 AM EDT |
Well said. Some of the crap that passes for journalism these days is appauling. And I only notice it on the Linux/Unix/Sysadmin related topics.. I can only imagine how poor some of the reporting is on subjects I'm not as knowledgeable on. |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2005 8:25 AM EDT |
Inhibit -- Believe me, you don't want to know. Depressing is the kindest word I can come up with. On the bright side, some media types seem to understand the problem ... even if they haven't come to grips with ways to solve it. I've been pleasantly surprised by the writings of Don Wycliff, public editor for the Chicago Tribune, but I'll bet there are more like him all over the place. It's a new world for the press, what with fractured audiences, blogs, what have you. Here's hoping they adjust. |
| dcparris Nov 23, 2005 1:42 PM EDT |
What really bothered me was that O'Grady quote about ODF (I assume) not being able to maintain the fidelity of documents. I found myself thinking, what documents? Word Documents? That would be like expecting JPEG to render GIFs with a high-level of fidelity. Beizer must have ommitted some important contextual information, but for the life of me, the way it reads, I can't figure out what the real issue is. If they're talking about not being able to maintain a high level of fidelity when accessing complex documents, or spreadsheets as opposed to word processing documents, then one wonders why there should be any loss of fidelity when the spec is fully published. For a writer with a technology-oriented publication to miss that is beyond me. |
| bstadil Nov 23, 2005 2:43 PM EDT |
What really bothered me was that O'Grady quote She is almost as bad as Didio and Enderle. You can rest assure that any article that quotes any of those 3 is fluff at best and never worth reading. |
| tadelste Nov 23, 2005 3:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:LXer is becoming a Media Scold You're correct about that. No one else seems ready to do it. If freedom of the press means people can lie and spin the truth, then readers need to see the truth and have the lies pointed out to them. Of course we could write articles about purple orchids if you would rather. But, I don't think that's quite your bag. |
| helios Nov 23, 2005 5:26 PM EDT |
Of course we could write articles about purple orchids..... I believe the New York Times has already called dibbs on that....since the entire paper seems to have evolved into one large editorial section. they will need SOMETHING objective to write about. helios |
| richo123 Nov 23, 2005 5:30 PM EDT |
The Times has some real issues at present. How they let Judy Miller get away with what she did beats me (not to mention Jayson Blair). My suspicion is that the star journalist system there has got out of control. Time to get some strong sub editors and bring these brats into line. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 24, 2005 9:50 AM EDT |
helios - I guess you and dino never really read the NYT, you are going by its past reputation. That reputation, by the way, was an honorable one, which can no longer said to hold. The paper of record is mostly in the pocket of the powerful and it still fails to admit at the highest levels for its recent grievous errors. |
| dinotrac Nov 24, 2005 10:52 AM EDT |
txt - I read the Times on a regular basis, though I read the online version far more often than the dead tree. I usually only get the real paper paper when somebody leaves it on the train. The Times has always been a family-owned publication, which is both good and bad. Honorable is in the eye of the beholder, but I think the Times has generally qualified. That's not the same as unbiased, BTW, but bias is merely a fact of life, not a mark of dishonorable intent. I've actually seen a few encouraging columns from Times editors that indicate somebody there might be starting to understand the problem just a teensy bit, though not nearly so well as the Tribune. Still, a start is a start, and something to be appreciated. |
| tadelste Nov 24, 2005 12:00 PM EDT |
Dino: This is the same Times that had information on the Nazi Death Camps and never published it. People were beating down their doors with stories about their relatives in Europe with pictures. The same Times as we read today does about the same kinds of things. As Tsela says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. |
| dinotrac Nov 24, 2005 12:43 PM EDT |
Tom -- Lots of eyes should be downcast with regard to the death camps. The Times is not nearly alone on that score. I feel mightily uncomfortable taking up for the Times, as I consider it both haughty and biased, but... It is a human endeavor and no such endeavor lacks warts. Admittedly, their near-French air of superiority makes it all the more galling (or is that Gaul-ing?). |
| dcparris Nov 24, 2005 1:35 PM EDT |
Admittedly, their near-French air of superiority makes it all the more galling (or is that Gaul-ing?). Grooooaaan! I'm biased. I admit it. I decided objectivity is relative - along with just about everything else. If Microsoft can manage to call the studies behind their "Get the Facts" campaign "objective", then it has to be a relative term. |
| tadelste Nov 24, 2005 7:28 PM EDT |
Dino -- I can imagine the discomfort taking up for the Times. And while lots of eyes should be downcast with regard to the death camps, they could have done something about it and didn't. Of course, later they apologized like that made any difference. Let them rot. Those are my taking points and know let's get on with the regular part of our broadcast. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!