Slashdot Mirror
Blogging for Dummies?
Guinnessy writes "Wired News reports that one of the most respected journalism schools in America is going to be teaching blogging as part of next semester's course. I find this quite interesting, especially considering the existing controversy over whether blogging, such as Slashdot, is real journalism or not. I still haven't made up my mind." "Blog" now takes the cake as the most ill-used word of 2002. Please draw distinctions between webpages with news, mindless link propagation, discussion sites, personal diaries or journals, etc.
From when nntp servers to the presnent day?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I don't believe Slashdot is a BLOG. I would call it a portal myself. Then again, I don't see the academic value of teaching blogging. For the most part it is just a personal journal or diary. Then u have those "script kiddie" sites with links, and mindless posts about nothing. Oh well.
Newspapers are believed do to credibility and for the most part unbiased reporting. Credibility can be established by reporting accurately, truthfully, and by keeping current with the events. Slashdot has a bit of sensationalism along with opinnions and sometimes unreliable sources that prevent me from believing everything I read on it. If a person can establish themselves as reliable source of information then I believe a blog can be true journalism.
Who in their right mind would call Slashdot a "blog"? Blogs to me have always been personal journals. Slashdot is more professional than personal, though it doesn't fit well into either category. Maybe it's just that I find /. useful, and journals self-centered and annoying. =P
Off-topic? =)
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
Blog is just a stupid word.
Slashdot is where I get a (slight) majority of my news, at least tech related. I certainly think of it as journalism. I also get quite a bit of news from Kuro5hin, another weblog type site that I consider journalistic. I usually hear about news stories on one of these sites before they show up in the mainstream press. Sometimes the mainstream press takes a week or two longer than the weblogs.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Be careful what you say in your online site. After all, we all know that you have to be paid in order for it to be considered REAL journalism with 1st ammendment protection...
/ 16 24241&mode=thread&tid=153
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/15
This may be a great thing. It somewhat officially broadens what an important institution considers journalism.
Isn't that redundant?
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
In my (albeit brief) investigations into the personal diary style of blog I seem to have found a correlation between being a female PD blogger and the ownership of a cat. Any suggestions why?
Where are the dog people?
What is the inverse of the Matrix?
Please draw distinctions between webpages with news, mindless link propagation, discussion sites, personal diaries or journals, etc. ... sounds like he's describing /.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Another crap word of the year.
How come when someone posts unimpressive, uninteresting, tiresome blogs about their day at work/school/home, they receive an abundance of comments for that blog, but when someone posts a real good thought-provoking blog, the number of comments left for it barely even exceeds zero? Do people feel intimidated? Or do they just have no brain and cannot be bothered to come up with a response? It is nice to see that a few people take some initiative and comment, as small as that number of people may be. Except slashdot, where it's all goatse and bearded linux hippies.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Slashdot may be bloglike in its listing of news. However, I have come to the conclusion Slashdot is so much more than a blog because (a) as others have pointed out it is not so personal and acts as a portal to news sites but more importantly (b) there are forums through comments such as these, which make Slasdot so much more than a blog.
Forget the class and just take a basic class on spelling and grammer!
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
Freedom of the press is one of the most cherished freedoms we hold in this country (the US). It, hopefully, is the 4th branch of government that keeps all other branches in check through close scrutiny.
:-) are set up to print news as it comes with only the lightest of editing.
Lately, however, such scrutiny has become non-existent. Whether this is a result of the 9/11 attack and its subsequent Arab bashing or because powerful entities with ties to liberal political movements (Ted Turner) have bought out all the major news outlets is up in the air. If anything, it's probably a combination of both factors. These days we see nothing but carefully crafted 'news' and air-brushed reporters and anchors on the tube. The real news gets lost somewhere on the cutting room floor.
So where can we get our news now without the Big Brother Filter working overtime? The main source is the Web. Sites like the Drudge Report, NewsMax, and IndyMedia (not to mention our own new-anarchist Slashdot
So what comes out of this new media? Frankly, crap for the most part. However, hidden deep in the headlines are jewels of information and true news. Unfortunately these gems are surrounded by conspiracy theories and crackpot reporting that it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. That's the problem with the new media.
The benefit of the new media (or blogs as the article incorrectly calls it) is that discussion of the topics at hand can begin almost immediately. Slashdot.org is a great example because after each story the readers can chime in with their own comments and insights or provocations. In short, it is news by consensus. Not too shabby.
I have been pwned because my
"Please draw distinctions between webpages with news, mindless link propagation, discussion sites, personal diaries or journals, etc"
No. I won't. And you're somewhat screwed up to think a word's popular use, lending itself to a definition, should change simply because it's too broad. A word, part of language, can encompass many topics and things. That's why we use them.
