Slashdot Mirror
Who Controls The Linux Media ?
Paul Emms asks "I run LinuxLinks.com - a Linux portal and recently we added a personalised calendar service to our Web site. We submitted an article to LinuxToday (owned by internet.com) and it was published only to be pulled almost immediately. The reason given was that Web site enhancements are no longer news. But wait a minute, this sort of thing has made the news before. LinuxStart announced a similar calendar service, and who owns LinuxStart? Why internet.com of course." You have to admit, that's a pretty good reason to start asking questions...
"This opens up a number of questions about how we judge the news we read. Linux is becoming big business and there are vested interests. Web sites are merging and being taken over by large conglomerates. Who determines the impartiality of the news we read ? Who determines what is news and what is advertising ?
LinuxToday is one of the major daily Linux newsites and they determine that enhancements to major Linux Web sites like LinuxLinks is not important. But LinuxLinks is independent - it
isn't owned by internet.com and it isn't owned by VA Linux. Is it, and sites like it, being penalised because they don't have a monopoly in the Linux media ? And is this really in the spirit of the Linux movement ?
Paul Emms
pwe@firstlinux.com"
Hm, linuxlinks is href'ed, linuxstart is not. Are your motives real? Or are you just begging for some hits?
-- Rogier
Sometimes a story gets rejected, so what?
Why is some people so god damn paranoid???
http://www.millnet.se/ GO/U d- s+:+ a C++ UL++++ P- L+++ E W+++ N+ w++ M-- PE+ t+ X++
It's quite apparent that the media is in charge, at least here in America it is. Look at how much power is thrown about when a news story is carried by several major news sources. When you have that much control, you pretty much can make or do whatever you wish. In the case of this article, they had the right to decide not to run the update mostly because they controlled the website. You know, gotta play by their rules when you're at their house....
What I think we should have here before we can even start reacting is a reply by either Linuxtoday or internet.com I am not wanting to see another witchhunt here.
Use Adsense for Charity
Sorry but I do not see a problem anywhere. One company (internet.com) is using its news site to promote their portal. Why is that wrong?
Just because it is happening in Linux now which is Free Software? Because your motives don't seem so pure to me. They want money, and so do you.
I think you need to understand the difference between Linux as a business and Linux as a free operating system. If you were developping your own open source project, and contributing to the community you would get all the publicity you needed (and deserved depending on the quality of your product). If you want to make money out of this, then the same business rules as everywhere else apply.
Companies will plug their own services and products at any available oppertunity, after all it's not exactly unheard of.
The same applies on the net as it does in real life, don't always trust what you read in the news.
What he's really talking about is business motivted censorship. If a media controlled site posts a similar announcement about their own site, but deliberately yanks his, then there is a serious problem. It would be the same if Slashdot deleted all references to http://www.kuro5hin.org/ from postings here. Kinda the same tactics that the boys in Redmond use. So don't blow the guy off - let's see if his claim has validity and if it does, encourage internet.com to behave better.
What if the Hokey Pokey _is_ what it's all about?
there's a reason why the linux media exists: because "mainstream" publishing ignored linux and other free software. linux media companies/groups/organisations grew out of that in an effort to educate people on what their other choices were.
and just as we, in our roles in the tech industry, should not forget the companies and people that gave us the choices that linux, freebsd, gnu, x, apache, etc give us those magazines should remember the frustrations involved in having to start an entire side industry just to get free software noticed.
in other words we should reward those that play fair, and companies should market their integrity.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
A few weeks ago, Katz put up an essay on Open Media, which got promptly dissed. However, in situations like this, there is something to be said for an "open" media area where control of the stories posted is only done by the users, with minor content checking by moderators (so that we don't get fake news stories, etc). Freshmeat is a great example of this, though this is not 'news' as most think.
Could a similar site be done in the vien of Freshmeat, but with news? Maybe. Obviously, you would need a select few moderators that nix stories that don't belong there ("Look at my hot new pr0n site!"). Since it would be real-time, it would be necessary to have some language-check program on submissions to see if a similar article had not already been posted. It could be done, but would take some good behind-the-scenes programming.
