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?
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?
It may be considered the height of objectivity that
you as a conservative find NPR to liberal while
I has a "card-carrying" liberal find it to conservative.
That's usually a good sign of objectivity.
RobK
---
RobK
Myddrin
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!)