Slashdot Mirror
Journalistic Integrity in the Digital Age?
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?
Open News is as important as Open Source. Humble opinion here, but as long as Slashdot remains open in disclosing where their info comes from (differentiating press releases from benchmarks and benchmarks from opinions), and remains openly transparent about why news is appearing on its pages, than it should have no problems in the future. Other news agencies could learn from this format.
Interesting opinions, considering that you're well known as a troll.
I'd disagree with some points though, I think that the trolls keep this shithole open.
Without trolls, this place would be as bland as kuro5hin. 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.
Slashdot is not perfect, far from that, but you know and admit it ... and take corrective action when needed. That's way much than most of the "respectable" medias do. Witness the Los Alamos fiasco in the NY Times (ever mind any apology for Lee ?). In this domain, TV is even worse.
I just wish the established medias take some inpiration from Slashdot.
Well, what if the shareholders demand it, then?
This isn't exactly a free site anymore...
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
To make a long story short; don't shoot the messenger!
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) 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 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.
-- Old Man Kensey
After reading many a thread on the forums this I will say has caught my attention. Now that said I think that many people don't exactly understand New Media and the like. There is one thing to get your information from ABCNews.com or CNN.com and another to get it from places like Slashdot.org and places like TheRegister. First when I go to ABCNews or CNN I expect just the news and I trust there word for what it is. Now as far as places like TheRegister and Slashdot I like because they inject their opinions into the piece. Maybe it doesn't make for good journalism or something along those lines, but I know when I read these sites that everything should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem with today is too many people want to take everything on the internet as pure fact and thats completely wrong, after all it a place for freedom of expression etc... in addition to fact. So the fact that Mr. Katz or any other Slashdot staff member injects their opinion into an article doesn't bother me. However, people that are too ignorant to judge things for themselves and who take everything as fact does bother me. So in conclusion I believe it is not the fact that Slashdot editorializes its news that should be of concern to readers, but the concern of readers should be that some fellow readers cannot distinguish fact from opinion.
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 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)
danec. http://www.carlsoncarlson.com/dane/
Wow, now thats a first post!
I agree. I believe in "freedom of the press", but not UNACCOUNTABILTY of the press, which
so many "journalists" seem to think is "freedom."
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
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".
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Personally I think /. is objective as it needs to be. It certainly does one thing that most other news sources don't do, quote their source up front. Hell, /. LINKS to the sources!
/. is not a news source. It is not. I state it again, it is not. Most, if not all, of the stories here are really links to other "reputable" new sources and the discussion of the /. community is held here. Meta-news source, yes. News-source in its own right, no.
/. so much. I don't have to go off and read 2-3 dozen other sites to find news that is of interest to me. The readers of /. do that and forward it on up from there. Something of interest in the Times? I find it on /.. Something interesting from NASA? It's here on /.. Something oddball I never would have found on my own? It is here. Did /. do the reporting and investigation of those stories? No, the individual sources did.
Personally it is that fact that makes me question why this whole thread is here.
That is why I like reading
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
NPR is about as unbiased as you're going to find. Yeah, I get upset when I hear Cladio Sanchez mention how Latinos are effected out of wack to everyone else (He gets that in 95% of his reports) but overall the reports are quite balanced and very accurate.
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.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
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.
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.
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.
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 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, 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 :^)
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.
Duly noted. It never occurred to may that someone would hate bn.com. I don't know why. I hate plenty of retailers. The link has been changed.
Umm, it's pretty hard for a tv news program to print anything, let alone a retraction.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
Being realistic all media makes huge blunders.
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.
I don't actually exist.
This is a terrific post. You've hit the nail on the head from what I can see.
..... his hair today." or "A popular soft drink has been found to be deadly! We won't tell you which one till 6 o'clock!"
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 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, here and here. 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.
Speed is of the escence, and the combination of bad reporting and success is the escence of speed. That's one reason why slashdot itself is so great. But problem is, now that it is owned by a corporage identity, what Rob says is also now a reflection of Rob.
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.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Not to be argumentative, but if you paid attention to the sections on a regular basis, you would notice there are routinely stories which appear in the sections and bypass the front page.
I'd like the editors to be afraid of having to do that, so that they either check their facts properly for everything, or just don't bother.
I meant there to be an/> up there, but apparently Plain Old Text is not all that Plain. *sigh*
Right. Slashdot makes mistakes. We all know it. We know it because they admit it very openly -- like a few stories up on the same page. The average NY Times reader does *not* know that their front-page story about Wen Ho Lee was almost entirely fabrication and hearsay, even though they admitted it (grudgingly, incoherently, months later) on the editoral page. Why? NYT doesn't like being embarrassed, and it thinks it can get away indefinitely with hiding and minimizing its errors.
Yay, Slashdot.
Yes it is a pimp. You go to him and he points you to the ones who give you the actual service.
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!
There's definitely a big difference between the corrections and 'retractions' that you see on something like Slashdot as compared to a Real Newspaper.
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.
Paul K.
I completely side with you on this. The "Real World" media machine is nothing but a bunch of snivling money grabbers that only want to sensationalize our view of the world.If it's not spectacular, it doesn't happen. I guess that's why the world seems like such dismal place. The world viewed through the eyes of the media is a violent, turbulent place. Do we really live in the hellhole that the pop culture portrays?
Paul K.
/. has more than one page... have you ever notice the "Sections" area to the left? they could just as easily has a "Retractions" section, rather than using the front page.
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.
People see the world as they are, not as it is.
I'm not sure that this is the biggest problem, because it is dealt with in the court system.
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.
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.
People see the world as they are, not as it is.
Erhm, when was the last time you saw the 10 o'clock news print a retraction? I've never seen TV media retract anything, ever.
Hey, cool! I think this is a better page anyway. Besides being Evil, B&N's site just plain old stinks. Anyway, I'll take a look!
If you're curious, BTW, there are lots of reasons to hate B&N... Spider Robinson, the mid-list sci-fi author, wrote a real nice piece a few years ago about how their marketing practices are destroying the market for mid-list authors. The commoditization of books that results from B&N's practices puts real pressure on books to be hits or misses without much room for steady but not high-volume sellers.
Plus, of course, the corporate colonialism that occurs in particular with B&N... books are low-margin and most towns don't support a whole bunch of bookstores in the first place. When a B&N moves in, though, they steamroll the local/independent booksellers, kill them and suck the profits out of the community and back to Corporate HQ.