Then comes the matter of associating it with being a "linux news" site. Slashdot did not force it's reputation on high level magazines, but itstead it was earned that by word-of-mouth. A site described above could also earn it's way by the same approach: if the site people create it well and make it work, then it too will become a linux news site by word of mouth. And then we won't have to worry about large corporate news sites failing to work for us.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Anyway, this looks like a simple case of a company deciding not to promote a competing service. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, if I were making widgets, would I really announce it on my web site when some competitor comes along and starts making widgets?
Now if I've missed something here, please let me know...
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Is anyone else annoyed by the big Internet.com "network"? It seems that they are going around and buying every single worthwhile and half-worthwhile website out there? After the site is acquired, it becomes slower than it was before, because they fill it with ads and links to their other sites.
During the last year, this has happened to many of the sites I frequent. I'm getting really bugged, and a even a little scared. This post on Slashdot just gives me another reason to be so.
- TheCounter was an excellent counter service. They had a website with two banner ads on each page, and a nice clean layout. The counters they provided loaded quickly and reliably. After having been acquired, the website was redone to something that makes my eyes hurt, and the counters started either taking ages to load, or failing to load at all. Their solution? Create a new account so that it exists on our new server.
- No major changes yet at LinuxApps, except for all the links and ads for the other Internet.com sites. However, the same problem as the one listed in this post arises. Would a post about Freshmeat on LinuxNewbie be pulled because Internet.com owns LinuxApps, which is similar to Freshmeat? This is, apparently, what happened in this case.
- BrowserWatch, LinuxNewbie, PHPBuilder, and a lot of other sites I frequent have all been bought by Internet.com. There haven't been major changes on them yet, besides all the annoying links and logos, but this post gives me more reason to be paranoid.
I guess a few companies are currently trying to capture as much eyeballs on the web as possible to have more control, in order to be able to continue to capture more and more eyeballs. Sounds familiar? I think that the point here (if there is any) that all corporations are the same, be it meatspace or here. There is absolutely no reason to trust them, and they must be watched and kept in check.--
In this marvellous open-source society we have created, when something is broken all the tools are available for you to fix it yourself.
So, create your own news site and publicise what you want to publicise. And may the best, most impartial and most open news sites win.
So, the latest "web site calendar" story was deemed to not be news any more.
You then moan that a similar story had been published before.
Yes. In July. LAST YEAR.
A year ago, such things may have been news. They certainly aren't now.
If the "rival" story had been published in the same month, in replacement to yours, then you'd have a point. You don't have one *at all* in this situation.
1) Is it running GPL'd software?
2) Does it do something different(ly)?
If either answer is "No", it's justifiable in my mind that Linux Today consider it 'not newsworthy'.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Of course, we don't know in THIS PARTICULAR CASE whether or not this guy is just whinging (because it really wasn't news) or whether it was "news" that was removed because it was about a competitor. But in general, the issue raised is a serious one. If a news outlet pulls a legitimate story because it is not in the commercial interests of the company that owns it to keep the story up, then that company is no longer providing a news service and can no longer be trusted by the user. Those of us who come from countries with strong public service broadcasting traditions probably have less patience with this kind of commercially driven bias than do many Americans - who seem to take it for granted. Does this guy have a right to have his story up? No. Do we have the right to read that story on this news services website? No. But if the story is legit and it is pulled or ignored, the news service no longer has the right to call itself a news service. It has certainly changed my perception, slightly, of Linux Today - because they actually PULLED it.... Great slogan for linux init - Open the code, close the media.... If it is bad if MSNBC does it , it sure as hell is if LinuxToday does it.
Dan Gillmor has been addressing the question of trust in his weblog over the past couple of days. Of what I have read there, one thing in particular seems to ring true. When information is disseminated by or on behalf of a corporation, it seems to go through a corporate amorality filter. After it has been through this process, it will only contain that aspect of the overall picture which the corporation wishes to present. In the case of this particular complaint, the filter may have judged, "this kind of thing is not newsworthy in its own right, and it does not promote our own ends: therefore it is rejected." Is it too cynical to suppose that self-interest plays a part in the filtering process of an amoral corporation?