The single word, blog, can mean all of those types of pages. If you want better distinctions, find another word, came up with another word and hope it becomes part of popular language (you've contributed before with a term, e.g. the slashdot effect), or use language (words, usage, formatting) to clarify the distinctions you seek.
A square is (or you're case, wait, that's too broad) a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. Caucasion, human. Web pages, or slashdot.org.
Calling slashdot a blog, or calling it journalism.
A "blog" is an online diary. Just because it's a "journal", doesn't make it journalism, by the practical definition. Hopefully, this school is teaching the difference.
My first reaction is: "Great, just when I thought the trend of whining bohemian teenagers was on the decline, more fascinating online drivel about how the Offspring sold out". Rethinking it, though, maybe the internet will take more shape as a source of alternative media. Televised news is a joke, newspapers almost all suck (besides the Indypendant or the National Review, I can't think of any worth a read), the clearchannel or the radio, whatever it's called, is getting more silly by the day...maybe a large group of "bloggers" seeking out stories and drawing the lines between them will form a perfect source.
I mean, the WTO protests in Seattle a few years ago had TV/radio/Newspapers reporting protestors rioting, and cops using almost no force against them. Personal accounts contradicted this and soon after, video and photos turn up on the internet of cops firing rubber bullets into crowds of people sitting on the sidewalk, tear gas canisters flying and even one cop ripping someone's gas mask off to pepper-spray(?) him. Who would know, if not for the fact that individuals spread the word independantly, that quite a few innocent people had been lumped in with the couple of assholes that kept showing up on CNN?
You can't take an individual's opinion as fact, but the same could be said of major news outlets. Similarly, you can't expect those major news stations to fess up when some stories don't add up, or are mysteriously omitted. If enough people start reporting what they see, eventually we'll get a much larger idea of what is really going on around here.
There was a pretty good article about the "blogosphere" a week or two ago. Very long, and relatively interesting, especially if you are interested in blogs, journalism, news, and that sort of thing. If you have a blog, you might like it too. If you are interested, I've got interview questions sent off to John Hiler, the author of the blogosphere article. I think he'll be getting back to me in a few days. I'll have the interview posted on WebWord.com soon after that.
There was also another story making the rounds about a week ago about making a living from blogging. I was expecting a lot more from it, i.e., some real details on "how to do it", but it was still a reasonable article. It might give you some ideas. Mileage may vary.
Last link whore comments: If you haven't seen Blogdex or Daypop, you might want to check them out. Very nice tools to see what it hot in the world of weblogs.
How to Download YouTube Videos
"most respected journalism schools "
I dont know about you... but I dont have much respect for journalists - nor berkeley...
I find that journalists have about as much integrity as lawyers and politicians. I guess thats why those groups run the world... little cunning bastards that do anything for a buck.
First of all, Michael is right..."blog" has become extremely overused, much like "P2P." But that's besides the point.
Merely linking to news does not equal journalism. Slashdot isn't journalism. Kuro5hin isn't journalism. Yahoo's Full Coverage site isn't journalism. Hell, Fark isn't journalism. They are link farms. They find and post links to actual news stories across the world. While this makes for an easy-to-read digest of news and information, it does not mean the site becomes a seeming bastion of original journalism.
Real journalism, IMHO (speaking as one), is going out, researching a story, interviewing people, and putting together a concise unbiased story (keep your media bias arguments until the end of class kids). Journalism is not posting a link to a news story elsewhere, and then adding your own personal opinions or thoughts. While the Berkeley school is trying to avoid this, putting a "blog" label on it won't make any difference. Major news sites, like the New York Times and the Washington Post already post their news to the Internet in real time. Some even include "Comment on this story" links as well.
Take away the personal opinions and rambling links, and you don't have a so-called "blog." You have an online news site, just like the big boys. Calling it a "blog" doesn't give any more "hipness" or credibility.
I wish everyone would get over this stupid "BLOGS ARE THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM" crap. You know what? They aren't.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
This is a real Blog [http://www.blog.com]
It can't really be called journalism. There is no investigating or interviewing involved. It's just an endless stream of links and editorials. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just not the New York Times.
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
Hey, colleges and universities have to encorporate something that is A) Related to the Present and B) Something easy that even a 1/2 wit can Ace.
And Weblogs, aka 'Blog's, are just that and then some. I must say I like to occasionally sift through someone's online journal or 'Blog', but 1/2 the time I find myself wondering 'Why is this person complaining?' and 'Where did this person get the idea that people would want to read this stuff?' (that would make me guilty I guess.) and last, but certainly not least, 'Where in the [heck] did this person learn english?'