As a natural part of this process, they also destroy the real book-lover's environment. B&N's are book warehouses, devoid of personality, charm and intimacy. The architecture is atrocious with no regard to sound issues and a patronizing, cloying attempt at making the store "cozy". There's no room for the individual quirks that make independent bookstores interesting, and no room for an individual merchant to "push" the books he's discovered. In this environment, a small cadre of B&N buyers choose which books become their "picks" - and given the near-monopoly power of this chain in many markets, these few people wield an inordinate amount of power over what we read, even down to indirectly (and sometimes directly) deciding which books get published.
And toss in the Wired article about bn.com that ran a few years back where it was shown pretty conclusively, I think, that the guys running the show over there are stupid, arrogant, evil fucks, and well, everything just adds up to a big pile of bad juju. I appreciate your changing the link, especially given that my post wasn't as polite as it probably should've been. Thanks!
Notice what you DON'T see on this list, though?
Hmmm... so, it turns out US special forces didn't use chemical weapons, and hey, it turns out, maybe the CIA didn't import crack.
Oh, and then one reporter made her superiors - and pretty much the entire profession - look like dickheads, so they 86'd her.
So... anything on this list a retraction *against* the people in power? You ever see a retraction in the NYT that reads something like, "For the past 10 years, this news organization has neglected to mention the seriousness of the use of highly toxic depleted uranium shells by coalition forces during the Gulf War. These shells may or may not be causing, as we speak, untold ecological damage and human suffering, and frankly, because the people in charge of this lamebrain idea are still in power, we won't get around to winning our Pulitzer on this story until most of them are long retired or six feet under. Sorry. Hope this wasn't important to you."
Or how about: "This news organization has, for the past year, repeatedly characterized the WTO protests in Seattle last year as 'violent', blatantly insinuating that those dirty protesters were to blame, and blithely absolving the police of their rioting, abusive practices, and constitutional trampling. The fact is, there were tens of thousands of people out there trying to illuminate some important issues, and all we did was make them look like stupid, violent thugs. Sorry 'bout that."
Or: "We should never have made Ollie North look like some kind of hero. In truth, he was a lying, treasonous scumbag, he sold weapons to our worst enemies, and we should have strung him up like Wen Ho Lee. Dunno why we didn't. Just didn't feel like it, I guess."
Or: "Hey, as it turns out, KAL Flight 007 really WAS on a spy mission while carrying civilians. Huh. Imagine that, the government LIED to us. We're sorry, we must have had our heads up our collective ass."
Or: "As it turns out, George Bush Sr. had a mistress for many, many years, and we almost totally ignored it. Let's face it, she wasn't a little white-trash hottie like Jennifer Flowers... it just didn't play as well on camera, and it was a wee bit disingenous of us to go on and on and on about "character" while letting that sneaky motherfucker Bush completely off the hook."
Or: "Attention all readers: it's true that G. W. Bush is a complete moron. No, really, he's dumber than Quayle. But he's supposed to win this election, so we're going to keep it toned down a little until after he wins. We hope this doesn't inconvience anyone... and yeah, we're talking to you, Jay Leno."
Or: "The Gulf War was a sham. We're sorry we lied to you. Saddam's a nasty guy, all right, but he's OUR nasty guy, and the whole thing was a shameless play for regional power on behalf of the US economy. Oh, heck, never mind... it's too complex for you folks. Now go back to supporting those troops, people!"
and so on
and so on and so on...
They'll print retractions, all right. Just as long as it satifies their agenda. Good luck finding stuff in the mainstream media that doesn't...
Some people around these parts don't like Amazon, but I'll take Amazon any day over Barnes and Noble. And I'll take a good old-fashioned independent bookseller over either of them. But linking to B&N means I won't even go and look at your book.
That's just my opinion, and no, you're probably not shooting yourself in the foot by linking to B&N, but if I were in your position I'd link to somewhere else. At least, arguably, Amazon has a fairly reasonable position about holding dumb patents... Barnes & Noble is just plain old snarling evil on a stick.
...how about papers and networks sacking reporters for bad or fraudulent journalism?
Of the top of my head, heads rolled at...
CNN, due to a badly written, misleading piece on SOGers alleging use of chemical weapons by Special Operations Group troopers on American defectors, during 'Nam if memory serves.
The SJ Mercury, due to disagreements over the veracity of the CIA/Crack conspiracy series.
The Boston Globe, which canned a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, for having done fraudulent pieces including heart-wrenching interviews of non-existing people.
In all three cases, very, very public retractions and apologies were made. I'm sure there have been others, as well.
The NY Times and the local papers here run corrections in a regular space on the second page. In the case of the NYT, it's right under the summaries of the edition's contents -- which isn't exactly obscure.
How many people has Slashdot sacked for not bothering to check submissions that were hoaxes? How much checking do many onliners do?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
CNN: the story that the SOGers were using chemical weapons on American defectors. Story retracted, apologies issued, reporters fired.
PrimeTime Live (think "Food Lion") got nailed in a court of law over planting people as workers...
The president of NBC News even resigned over a Dateline piece in which gas tanks of GM pickups were rigged to increase the probability of ignition upon a side-impact collision. He didn't micromanage the story, but it was on his watch...
It happens.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
At least on the networks the bias is often obvious enough to filter out. ;-)
Random example -- CBS News story on Firestone (IIRC) ties, with the reporter noting that 60% of returned tires in a given set (methinks it was national, for certain specific models) were returned due to tread separation issues, with the number '60%' prominently displayed onscreen.
Um. That's a remarkably useless number without context, such as
a) Information on what % of Firestone tires was actually returned.
b) Industry norms.
c) The severity of the tread separation issues.
It blatantly smelled like a hit piece designed so that a casual viewer -- say, one momentarily distracted -- would infer that 60% of all Firestone tires were vulnerable to tread separation. But at least t'was easy to discern.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
MU!
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilization he replied "I think that it would be a good idea."
Ditto for "Journalistic Integrity"
At least /. and most Internet and print journalism doesn't make me sick to my stomach like the local TV "newscast" does. Local TV is pure "info-tainment" and seems to have no standards at all, regardless of the damage they do. I come here for the most part knowing the deal and can distill useful stuff out of it.
Journalism student here.
