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?
/. 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.
If you look at television media you have anchors ... the anchor is a very importent [sic] person. They are totally neutral about the news they report.
This is quite untrue. In the first place, anchors really aren't even journalists; they're actors. When was the last time you saw Dan Rather walking the streets of NYC with nothing more than his wits and a laptop, tracking down a story?
He doesn't do that anymore. Other people, real journalists, track down the stories and do the legwork. Dan Rather is just the guy who "presents" the story. There's a reason why anchors are called "talking heads".
Insofar as their bias... they are terribly, terribly biased. Ever heard of a movie called Network, or maybe Broadcast News? Both of them are reasonably accurate in their portrayal of TV anchors. They can be petty, bitter and vindictive with the best of them.
More than that, anchors don't write their own copy. Their own bias gets compounded with the bias of the copywriter. If the anchor happens to be a Democrat and the copywriter a Libertarian, you can figure out the kind of treatment a conservative Republican is going to get.
Anchors are also professional liars. Remember that: every anchor is a professional liar. When you see the evening news and one anchor makes a joke to the other, and the other anchor laughs at it like it's amusing... it's not amusing. They're about as excited as an organ donor. They rehearse those jokes and bon mots every day. They practice how to laugh so it sounds genuine. A lot of anchor teams who appear to have really good chemistry on-air really hate each other when the cameras are off.
Anchors aren't journalists; they're actors. They aren't honest; they're professional liars. They don't know beans about the stories they cover; they just read the text the copywriter gives them.
How is it you think that anchors are in any way neutral observers and reporters of events?
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!)