In many cases, the truthfulness of the filtered information is not a big issue. Indeed, the corporate amorality filter does not really have a clear concept of true and false, but of spin. Everything is phrased so that it has the right spin. Certainly the filter shies clear of stuff that might get them embroiled in litigation for slander, libel, or defamation (etc), but the simplistic concepts of true and false don't really factor into the equation. When Microsoft claims that its innovation is good for the industry and consumers, there's nothing in that statement which they can get into legal trouble over, and hence no reason not to make the statement, given that it is the view they wish to present. Whether or not it is true by any measure is not the issue: the point is that it's a legally allowable statement that they wish to be perceived as true.
So what do you do? You get cynical, but not too cynical. You have to assume that all the information you get has gone through some kind of filter. Even when Slashdot wasn't a corporate entity, all the information still went through the Taco Filter. You have to make allowances for where the information is coming from. In a very few cases, you will find people that have a dedication to frank and open honesty -- people who do have a notion of true and false instead of just spin, and these are valuable. You still have to take the filter into account, but to a substantially smaller degree.
So where can the Linux community get its news from? The simple answer is that we always need more than one source, simply so we can average out the effect of the various filters. Slashdot, for example, gives me a fairly rich range of stories to pick from, but I know for sure (based on the submissions that I've had rejected) that its filter is not ideal to my needs. And Slashdot does seem to have the advantage of an open comment system that, although noisy, doesn't seem to have been abused by thems that could do so if they wanted to.
Short version: the price of reliable news is eternal vigilance.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
moderators get a clue
-- http://electronicintifada.net --
"The reason given was that website enhancements are no longer news."
The Linuxstart news post is dated July last year. Thats a YEAR AGO.
obDisclaimer: I don't represent internet.com or LinuxToday. Anyone who says I tried is full of it.
I post to LinuxToday on a daily basis (my user name is "mhall"), and I write for LinuxPlanet (you can also l ook at my article history. My status in both relationships is that of a freelancer ("independent contractor").
There is a policy against announcing new site launches. I don't know when it was enacted because I'm fairly new to LinuxToday. I can say, however, that we routinely reject new site announcements. If one gets posted, it was a mistake.
There's another side of the coin, though, and one which the person posting the initial question could have followed: part of the LinuxToday "family" is the site LinuxPR, which allows anyone with a Linux-related business or site to join at no cost.
By signing up for LinuxPR, anyone posting a Linux-related press release (new product announcement, conference, or, most important to this case, site launch) gets their press release posted not only on the main page of LinuxPR, but on the front page of LinuxToday. Press releases are posted on a frequent basis as we're able. My own personal habit is to look in on the press releases several times an hour while I'm posting stories. I even take the step of correcting bad URL's and cleaning up some of the more egregious grammar problems.
Second, sites doing more than just announcing their existence are always welcome to use the LinuxToday contribute form.
Spend a few minutes looking at LinuxToday, please. Where do the stories come from? They come from other sites. How much of each story do we carry before pointing the reader to the rest of it? Seldom more than three or four paragraphs. When we have a reciprocal agreement with an organization like VNUNet or when the story is run by another internet.com site that isn't in the Linux channel we'll run the whole thing (which, when you think about it, is actually limiting the number of banners the internet.com site is going to move.) If anything, LinuxToday provides a means by which some smaller Linux-related sites can get more traffic than they might have before we thoughtfully provided a link to their story along with a few paragraphs of "teaser" to get the reader's curiosity up.
If LinuxToday were following an "anti-other-Linux-sites" policy, it would soon dry up and blow away. The strength of the site is the near-constant flow of news from around (and outside) the Linux community.
Finally, (and because this is the part most people will feel the most comfortable ignoring, because I'm talking about my client):
Despite several months of working on LinuxToday, I have never felt particularly "watched over" by internet.com. The other editors on the site and its primary programmer are all Linux enthusiasts who are interested in providing a good service to the Linux community. I've never knowingly withheld a story for any reason other than the fact we've already covered it ad nauseum or that it should be submitted as a press release because it's nothing more than an attempt to sell something (including eyeballs).