In my course we are currently studying ethics in journalism. Canadian newspapers belonging to the Canadian Newspaper Association (are supposed to) follow the Statement of Principles.
This would be a good start for
-growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional
Bruce's comments get included (and moderated up) 'cause he's Bruce, it seems. That's 'cause this IS Rob's baby and everyone does it his way. I can't ever seem to not be made aware of that. I really don't have any major differences of opinion with Bruce, but I do notice things like this. Which applies to this article nicely, eh?
- real hackers don't have sigs -
The main problem that eloctronic news people are facing is time. In print, they have enough time to double check facts, etc. The electonic media simply don't feel like they have that kind of time.
Slashdot does not create news...it creates a place to discuss other peoples news.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
1> The editorial page is a fucking prominent place. Especially in the New York Times.
2> The problem with the Wen Ho Lee story was allowing the FBI agent to be quoted without identifying himself.
Basing a story on a single unidentified source is a big problem these days. On the one hand, it brought Watergate to national prominence, and so was of great service to society.
But on the other hand, innocent people suspected of crimes like Dr. Wen Ho Lee and Richard Jewell unfairly suffer. The case of Dr. Lee is more troubling since the FBI agent basically played the NYT for all it was worth to further the Administration's scapegoating efforts.
But this is a problem for all journalism, not just for "new" or "old" media. Will you let Anonymous Cowards write stories for you, when they are the only source you have?
This is a serious problem, and it damages not only the NYT's credibility but also Slashdot's. The 'Red Hat Infested With Bugs' story on Slashdot is an example of this problem. A user submitted a story and it was published even though it was wrong. Red Hat and their employees suffered for it. I have seen no apology or correction from Slashdot. I think they are assuming that everyone who read the article saw from the discussion that it was wrong. But that is no attempt at a correction from Slashdot. Although the NYT story you cited caused greater injustice, they at least tried to do him what justice they could, both in the editorial and in the damning story about Parker's final words.
NYT is far from perfect, but Slashdot is nowhere close when it comes to credibility or accuracy, even on technical subjects.
Oh, and in case I didn't make it entirely clear...
The problem with the NYT story was that an FBI agent told them about the government's case and, having no other source, they believed him. They did not publish his name. They did publish Dr. Lee's name. In the story, the government's case against Dr. Lee was greatly exaggerated by the agent. It is not clear that, if the paper could have gotten another source, the story would have been much improved, since the Justice Department consistently misrepresented the evidence and the case to Justice Parker, right up to the plea bargain. The Justice Department is continuing to exaggerate aspects of the situation, such as the relevance of the data on the missing tapes, to the press and to the American people. I was personally very angry at the New York Times for their treatment of the matter *until* they printed the editorial and story about the plea bargain. They really did redeem themselves with that one. The New York Times was not complicit in the scapegoating, although the government did abuse their trusting nature.
And I can tell you, from now on they are going to think twice before providing government with an anonymous platform to abuse and harass the innocent.
Kuro5hin uses this to good effect. Slashdot can learn from Kuro5hin, just like Kuro5hin learned from Slashdot.
Perhaps Taco and Hemos are genuinely so busy with other things that they can't involve themselves the way it's perceived (by some) that they used to. For that matter, maybe they want to move on in life. (GASP! LIFE AFTER SLASHDOT NO WAY :)
In any case, there are certainly no shortage of volunteers who are willing to take up the task, I think.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
An excellent first post, Jon.
Let me share one of my many disheartening experiences with newspapers. A few years ago I rented a house with a girl who helped to start a precision skating team at my school. They were scheduled to skate at halftime during the hockey games. A few days before their first game, they were written about by the local paper. They quoted one of the girls as saying "we're cheerleaders on the ice". I thought that was weird because the girls definitely do NOT think of themselves as cheerleaders; they are artistic skaters. I checked. Only the captain of the group had ever spoken to the reporter, although she had given the roster to the journalist. The journalist had simply pulled a name off the roster to attribute a conveniently contrived quote to. Since then, I have noticed journalist's tendencies to include obvious, typical quotes in every story to characterize and summarize the situation, straight "from the horse's mouth" to enhance their credibility.
The purpose of any for-profit media service (TV, Radio, Newspaper, Slashdot)is to attract paying advertisers. This is done by convincing a sufficiently large number of readers/viewers/listeners that are attractive to advertisers. This may be done with slapstick comedy, dirty pictures, high-integrity news or sloppy journalism. Journalistic integrity is not needed as long as lots of desireable people read whatever is written.
In Sydney, there are three major newspapers (and their Sunday offsprings) - the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph and The Australian. :-)
I read the SMH daily (which would have to be the biggest one in Sydney), and all of the usual columnists publish their email addresses at the end of their columns... I think this makes the gap between journalists and the public much narrower, and although I'm sure they receive plenty of really crap email every day, it means that they are more approachable.
Maybe the NY Times has a different strategy behind their newsplan - to keep that gap and be like an "ultimate news source" or something. *shrug* I think that they're just behind the times
/.'s articles are primarily based on articles by other people, boiled down into an uberconcentrated format for us to digest, reguratate (sp) and absorb into our info-starved minds.
True be it that people should start taking responsibility for what they do,tinfoilmedia
If I could, I would have marked this story as a troll.
/. audience. We are the soul of the site! (hrrm, maybe that's what the other guy meant by editor involvement)
to cliff:
Seriously guys, you (new media) know you have many things that the establishment does not. True feedback, follups, retractions (albeit often embedded in the comments).
How much accountability should a news-redirector (/. itself has very little news) be accountable for? Not much, I hope, and definitely not, if the story queue was user-moderated in the least bit.
Accountability aside, a few people earlier mentioned:
* Spelling, Grammar, Hyperlink checks would be nice (although not entirely neccessary, IMHO).
* A double-editor review (although any amount of user-moderation would mitigate this issue)
* Involvement (although I think I prefer the editors to stay out of frays sometimes)
Yeah, so here's your fish: Keep up the good work, and LISTEN to the
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
An interesting thing about the media that my brother was taught in one of the colleges he went to was that the Media follows each other like a pack! It doesn't really matter if one organization screwed up or not, everybody will follow the other dispite the fact that they may be wrong!
