The Failure of Tech Journalism

Belzebutt writes: "This is a great article that talks about something we already knew, but haven't paid that much attention to: most tech journalists are a bunch of corporate whores. It even mentions Slashdot, although not very favorably." Eh, we'll get over it. It's a good rant, something to consider as news sites fold left and right.

Comments

Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire?

[BigBlockMopar]

that talks about something we already knew, but haven't paid that much attention to: most tech journalists are a bunch of corporate whores.

Of course. Well, tech journalists are usually going to write for tech periodicals, which sell advertising to tech firms. Predictably, that makes them about as impartial as Car and Driver magazine.

So, the bigger point is this: which do I, as an informed and newsreading consumer, trust? Slashdot, which is an arm of VA Linux, or MSNBC?

Hmmm...

It even mentions Slashdot, although not very favorably

He does hit home on an irritating issue. Much of the moderation here appears to be done based on whether or not the moderator personally agrees with you, regardless of how intelligent or relevent your comments may be. This is a subtle evolution of the "luser who uses Windoze" quote from the NetSlaves author. It's rare that Microsoft does something right, of course, but when it does, it's nice to be able to discuss it rationally. Meta-Moderation should address that, but as long as human beings are involved, impartiality will be unattainable.

Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire?

[BigBlockMopar]

MSNBC have proven themselves to be pretty damn impartial. Slashdot cannot claim that. At all.

Yeah. They're pretty impressive in that regard.

Similarly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is funded by the Canadian federal government. And, similarly, they've managed an impressive record of impartiality to our government's ineptitude.

However, I'm sure that a single telephone call from Jeen Poutine could slash the CBC's funding, and that must weigh on the back of the mind of the editors and reporters there. Certainly, when I freelanced for the CBC, it was strictly verboten for CBC employees to have lawn signs supporting election candidates at any level.

Uncle Bill must wield similar authority over MSNBC. While MSNBC certainly covers Microsoft flaws, it seems to be a little toned down compared to ABC or CBS for example. And CNN, with its AOL ownership, seems to be harder on Microsoft.

Maybe it's subliminal to the staff, but it's there. Compare the coverage very carefully next week when a new Microsoft vulnerability imperils the Internet.

Now, why doesn't it matter that Slashdot is *not* impartial? Because that's the format. That's what's expected. You trust the comments only slightly more than Usenet postings. After all, Slashdot actively solicits opinions from its readership, and those make up the bulk of the news coverage.

Re:Feh. VA Linux or the Evil Empire?

[quartz]

What's wrong with their motto? I thought all nerds hate Windows. :) No really, of course they're as Linux-biased as they get, as they readily admit it themselved. Nothing wrong with that. Slashdot is not the New York Times and it will never be. It's not even a newspaper, even though they have Jon Katz on staff (or maybe *because* they have Jon Katz on staff?) - it's just a weblog. AFAIK no one from the Slashdot editorial team ever claimed to be objective, or even that what they're doing is journalism. So where's the problem? It's a weblog, it's free, if you don't like it, just move on. There are tens of thousands of weblogs on the web to choose from.

Read at -1. Find out what THEY don't want you to know!

Oh *please*. Slashdot at -1 is like a cross between a kindergarten, a federal prison and a mental institution. No thanks.

Thank Taco for the moderators

[Redline]

Much of the moderation here appears to be done based on whether or not the moderator personally agrees with you, regardless of how intelligent or relevent your comments may be.

I don't know how true this really is. I usually browse at +2, and slashdot is reasonably nice to read. And I see a moderate (heh) amount of slashdot/editor/moderator/linux bashing. Since unpopular opinions *do* get through the moderation process, I figured all was right in the world. But recently, I decided to see for myself how "censored" slashdot comments really are. I spend a week browsing at -1, flat.