When I first threw in my lot with LinuxToday and LinuxPlanet, I had some concerns about the nature of the entity that owned them. My own roots in Linux go back over four years, and I've been a UNIX enthusiast for more than twice that time. I've contributed documentation to a major open free software product under the copyleft. I love Linux, and I love the community surrounding it. I get up each day at 6 a.m. to start posting on LinuxToday, and my thoughts are not to how well the money's flowing that day, but how much information is being moved to readers. When I set fingers to keyboard for a story on LinuxPlanet, it isn't because I'm thrilled at the prospect of creating revenue, it's because I hope I can help people make decisions, or inform them in some way. The people I work with (who are in a more durable relationship with internet.com than I) have shown the same instincts and concern for the Linux community.
There may be a site worthy of paranoia and suspicion, but I don't think LinuxToday is it.
Though it should not require reiteration, I'll note once more that I don't speak for any of the entities mentioned in this post besides myself. I'm just a freelancer.
Kind regards,
Michael
------------
Michael Hall
Charlottesville, Virginia
Michael Hall
mph.puddingbowl.org
All logged in users can look in the story queue, and vote if it should be posted or not.
It's working fairly well at the moment, although there is occasionally a shortage of discussion on stories.
You can also make editorial comments when you are voteing, which are separate to the "content comments"
if LinuxToday is one of the major daily Linux newsites it has an obligation to uphold its journalistic integrity!
that means that the editors at all times must be independent of management and business interests.
that i think is one of the most basic principle of any news media. at least it is in the printed news media.
i have no idea and don't really care whether or not LinuxLinks.com is newsworthy, but i am greatly disappointed to find anybody argueing that it is alright for a news media to be biased in its selection of news.
I think a lot of the discussion is missing the point. Legality issues are clear. They can publish basically what they want. Unless it is heinously out of wack and offends the wrong people they can do what they want. Also, they are a private company and so would like to promote themselves. However, I'm sure they make the same "managerial decisions" with people other than linux buffs. The point is that it is demonstrating the drift of Linux towards mainstream commercialism, pulling away from the "moral" techie underground.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
actually it look pretty nice... congrats on a nice looking site.
is that when the LinuxStart calendar item ran in JULY 1999, neither LinuxStart nor LinuxToday was owned by internet.com. At the time the supposed conspiracy occurred, LinuxStart was owned by Victor Goodman and LinuxToday was owned by Dave Whitinger and Dwight Johnson. It would have been rather impossible for a conspiracy to occur when the two sites were under different ownership. ;)
Kuro5hin was mentioned here on May 29th of this year on Slashdot. And it didn't take a lot to find this either...[hint/nudge].
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Your analogy is more correct, but still not..
It would be like Slashdot posting a story about Kuro5hin, and then pulling it because they didn't want to promote a competitor. Is/Should that be legally wrong, I don't think so. Morally wrong? Maybe, I don't know... Does that demonstrate much journalistic integrity? Hell no.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Drat. You beat me to it. =)
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Slashdot did not force it's reputation on high level magazines, but itstead it was earned that by word-of-mouth.
;-)
kind of like the term "hacker" has become derogatory now-a-days. I now try to refrane from calling myself a hacker because people automatically assume "wow - you're some script kiddie who breaks into innocent people's computers." - I reply "no...you're thinking of a cracker" and the conversation deteriorates from there. The term has even made it into webster's dictionary. Something i'm not too happy about IMNSHO. Not that anyone who reads slashdot, or uses an OS coded by a European hacker should know or anything
As far as "news" sites are concerned. I'll say this. I was flamed greatly for my reply to the "oily penguin" story that was posted several days ago. My viewpoint wsa this - a site should stay focused and true to it's readership. That story, i felt, was not particularly well focused, at least in the slashdot sense. What does this have to do with sensoring stories on other sites? Simply this: Staying focused and true to your readership means not only refraining from posting stories that are "out of bounds" as far as the scope of your site, but additionally, posting stories that are in-bounds and timely.