Suffice it to say, whether your reading The New York Times, Globe and Mail, or even Slashdot you are not going to get an accurately description of the event. Biases are always incorporated (just look at any Conrad Black owned newspaper!!) even if we were to send each article through rigorous scanning processes to attempt to keep biases out, they would still find a way into the articles.
Therefore, really, you only have two options if you want an unbiases relating of the news:
1) Witness every particular news worthy event for yourself (slightly difficult to accomplish and besides it would still be biased with your own biases!).
or 2) Learn to extract the few facts that have been thrown in to the news and discern for yourself what actually happened.
I expect bias in most everything today. I haven't yet seen bias on AP, UP, BBC or Clairinet, but it will happen.
At least I expect the bias. But they do run some really good articles, mostly on overclocking or in-depth on hardware. Plus ARS has it's own dicussion forum - not too bad ethier!
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I did mean *LOW* SNR. Thanks for pointing that out. Just proving to the world that I am human...
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
How'd I do that? Profiles are your friend!
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Since when was anyone actually held accountable for opinions expressed in print? IMNAL, but it's always seemed to me that Slander/Libel cases are next to impossible to prove, and even more difficult to win. The medium in question must have made false comments, about you _purposefully_, and even then the law doesn't apply if you're a public figure. This leaves room for plenty of legal hairsplitting, including the definition of a public figure, if it was knowingly untrue, and on and on. Suing someone for libel is a losing game, as the cost of trial is high, and the results most likely disappointing. And even then, if you WIN, the most you can hope for is an 8 point font retraction somewhere on page C16.
How can we expect digital mediums to show more journalistic integrity than the New York Times?
How can one consider slashdot to be a journal when all they do is post links to news on OTHER sites?
i mean, they do more, but that's primarily what they do.
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
Yes
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.
True, Slashdot certainly does an "above par" job of handling corrections. Congratulations. However, Slashdot's job is not to make corrections, but to prevent errors.
Just out of curiosity, how do you all feel about how the real onlines News sites handle their reporting?
Ok here we go:
First, thank you Slashdot staff for a job well done. While yes, Slashdot has erros, Slashdot does a good job. We wouldn't be reading if you didn't.
However Slashdot has a lot to learn from traditional news sources. Traditional news sources have been doing this stuff for awhile. What's great about this, is while many of Slashdot's biggest problems (fact checking, rushing to post) are impossible to completly prevent, traditional news agencies have stratagies to limit these problems.
Similarly, traditional news agencies can learn much from Slashdot. They must learn to provide better ways to have feedback and discussion. They need to learn to engage the reader and promote discussion. They need to understand issues in more detail--and learn from not for the community.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Since you asked: the distinction between the old Slashdot as a hobby versus Slashdot as a business is this: As a hobby for rob and crew it was a very cool experiment. A never-ending storyboard as a medium for us to discuss the issues. Relevance didn't matter as /. was not a force in the online world. The idea of /. going pro should constitute a small change in the approach as it is no longer a hobby the word professional comes to mind. If you are getting paid for the project why shouldn't you find yourself in someway accountable or at least responsible enough to it to do your best? There is absolutely nothing wrong with them getting paid for it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their methods in the sense that by and large stories come from reader submissions. The small edge that professionalism should bring to the table are simple: and occasional spell check, verification of linkage and consistent participation.It's not some rule or ethic or commandment that makes this so. If things are inaccurate then why not strive to make it better? I am not out to crit the /. crew for their valiant efforts. They do a great job for the most part and suggestions and feedback only help but make it better in the big picture. I personally believe that /. has become one of the driving forces of internet information. They have succeeded in creating an online community model that now spans almost 100 sites running the engine they were kind enough to open source. Slashdot has been in magazines, TV and mentioned all over the internet. That translates to a certain amount of power and influence in the real world. If /. were to run a story that plunges a companies stock into the toilet because of the amount and demographic of /. readership and then the story turns out to be a farce there would be someone getting sued. That's just an example.Inaccuracy does all of us an injustice and makes us look like /.=national inquirer instead of what it really is: a relentless search for truth. You can say what you want and flame me all day long. The old Slashdot was famous for that very relentlessness and now that it's gone pro why slack and settle for mediocrity? I note that you posted at 1:21 PM on a work day. Your point is what? You posted at 3:33 PM on the very same work day. My work day starts when it starts, ends when it ends, and typically runs anywhere from 10-14 hours. A benefit of that is that I have the opportunity to enjoy free time whenever and however I like. The work gets done, clients are happy. Where I come into the /. world is the same as you and everyone else who posts and participates: we constitute the readership that without there would be no Slashdot. Yes Slashdot is free. So is cnn.com, msnbc.com, bbc.com, wired.com, etc. etc. Slashdot being a professional entity puts them in that league of players like it or not and they do wield some power now. "just kooky, quirky, idosyncratic Slashdot. And I, for one, hope that never changes." but you see, it already has.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
Far too often a story shows up with a short summary taking a sentence or two out of context. Mostly its pro linux FUD, but few people read the actual article and instead post tons of comments generating more banner hits.
I would appreciate the real story and not a single sentence picked to rile up the zealots. The opinions can also go, maybe people read this site for stories other than linux as the title suggests.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
usa today has emails I believe
MEDIA!! Ok...ok...sorry. Damn...I'll never be a moderator this way.
Ive all ways concidered Slashdot too be just like real news, but without profreading.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
About NPR. They have the biggest liberal bias in the industry, when they actually report news, that is. How many 'hippy culture is dying' pieces did it take for them to get a solid reputation for penetrating reporting? /., you can yell when you see a bias.
Ok, maybe it's been a while since I listened to NPR, but the bias was unmistakeable to my little conservative mind.
Objectivity won't ever be reached. Bias is always a problem. On
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
But, on /., you can *disagree* if you like. Geez, how often I've longed to do that to a newspaper...
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Slashdot is about the exchange of opinions, intelligent discussions, and thinking for yourself.....not reporting news.
IMHO the amaturish nature of Slashdot is part of its appeal. Rather than having "stuffy" feel of the big news sites, the atmosphere is very relaxed here.
Although I do agree a little more care needs to be taken at times to stop mistakes being made to the live site. For example, minutes ago, a story was on the front page entitled "Voices From The Hellmouth Revisited: Part 4 of 10" (screenshot here) which obviously wasn't ready for primetime as it was in need of "Rob's part" The article has now been removed.