It was nightmare.
Barely intelligible racial and sexual slurs. ASCII art (what is this? An 1980s bbs?) Offtopic rants about censorship that were modded <gasp> offtopic! Porn, violence, profanity, ad nauseum. One could list for days the horrors that go on (and on) in AC land. I won't bore anyone with the details. (But don't take my word for it, it's there for anyone with the courage to see.)

Sure, there was the occasion funny or insightful post that was labeled incorrectly by humourless or thick-headed moderators, but they were few. Nothing seemed to have been unjustly downgraded.

So thank you, unsung slashdot moderators. As much as the editors, story submitters, and insightful comment makers, *you* make slashdot a place worth visiting. Without your tireless efforts, I would have given up on this site full of teenage potty-mouths months ago. Keep up the good work!

Now I am returning to the relative safety of +2, threaded. :)

Re:Confusing Journalism

[cybrthng]

CmdrTaco is "harboring" the biased opinions by

A) Being a hidden auditor of everything slashdot
B) Not doing anything change the problem.

The problem is, people think that this is a weblog and fairly moderated.

1. Most mod points go to jokes - har har funny funny, we have heard it before.

2. Other mod points go to karma hunters posting links or mirroring articles.

3. Good articles with REAL opinions are moderated up and then flamebaited and then modded up and flaim bated again.

I think if slashdot wants to be unbiased then an article starts out at 1, can only get modded Down ONCE, modded up 4 times and therefore if SOMEONE likes your idea its modded up, and if someone doesn't like it it is only modded down, but it would take more people understanding the topic to mod up then more people trying to screw things up modding it down.

Slashdot is far from the fair weblog you conceive.

He's got some confusion

[sbeitzel]

He brings up some very good points -- and the sort of backhand at Slashdot isn't anything that hasn't been said and nodded at by everyone here, and yeah, I'm sure we'll all get over it. Where he runs into a problem, though, is in his amusing assertion that the "legitimate" media [characterization is mine, not a quote] have and adhere to these standards of ethics. That's laughable. I wish I could find the references now, but I don't remember whether it was in the San Francisco Chronicle or the San Francisco Bay Guardian that I read about the publishing policy at the Los Angeles Times a few years ago -- where the publisher overruled the editorial staff and declared that no articles that were antagonistic to the advertisers would be run.

It's true of every news organ that the subscription fees (if any) do not even come close to financing the business. News outlets, whether they're radio, television, print, or online, are not actually in business for the reader. It's the same old story, guys: Follow the Money. The people who are actually making these "news" organs into profitable businesses are the advertisers, and don't think that the editorial and publishing staffs don't know this. They know exactly who their customers are. The customers are the advertisers. And their product is their subscriber base. The way they manufacture their product is to spew forth infotainment designed to keep their product's infamously short attention span focused on the medium long enough to score an ad impression.

The only part of this article that I really disagree with is his holier-than-thou attitude. Yeah right, offline media have ethics. Go watch The Insider and look at how 60 Minutes -- big guns in traditional media, I'd say -- sucked up to tobacco.

If you're in journalism, you're a whore. So what? We're mostly not down on prostitution around here, so long as we get our share. Here's fifty bucks; suck on this.

Re:Wow

[juuri]

You know I am sick of this belief that slashdot is "Taco's Bookmarks". Yes this may have been the case years ago but once Slashdot grew into a commerical entity it lost the right to be judged so lightly.

Slashdot grew into something more than was intended. Once of the assets of slashdot listed in the "value" of owning it was the loyal readership. A loyal readership which views lots of ADs and contributes all of the content to make the site work. But what do we get in return?
Complaints ever answered? No.
Stable environment? No.
Fact checking? No.
Any level of real effort put forth? Nope.

So who is the sucker here? Those of us that continue to come back despite these problems? Or those that think this is the best we can get? Just once I would like to see one of the editors (besides Hemos) actually comment and contribute back to the discussions. And hey how about apologizing for only putting forth 15 minutes of effort a day into a site which pays them pretty well?