Unfortunately for all of us, this usually means that the editors have to make a subjective judgement call in relation to what goes and what stays. In this case, however, i do think this was most likely just plain old sensorship. Let's get with the program kids. If you have a linux website dedicated to linux-based news - post linux based news - even if it's not in your interest. Or your readers will find someone else who will.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Slashdot does the same thing. I've submitted maybe a dozen news articles. They always appear, but with someone else's scoop. Example: The Corel Photopaint for Linux. I submitted a news article exactly 2 minutes after the page went live. Did I get the scoop? nope. Some other bozo did. And he submitted his article long after I did (he complained of FTP being full, which wasn't a problem 2 mins after the page went live).
Yeah, it pisses me off, and I wonder why I bother.
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
Main Entry: censorship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
Date: circa 1591
1 a : the institution, system, or practice
of censoring
b : the actions or practices of
censors;especially : censorial
control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the
psychic censor
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
The reason given was that Web site enhancements are no longer news.
now look when the last calender service was announced. A whopping year ago. Just maybe it is true what they said and they dont consider these things to be news anymore? Now I dont want to sound like a troll or something, but lets just think about the possibility they are telling the truth... this whole thing sounds a little bit like YACT (yet another conspiracy theory), imho.
nc.
I will not buy this software, it is scratched
As far as I can tell, /. does not "do journalism". They put up a provacative (sp?) headline and see what commentary results. Usually /. posters are pretty good about debunking, but seems to have mostly missed the hoax about a spud powered web-server. ;)
Hrm, moderators lost their sense of humour today. Let's try rephrasing (or rather, repunctuating) that:
to slashdot,
who controls the linux media.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
From the Simpson's Stonecutter episode,
As sung by Rob Malda, CmdrTaco, and Hemos:
o/~ Who controls the linux media
Who keeps BSD down
We do! We do.
Who keeps sensibility off the maps
Who keeps the Mach under wraps
We do! We do.
Who holds back the Metallica's Lars
Who makes Jon Katz a star?
We do! We do.
Who robs geeks of their sight?
Who rigs every Linux-media event?
WE DO! WE DOOO.
o/~
-Gwizdak.
Does Burger King issue a press release when they start selling a new variation on the cheeseburger? Probably. Does it make CNN Headline News? Probably not. Why is that? Is AOL/Time Warner conspiring against Burger King in favor of McDonalds? Is there some secret corporate alliance? (There may be. So what?)
My point is, a new feature on a website is like a new variation on the cheeseburger. Great, now you can get barbecue sauce instead of ketchup. That's not going to catch my attention. And the job of a news source is to catch your attention long enough that your eyes go past the advertising.
I would have rejected an article about a feature addition to a website, too. Just as I don't pay much attention when a fast food restaurant adds another kind of sauce.
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
I've heard of them. They tend to link to my software without even notifying me, which in and of itself isn't so bad. But then they don't update the links (I maintain a freshmeat record, and my page. That's enough work already) when I update my software, and I get people complaining to me.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
Well, the publisher determines the impartiality of the news they publish. And you determine the impartiality of the publishers you read. If you feel it's not impartial, find another news source.
See #1. There is no ombudsman for the media. If fact, if there was, we wouldn't appreciate it that much.
I wasn't aware that inernet.com and VA Linux had monopolies in the Linux media. In fact, I wasn't aware that they were the same company. Did I miss the news about how internet.com merged with VA Linux and bought every other Linux media site? Better call the Justice Department
Yes. No. Maybe. Recently, there seem to be cracks forming in the armor of Linux solidarity. Is this a bad thing? Not at all. The goal of "world domination" seems to be universally agreed upon, but at what cost? Let's face it, there is no world domination without big business - it can't be a grass roots movement forever. Bringing linux to the world also means bringing the world to linux, and all of the corporate feasability and profitability issues that come with it. Only know do you understand
Here's a good question: Will LinuxLinks.com post links to other commercial and non-commercial Linux links sites? Let Paul answer that after he considers this question along with his original complaint.
What if the Hokey Pokey _is_ what it's all about?
They control the United States government. This is why the US government is constantly borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, which is not Federal and has no Reserve. The `Fed' is a privately owned company, created by big-money familes, such as the Rothschilds, who have an incredibly evil and hidden past, present, and future.