The traditional media, including the now-traditional network TV, are converging towards newer media. Many of the graphics I see on TV seem to be influenced by web design. Most TV news is entertainment now, not journalism. Given all that, I think Slashdot does a good job and seems to try at least as hard as the big media to be responsible. The fact that the humor is different and people don't take themselves as seriously on here as the coiffed broadcasters do is a plus.
Dave
And when have "paper mediums" been held responsible for "tabloid news stories". I don't recall that happening too often.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
The articles and comments come from the readers, and not so much from an editorial staff... this is a forum, not a news outlet. Slashdot should not be held accountable for what some idiot or troll posts.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
And Bruce doesn't get "included" because he's Bruce, simply because he hits the "submit" key, just like you.
Why oh why did my moderation rights have to expire yesterday!
Nathan
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
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
Katz isn't against the stereotyping of geeks.. he just wants to have a monopoly on it.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
below is the header from the homepage....
I object to this sort of behaviour. I should be able to choose to turn it off.
I liked slashdot - a few years ago they didnt have squillions of cookies but doing this is just lame.. time to find another news site with moral integrity
Goodbye slashdot.
<BASE HREF="http://slashdot.org/">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#000000" text="#000000" link="#006666" vlink="#000000">
<CENTER>
<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0><TR><TD WIDTH=2><IMG SRC='http://images2.slashdot.org/Slashdot/pc.gif?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
<A HREF="http://ads15.focalink.com/SmartBanner/page?
<IMG SRC="http://ads15.focalink.com/SmartBanner/nph-gr
<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0><TR><TD WIDTH="1"><IMG SRC='http://images.slashdot.org/banner/inte5019en
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If there aren't, I wonder what such a site would require? I'll tell you right now, it will not be anything like a weblog. The whole idea of a static article header followed by comments is totally wrong. As information is acquired, the story should be improved to fit the facts. Retractions are old media.
Actually, I suppose I'm falling back on the idea of wikis. Figures.
Unless /. is a member of some industry journalism group that holds their members accountable, you don't have to worry.
So far, you're doing fine: You have pubs like the National Enquirer on one side, and the NYT on the
other. You're in the middle, so don't worry!
Just keep up the good work!
It is the structure of /. that makes it what it is. Based on a BBS concept, the technology makes possible what could never have been done by traditional media - participation of all the readers / viewers. The only thing that makes this place what it is (IMO) is the pledge to never delete, change, alter a single word of any post. Correct me if I am wrong.
/. depends at least partially on the simple single premise that its creators put forth: as Darren McGavin said to Melinda Dillon after she broke his Italian lamp that he won:
v
/. and, no, in a just world (IANAL) the poster of each article is solely responsible for the content, not the guy who started the website.
The framers of the Constitution knew that it was the essential structure of the government that would do the best to assure that the excesses of previous governments, arising from the foibles of human nature, would not haunt this great country. They put the safes, the checks to power, in the structure of the organization. Of course new ways of being corrupt found their way through the safeguards, but the Constitution lasted for almost two hundred years in pretty good shape!
Likewise, the concept of
"Not a Finger!!!!"
http://clark.colgate.edu/doslander/acs/acs20.wa
Please don't change an element of
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Journalistic integrity is more of a problem with the internet than it has ever been with print or television media. These days, any idiot with a WebTV can pretend to be a journalist, and idiots tend to be rather vocal, if not eloquent (no, this is not a reference to dubya, oh wait, I guess it is now...). As the number of attempts at news increases, it becomes more difficult to determine which ones should be ignored (unless you just ignore them all). It doesn't help that even "respectable" news sources tend to be completely wrong. How many times have people (in print and online media) claimed that Gore claimed to have invented the internet? The media, in many cases, no longer reports facts - it reports opinions disguised as facts. This is far more dangerous than simply stating a misinformed opinion. Many people lack the intelligence to question what they are told in the evening news, newspaper, or an internet news site; they can however ignore someone's opinion, and often do when that opinion differs from their own. People are rather frustrating. In all the so-called reporting that I do (I have never called myself a reporter, but others have), I simply present my opinion and the logical reasoning that it resulted from. I will often change my opinion slightly while writing an article, mainly because of the research and thought I put into my serious writing (/. doesn't count). Unfortunately, a lot of people don't spend the time to check facts or seriously consider opposing viewpoints before throwing together something that may or may not resemble news. Integrity takes time and effort, and people are usually lazy. The only way to help the situation is to start with your own integrity and then expect the same from others, including news sources or even /. comments. This means thinking before you call Gore a pathological liar or Bush a cokehead, moron, or empty suit (or Nader a god, commie, hero, or nut). This means actually doing something other than complaining about everyone else. This means it will never work, but one can dream...
I read slashdot news as a technical newspaper. I think slashdot is a specialised newsfeed with comments, and the best one... thats all!
It's my observation that some people (myself included) read Slashdot for the news either exclusively or along with at least one other site with similar goals (K5, Freshmeat, etc) -- and avoid the "real" news sites. It's the geek opinions and geek concerns which matter, not watered down or oversimplified like most "real" news sites with corporate advertisers do. Plus if anything *worthwhile* shows up on those news sites, it finds its way here... why scurry around looking when you've got the goods? And what appears here is guided by the reader, not by what some agency sees fit (to wit, how often do you see critical articles about Microsoft on any of the news sites affiliated somehow with M$?). You're doing the job right, /. -- intended or not, you are a news site, one with more credibility and pertinence than most.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
If the question means, do you have a responsibility to journalistic integrity, I would say that's your call.
I've done a lot of thinking about how to present the stories, and the result is that we're more likely to present our own views instead of pointing to existing stories from The Globe or The National Post. There will be times when we'll link to them, of course. However, content will be more along the lines of the entertainment weekly rags found in the big cities, such as Eye and Now in Toronto. Those papers tend to uncover interesting stories that the mainstream press doesn't cover. Also, there won't be any banner ads! (at least, not as long as I can afford to continue funding it from my own pocket).
Still, there will only be at most five or six stories posted a day. I want to unearth the controversial topics and let the site visitors add in their own tidbits.
A number of those helping to run the site are either writers or journalists, or are taking journalism classes. Accountability is important. The discussion that follows each article provides an natural incentive for the person writing the article to get things right. Otherwise, they'll be publically slammed and will receive many e-mails - something that doesn't happen on traditional news media sites.
David
No, wait. Someone thought that would be a bad idea.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Section only stories get 10 or so posts, few people read them. They could put apologies there if they wanted.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
Yeah, don't give them any ideas though. Before you know it, they'll be "directing traffic" after some big corp makes nice with them..
You're definately correct in the fact that Slashdot feels very much like a discussion group as opposed to a pure news site.
News is more oriented towards hyperlinked headlines rather than in-depth content. Nothing wrong in that of course, but without the discussion area, this website would be far more shallow.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
Only two papers, Jon? Name 'em. I swear I've seen two myself, and I don't read that many newspapers.
If I remember correctly, both major newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area publish the writer's email address. I know their web sites show the writer's address.
a) Have someone (else) read your post before you submit it. For that matter, create a Kuro5hin-style "posting queue" but accessible only to /. editors. Hemos puts an article in there, but it only reaches the front page if someone else signs off on it. In order to sign off on a posting, force a spellcheck and an archive search. If there was a way to force a fact check, I'd mention that as well.PLEASE!!!!! If you want kuro5hin, read kuro5hin. If you want Slashdot, read Slashdot. It's not that hard, now is it? This is a FREE site, on which people can vent all sorts of more or less stupid opinions (go ahead, this one's to easy) while staying within a certain group of subjects. If you don't like it, sod off.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Guess that that he has a moderator account on the side as well.-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
All editors are information filters. This implies an inherent bias in all news reporting. Even those that try to follow the highest ethical standards of journalism demonstrate their own bias, slant and personal agenda as they filter the noise to create news. (NPR is an excellent example). Those who depend upon a reduced filter set for their news and understanding of the world, are submitting themselves to a mild form of brainwashing.
Unfortunately many of our standard news sources are acting like overlapping filters -- which only serves to encourage narrowmindedness in thier audience. If you only get your news from one TV station, it isn't going to help much to listen to the other networks. It takes a fair amount of effort to find the combination of filters that will allow us to be truly informed informed individuals while keeping the "noise" level down to a managable level.
Slashdot is lots of things, but mainly it is a way for people to talk about what is currently happening in the geek world. If there is a rumor circulating about something, then there is nothing wrong with reporting the existence of that rumor. If there is an article about something, slashdot is a place to talk about it. If I want to read the straight news, I go to a news site. If I want to stay informed about geek issues, I read slashdot.
Joshua
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
You have no peeps, you vicious backstabbing yellow-bellied impostor. Beware, for the wrath of the One True Baba Abhui is upon you!
News should try to represent all voices possible, all points of view, all possibilities. it is always in the best interest of sender and receiver to uphold the highest standards for truth, accuracy and integrity in any communications. This includes news on slashdot. But don't be overwhelmed by this suggestion. Even with the imperfect reporting you cknowledge, Slashdot is miles above, for example, the Denver Rocky Mountain News which recently printed a voters guide and completely excluded all third party candidates. They went so low as to lie that 24 state and federal candidates were "unchalleged" even though all of them are challenged by at least one third party candidate, and in some cases 2 or 3. At the national level the news should cover all points of view for the presidential race, but they only include Bush and Gore. This isn't news, this is censorship. /. has its problems, but it is a lot better than most.
Patrick West - Secretary, Natural Law Party of Colorado - Candidate, Colorado State Senate 17 - Software Engineer
Puhleeze. This reminds me of Matt Drudge claiming simultaneously to be breaking stories, then saying he's not responsible for his errors because he doesn't have the time or manpower to check the rumors he posts for accuracy. (He doesn't admit, either, to lacking the integrity or brainpower to do the work.) But enough ranting about that twit. On to the point: you post the story, you make sure it's accurate. If you're just a message board for disgruntled losers, then you just have to edit that which is brought to your attention to be false. This place? We'll have to see...
Don't bother me with the facts, it would only complicate my story.
I count two -- taking speaking fees and putting profit above all other considerations, and the New York Times doesn't do the last one. Let's have a look: "Working for corporations that don't disclose conflicts?". We've had a fair few of these in our time wrt. VA Linux and andover.net. Indeed, on today's front page the chaps are allowing Andrew Leonard to post links to Salon without mentioning his affiliation. "Refusing to disclose outside incomes?" -- anyone remember those fatbrain links? "Relying on unsubstantated leaks?" -- oh come on, this is slashdot's stock in trade! "Invading privacy and sensationalizing politics?" -- a few innocent secretaries at companies who have been victims of GPL jihads because of inflammatory rhetoric on the front page might have something to say about this. "Getting too close to lobbyists and other journalists?" -- Eric Raymond is a lobbyist, and Slashdot is altogether too uncritical of his political screeds. From time to time, the whole site reads like a mouthpiece. "Ghettozing and homogenizing public opinion on op-ed pages and stuffing all ideas into a "left" and a "right"." -- ever tried to express an opinion in favour of coyright? And for "left and right" read "free and unfree software" "Exploting parents fears by sensationalizing issues of technology and safety?" -- Yark! Yark! they've restricted Resident Evil II to over 18's! it's censorship! They'll be burning books next! They're blocking porn sites from libraries! Pravda! "Covering technology ignorantly and ineptly?" -- I won't make the obvious personal jibe, Jon. "Becoming part of a disconnected elite? " -- no, *now*, I'll make the personal jibe. Slashdot is right up the arse of its own little coterie of more-leet-than-thou free software zealots. It's not a news site; it is, in the entirely correct words of Judge Kaplan (boo! hiss! heretic!) "a movement which believes that all software and music should be available for no charge". That's an extremist position and one totally disconnected from normal people.
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
Posted by polar_bear:
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
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.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Great, I turned his ass off on the front page, now I have to read his crappy posts here. I guess I need to filter him out at the freakin' firewall next time. Ok, here goes:
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.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
...shouldn't Slashdot be held to the same standards as other 'news' agencies?"
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?
--Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Personalizing my writing is a cop out.
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.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I would say Slashdot does a vastly superior job of giving its critics a voice than any conventional media outlet I know of. Including these threads. Try writing a c ritical letter to your local newspaper or TV station if you have any doubts. The people running Slashdot would be the last ones on earth to send a pompous missive like the column above to a newspaper, demanding to know why they arent as ethical. Yuk. If anything, I'm understating how pompous and hypocritical this idea is.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Slashdot should be held responsible for what it publishes. Sincerly I consider that there have been recently many flaws in Slashdot publications.