They also control the Internal Revenue Service, which is also privately owned by the same families. The IRS was created (quite illegally, I might add, because the 16th Amendment was never *really* passed) to ensure the `Fed' a never ending supply of money to borrow to the US government.
They also control the media, to keep the general population from discovering my previous points. Yes, the Linux media too. Look at the bloodlines and other investments of the people at the very height of the companies who publish the Linux magazines and the large scale Linux related sites. They almost all interweave at some point.
For more in-depth reading on this and related subjects, check out the books of David Icke (excuse the crappy web site). And try to stay open minded.
--Drew Vogel
whoah, I almost fell for that. whew!
-ott
- Sites with no adverts beyond small bottom-of-page notices about donors of hosting and similar services
- Sites with only one banner advert per page
- Sites that sell all the advertising they can fit on the page
There can be a secondary ranking like:- Noncommercial sites
- Independent commercial sites
- Sites which are parts of conglomerates which keep advertising and editorial separate
- Sites part of conglomerates which blend advertising and editorial
SoThe tainting of editorial by advertising (including cross-promotional) purposes is part of the dreck that's coming down not just on the Net but in all the CBS news coverage of characters in Survivor. Hey, you don't need to be in the audience for that. Or you can be a sucker ... free world.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
mUahahahahaha. And i have linus cleaning my house.
duh
Note how often Warner movies make the cover of Time magazine.
i control the linux media. What's the problem. Is your diaper on too tight?
Napster? Music? IP? Its called an online library, you looser - and its free! like all libraries
Take this personaility test.
The Rothschilds, along with most other people of thier sort, have documented their plans for the future.
... because they control the media.
For instance, on June 2nd, I believe it was, the Bilderbergs (the select few at the top of the underground heirarchies controlling the world) met at a posh resort in, I believe it was Denmark. The meeting was, as all other Bilderberg meetings, very secretive discussions on basic strategies to gain more money and control. In essense, screwing over the general population of the world. Read the May or June issue of The Spotlight (a newspaper published by the Liberty Lobby) for an article detailing the meeting.
Also, in the 1950s, there was a Congressional investigation headed by Norman Dodd, into the tax-exempt foundations in America, like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The investigation found that the first World War was basically one of the best examples of global manipulation by big-money people to enlarge the debts owed to them, thus gaining power. This is done by lending money to fund the war, then lending money to rebuild the world, especially in the image of their choosing. The investigation also found that, in order to hide their direct manipulation they must control education of the country, Forever.
You probably never heard about that
These are small examples of the massive amount of underground global manipulation and deciet that is still going on today, and will go on in the future, as these people have, essentially, stated in public.
Boardwatch got pissed on *instantly* after their acqusition by feckless media... Go compare the print editions of the magazine; damn near an instant 180 in one month. Go look at the older articles on the site, as compared to the newer ones.
I ranted and raved about boardwatch when it happened, and am still doing so because I really liked what they had going. 'twas the owner/editor's right to sell; I hope he made a mint and has all he wishes, but I'll bet even he knows that internet.com killed a good thing.
Or note that the 4 "summer blockbuster" movies covered on the ABC nightly news the past few days all have some Disney affiliations... and compare the time given to each, compared to real news.
How many companies control "the media"? A close acquaintence of mine has a story she likes to relate about the media: Several years ago, she asked the head of Time Warner if it was true that 18 people controlled 90% of the western world's news outlets... She says he thought about it for about a second, and said it was more like 11.
What's up with Linux geeks? The world isn't out to get you. Chill out. Ya conspiracy theorist.
Why are you so antsy about some other Linux site denying you anyway. I thought the whole idea was to strike your own path. Strike one. Don't rely on someone if they cut you off. Go a different way, and don't whine.
No sig for you!!
Oh yeah and don't complain about people's self interests too much. Lest you forget you all have them yourselves.
No sig for you!!
Bigots?