/. has apologized for these slipperies. However the level of some hoaxes can create some serious damage. Specially if we consider that it takes some time for /. to apologize. On Internet, information runs in a flash. Specially if this information is scandalous by its nature. However, even here, apologies take a harder path to reach people.
/. leaders think are news.
/. to do here. However news posts should have another nature of selection. And sincerly i consider that Rob will get nothing but studying journalistics here. The only thing it would help him would be to hold some silly emotions and get more inflexible on selecting news. I think this is not a solution having Rob in bad mood crying "REJECTED!" to every hello. The problem are the posters. And here we should have to choose. Or we reform the system or we turn /. into another Media Emporium.
/. the most progressive and revolutionary news system in the world. Sincerly "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters"
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
This has undoubtedly been covered before, but there should be some moderation applied to the slashdot story posters.
:)
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)...
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
As this and other similar questions easily demonstrate, there are some questions that can't be answered. Such is the one posed here, "should /. be held to the same ethics as main-stream media?" Well, which ethics are those? as above, but also; are main-stream media actually held to ethics at all?
/. is biased. In the very act of publishing some articles, and not others, you have put forth a bias.
/. fulfilling the needs of its community? Is it providing a worthwhile service? Is it making enough money to sustain itself? Those are the only questions that CAN be asked intelligently, as they each have an answer.
/. to a supposed set of ethics, that is only marginally agreed upon let alone followed, is a waste of thought.
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
...since Andover bought Slashdot, it has... become in the very real sense, a business entity. Since it is no longer a private endeavor... shouldn't Slashdot be held to the same standards as other 'news' agencies?
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.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
This is what journalistic integrity is about: fairness, impartiality, disclosure, balance, and fact checking. The problems you note are egregious because they violate journalistic integrity -- a kind of contract between producer and consumer stating that if the consumer puts his trust in the producer, the producer will follow certain rules of quality.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ah, but what if it could be a better slashdot? Surely you don't believe it has achieved a unimprovable state of excellence?
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.
Pardon the question, but don't you mean too *low* a signal/noise ratio - high would imply high signal, low noise (not quite what you find around here. Browsing at 1 helps greatly, though.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
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.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
"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."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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
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".
The way that I look at online journalism is quite different then how I look at mainstream, 'real' stuff. In today's world of the web, any yahoo(tm) can get his own website, and post any old dam thing he wants.
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, due to the fact that they have a reputation.
------------
CitizenC
I remember very clearly before Iraq invaded Kuwait seeing articles and news video that very clearly showed that the U.S. was tacitly encouraging Iraq to invade Kuwait. I remember at the time thinking, geez, that seems a little odd. And then the day Iraq went ahead and did it and Bush turned around and called Hussein a "Hitler" I was wondering what the hell was going on.
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.
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. 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!
--
This is not my sandwich.
True, Slashdot does link to other sites submitted by its readers. But, the determination of who posts these submissions as well any initial comments are responsibility of the /. staff.
/. staff should not be in the headline, but rather should be submitted as a comment and commented upon (and moderated by) the users just like any other posting. That is a great idea. If we don't like what you say, then you'll experience our wrath (like you don't now).
,"unscrupulous", or "unethical" might make for some good reading and discussion material.
/. does provide a useful outlet for ideas. I'm sure others feel as I do. As such, it is the responsibility of the /. staff to take their jobs and responsibility seriously and keep the moderation fair and the trolls to a minimum.
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
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.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I don't know if this counts, but my hometown's newspaper The Monroe Evening News publishes the telephone number and email address of it's writers.
Jon, you don't post your business telephone number, do you?
- 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)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.
Got Rhinos?
Indeed, these times it seems that no one wants to take accountability for what they do. Last time I took my Grand Prix GTP 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.
tinfoilmedia
I'm sure with network news that's fairly correct, but not every market delivers canned ham every night. Some markets even have news programs produced by stations that are not controlled by a big three network.
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.
I'm not sure it can be said /. is more of a discussion than news when your slogan really points to the news.
/. has over old style news. Mostly this centers on an actual understanding of the technologies that are reported. And a pretty decent feedback model.
./ I think CmdTaco and the ilk are the anchors, the readers, posters, and submitters are the reporters, and Jon Katz is editorial.
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.
For tech news, I check BBC Tech News, Ace's Hardware, Tom's Hardware , or ARS Technicia. 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.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
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.
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.
Since Vietnam and the news media's conversion from moderately trusted loss leader to money
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.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Part of the problem is that reading just the stories without comments does not give you just the facts. What you often see in a /. story is: a) link to news source; b) submitter's summary of news article (and an inaccurate summary, as often as not, it seems); c) submitter's editorial comments; and d) editor's editorial comments.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Well, it wouldn't take too much modification to Slashcode to allow articles to be read with or without the commentary. That way you could choose to see "Just the Facts Ma'am" with editors' and readers' comments all listed below, or excluded altogether, or you could choose as I do to read the commentary along with the news.
sulli
RTFJ.
Really? I read slashdot only for the articles!
sulli
RTFJ.
We have Jon Katz for editorials, and Jamie for privacy/rights issues, and a handful of other regulars.
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!
GPL Deconstructed
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.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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 and another site which I'll leave unnamed (it ends in .cx).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Some of my favourites are:
Postal Service
Government Worker
Country Music
Jumbo Shrimp
Microsoft Works
Military Intelligence
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
/. doesn't pretent to work like a mainstream news media, presenting pre-digested news items in a form that pretends to be objective.
/. from other sources, which the comment section often is helpful in locating.
/. is refreshingly honest about their agendas and unreliable sources.
/. to pretent to objective and reliable like traditional media. Some of the new people at /. is moving it that way, unfortunately.
/. 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
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
Bruce Perens.
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.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
One of the newspapes I used to subscribe to is the NYTimes..Until they asked me to write an oped piece and refuse to permit my e-mail, because they don't believe in that. Is this the accountable medium you're holding up as a role model. No newspaper i know of is nearly as accountable as slashdot is, or makes it nearly as easy for readers to criticize and challenge it. I'd almost think you're j oking..only two newspapers in America even permit e-mail at the end of all reporters stories.
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?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
You're absolutely correct. I have been inside journalistics and outside them. It was amazing to see how journalists swarmed 'round here on the eve of the "Millenium bug". They glued like flies and some of us didn't resist the attemption to say a few serious words about it (me included). However my 20 minutes interview didn't make any lines. Tow other long interviews by my collegues didn't also make it. Demistification was not news and we were dropped out. in the meantime one collegue had the unfortunate idea to say a journalist something like: "I believe there is nothing to worry about."
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!"
If you put a name on it your article becomes as credable as the person who's name is attached to it (it doesn't even matter who actually wrote it). Most, if not all, news sites do this - place a brief summary with a nice photo and a picture of the "author." The article becomes credible because that person is credible. If we don't like the article, we don't blame the publisher so much as we blame the person taking credit for it (eg. It wasn't by MSNBC, it was by an affiliate named "Joe").
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
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
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.
I don't see it makes a difference whether /. is Rob's baby or a commercial endeavor - it's a news (for nerds) site, and should make an effort to make sure that the stories are in fact "news" and not unsubstantiated rumours (RH 7 has a zillion bugs).
/. article selection from the submission queue, and have the submission queue instead made available for moderation ("interesting story", "old news", "already appeared", "not true" etc).
/. at a story level of 5, and others with more time on their hands could use lower levels.
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
Slashdot doesn't really publish much of it's own content. It simply links to other news sites. How then, can you attack slashdot's integrity? Is it responsible for what it links to? (Maybe) Is it responsible for it's own comments about the story? (Quite possibly) How about the users' discussion? (I think not)
Should Slashdot be held to the same standard of journalistic ethics as print media? Sure. But that's not saying much--in fact, that's not saying anything at all.
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.
Let's talk about online news services...perhaps it would be less charged if we removed /. from the spotlight and dealt with something more abstract.
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.
Part of the charm of /. is the juvenile and irresponsible behaviour of Rob and friends. Although the trolls have tarnished /. to some degree, this has been going on since the early days of BBSes. Slash has the feel of a BBS, neatly repackaged into modern web technology, and run out of the back bedroom of some slacker college students. I think the success of /. is in part the laid back feel of the site.
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
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
While I agree with the sentiment of the poster, the idea that the slashdot editors should or could rival real, trained journalists is a little far-fetched.
/. and CNN serve totally different needs. I would find it dull otherwise. Let's keep /. diverse and fun as long as possible.
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!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Is Slashdot really a news source? Merriam-Webster defines news as this: "1 a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information". I don't think so. There are pointers to news sites and discussion about them, but the news isn't reported here. The editors are not reporting things as fact. Yes, there are features, but they aren't news, usually it is just opinion or some sort of review. Otherwise what we find here are editorials, which again, according to Merriam webster: : "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article" The operative word there is opinion.
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.
I'm puzzled. This article starts with the phrase "Journalistic Integrity". That must be a typo for something, but I can't figure out what.
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. Right on the money. I really miss the days when you would see Taco and Malda posting in the discussions. They had an effect on the direction of the discussions and considering thier youth some real insight. Hopefully thier lack of participation as of late will change. If not it really could be the death of /.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
I gotta say this: 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. Yes, /. is bleeding edge when it comes to news stories. In that case you will always need to do follow up and corrections. I read /. because the fact is most of the time its pretty close to on the mark for the stories and topics of the day. Sometimes 3-4 days ahead of the real news media sites and this is exciting. What the /. team should be doing now as a professional site is taking a little more time to verify the accuracy of stories they post (seti addon boards anyone?). Slashdot is an influential site these days. It has appeared on the news, magaziness, ejournals etc. and that does translate to a cosiderable amount of power that needs to be wielded with not just integrity but some sort of ethic in order for it to maintain its presence.In the old days the pursuit of truth was relentless in the discussions on /. and malda and taco didn't need to worry about it so much. The times have changed and with as many people coming to /. for news we deserve to have it be accurate(or as close to as possible).
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
The topic is: "Should Slashdot be held to the same standards as other news orgs". Your first level comment was "but other orgs are crap". Someone responded to you with "and Slashdot ain't so hot either" which you called "ducking the issue". No, actually it's bringing YOU back ontopic. The question isn't "How well does 'traditional mass media' meet journalistic standards", the question is "How well does Slashdot do?". Pointing to the other guy is never an excuse for your own behavior. Trying to sidetrack a discussion of Slashdot's ethics into a discussion of your stereotypical views of other media ethics, while not surprising coming from Katz, is off-topic.
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.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
To me, /. is a place that I use primarily as a discussion site on current news. Despite the often low SNR (having it on Raw and Uncut because one of every 50 trolls is actually humorous), some of the comments are very interesting (like the comments on the possibility of flight on Titan in a recently posted article).
/. does help most real posters real as part of a community. It is less as a *news* paper, and more of a meeting place, where people can read an article, comment on it, and read the comments.
/. are honest about there slants - here we are, take it or leave it. That is *part* of /., why we come back to read it. To change those slants would remove most of the heart and soul of /.
/. is part of VA Linux machine, how does this change anything? I have noticed no serious differences in the news since I first started reading /. in May 1998 (except for the trolls, but they are the price to pay for success). I have not noticed a "boy, ain't VA great" slant. The people the frequent /. (except the trolls; I would like proof that they are people before calling them that) are generally smart enough to say, "Hey, this isn't the /. I started reading!" The niche /. fills is an ugly one for many companies to fill: catering to a minor of intelligent people who won't put about with garbage". It is easier for a company to mass produce garbage and appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses (Microsoft, anyone?) than it is to appeal to the intelligent minority - besides the fact that the intelligent minority are just that - a minority.
/. change? The formula that Cmdr Taco and the rest have used has made them (and, now, VA Linux) a good chunk of $$$ and a great site for most of us. Why change that?
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
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
UBU
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
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.
sulli
RTFJ.
1) You are exactly right. The argument "It's Rob's baby, he can do what he want" is (no longer) no more valid than "It's Rupert Murdoch's baby, he can do what he want".
/. rarely does, unless their noses are rubbed in it, despite what Cliff says). Furthermore, some orgs are very good at being objective and accurate. For instance, NPR.
/. editors. Hemos puts an article in there, but it only reaches the front page if someone else signs off on it. In order to sign off on a posting, force a spellcheck and an archive search. If there was a way to force a fact check, I'd mention that as well.
/. editors are getting kind of tired of the shoddier aspects of Slashdot. Listen to their ideas
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.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)