Katz's idea, as I understand it, is for a news site with no special super-moderators having more power than regular users. As the previous post pointed out, there are a lot of problems inherent in such an approach; and there is a lot to be said for having certain individuals possess greater duties and powers, and perhaps even getting paid for doing what they do (gasp!!!). However, one way of making media more open while nevertheless allowing certain "experts" to ply their trade would be to enforce a certain transparency. Thus, the super-users, when invoking their privilege to publish or delete stories, would leave a log that's open to everyone to see. That's sort of a reversal of the way "root" accounts get to see everyone else's activity (Interesting!) Now, most of the time, most people will choose not to wade through the logs and discarded stories, even though they are publically available. However, if you have a reason to, they'd be there as a public record. One way to implement/enforce this would be to have a separate machine with a separate password that records the actions made in the main machine--lots to think about... Anyway, it should be possible to make a foolproof transparent system where superops cannot hide anything from regular users.
A news site designed designed with these consideration would be able to guarantee integrity of its news, while at the same time allowing "journalists" to specialize in journalism--the assumption behind journalism seems to be that it's more economically efficient for one person to specialize in journalism while some other person specializes in shoe-making. Then the two trade goods. All I'm proposing is that the journalist prove the integrity and quality of his good by using an open process. A shoe's quality, on the other hand, is evident to anyone who looks at and touches it.
Some further thoughts:
-You could bitchslap (bitchslap.com) editors who do a poor job. Or vote a bonus to editor's who do a good job (although this may lead to bonus-whoring.)
-The HR process could be slightly opened to allow readers to nominate and vote for candidates for certain editorial positions.
-Of course, you can combine the above with moderation by regular users.
-At first, immature regular users may abuse their new powers by squabbling, insulting the editors, forming cliques, whoring bonuses, etc. In the long run, however, however, transparency will increase the value of the news because it allows the reader to assess the validity of what he/she is reading.
One last thing:
If anyone wants to start a discussion on designing and implementing an inherently trustworthy news site--or else simply designing a set of standards for newsworthiness--e-mail me at pofu@gmx.de
That would be linuxmediaarts.com
I run Geekrights.org and have done so for a good long time. At one point I sent a submission to Slashdot about my domain, then went on to have a conversation with Rob Malda where he said things like "it's been done before" "it's shit" "there's no need for this on the net" "I hate the word geek and will never post news from websites with Geek in their name".
1.5 weeks later cam the "Your Rights online" section of Slashdot, effectively mimicking Geekrights.org's intentions.
Does it sound at all similar to this story? Forget about impartial viewpoints on Slashdot. They'll always take their own agenda first.
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
I was the founder of Internet.com and I am surprised to see this story. Whether or not you like Internet.com, it was never policy to not report on competitors (as a matter of fact, it would now be hard for Internet.com to do so as it is covering the whole Internet industry). I seriously doubt this policy has changed. What I suspect is that the story may have been submitted but not posted (do we have any proof either way, maybe a screenshot showing that it's on linuxtoday?) and the author of this story got so pissed off he posted this comment to slashdot.
/. checked on the veracity of this statement? I would like to know....
/. stories include:
What surprises me even more is that slashdot would actually run the story without even looking into it for details. Has anyone at
TNL
no longer associated with Internet.com but surprised nevertheless
PS: Recently rejected
2000-06-27 18:28:10 Transmeta unveils more partners (articles,transmeta) (rejected)
2000-06-26 22:24:00 Sony to unveil Palm PDA (articles,pilot) (rejected)
2000-06-23 15:02:30 Student suspended over PHP use (yro,news) (rejected)
2000-06-22 20:41:00 Ifilm finds back door to Oscar flap (articles,news) (rejected)
2000-06-22 20:49:08 NASA finds recent water on Mars (articles,space) (rejected)
2000-06-22 18:28:36 Turnkey Linux Ecommerce solution (articles,linuxbiz) (rejected)
2000-06-22 18:20:47 Usenet archives disappear from Deja.com (articles,news) (rejected)
2000-06-22 18:15:00 Viral Marketing: The Math formulas (articles,internet) (rejected)
2000-06-09 02:24:20 Microsoft to stop full distribution with PCs... (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
Check out http://www.tnl.net/blog
Herpetologists?