But to defend that last curiousity, we can blame the net, (or even D-Dials if you really want to push it), for the lack of educational value when it comes to the written word, namely english. Even I can not concider myself an english major, nor will I even attempt such a bogus statement, but geez, compared to some sites, I could fall into thinking that I'm an English Language God of sorts. =)
But the end result, it just smells like college teachers are just looking for things to make them 'Hip' and 'in the know' of the present, and it will last a few years till the fad dies down, then it will be tossed into your Local Junior College's Adult education class catalog, right under 'Potery'.
( Disclaimer - Potery is not Bad, Pot maybe, But Potery is not, unless of course your a complete and under freak, then maybe even breathing would be a class with too much of a curve for you. Anyways...)
======
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides
This isn't exactly related but then again maybe it is....Is it marketing or journalism?
It can be tough to decide how to define something. A blog is a blog is a blog. The material posted by kids about their lives might mean nothing to you but everything to that kid and his/her peers. If you don't like it, move along. Call it a journal or call it something else. Call it a blog, or not. Fine.
On the other hand, there are some "industrial strength" blogs out there. At a minimum, this is going mainstream, for better or worse. For example, there are blogs written by folks that are employed by Macromedia. Examples...
Mike Chambers (Flash MX):
http://radio.weblogs.com/0106797/
Vernon Viehe (ColdFusion MX):
http://vvmx.blogspot.com/
Matt Brown (Dreamweaver MX):
http://radio.weblogs.com/0106884/
And then there a blogs by the professional folks at MSNBC:
Eric Alterman: Altercation
Michael Moran: World Agenda
Cosmic Log: Alan Boyle's Diary
Chris Matthews: Hardball
Jan Herman: The Juice
How to Download YouTube Videos
I'm here for the blog.
Mr.Blog sent me.
There is a wild Blog loose in the theater...RAR!
...and it's been there since the Seattle WTO protests. www.indymedia.org.
I think that it is good that they are not presuming a hard, definite distinction between the various things people call a blog and "real news."
:)), and not carrying others, the person who simply maintains a links page does a very similar service. What other people are saying, even if the thing they are saying is news, is news in-and-of-itself. Calling it mindless link propagation as Michael does, reflects an unjustified contempt for a whole avenue of expression.
After all, a journalist who writes a story is just commiting their own observations to print. Is this so very different from linking to what someone else wrote? By placing the links in a certain order, by carrying certain stories (but never the ones I submit
Personal experiences in a personal journal are news to somebody. After all, NY Times Editorials are definitely news. I don't see a hard distinction here.
Discussion sites may not reflect public opinion in a "scientific" fashion, but they do reflect public opinion, and public opinion is news. Anecdotes, often shared on such sites, are also news. They can also propogate links and contain excerpts from people's personal ruminations (like what you are reading right now.)
Since all of these things are news, they are all webpages with news. Having temporarily accepted Michael's sub-division, I now reject it, and from hereon out I will just say blogs.
They'll also debate whether blogs are "a sensible medium for doing journalism, and what does that mean?"
Feh! What horseshit. Who cares? I think people should spend less time debating what things mean, and more time being ironic. If you can wildly contradict yourself in a single sentence, that is best, but cognitive dissonance can only be a good thing, however long your text may run.
If it isn't a legitimate medium for doing journalism, we need to find a way to legitimise it, because people are going, increasingly, to be getting their information from blogs. Unless you want to take the stance that what people read and think is not legitimate (common in academia) you've got no choice.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
That a journalist's work has to first pass through the scrutiny of his peers and his editors is a key factor in assuring the quality of published information. Blogging might be journalism, but it's Rambo-style -- one man for himself, whatever he writes, gets published. When you're talking about something like the BBC, CNN, or the Wall Street Journal, letting reporters publish on-the-fly might give individuals too much control over what sort of information makes it to the public.
Now with the Internet growing as a major distribution point for news, perhaps the future will bring us a merger of 'traditional' journalism and web logs: real-time news that, while still going through the standard editing channels, is published as soon as it's put in. The idea of releasing news each day may fade away from the Internet entirely, leaving us with news sources that publish news as soon as it happens. It'd be one more (small) step towards a truly networked form of human civilization.
Slashdot is not a "blog"; neither it is a news site. It is a discussion site. It is a meeting place where a group of people with, mainly, similar interests come together to talk about certain issues. The meeting is usually moderated, and people with good things to say are heard, and those who wish to troll a shouted down. All news items are "links" to others' news stories. There is no news on Slashdot. The only news comes from the "comments" of the participants. Besides, not everything mentioned on Slashdot is anywhere close to "news".
My 2cents.
Re their integrity, sure--there are some bad apples in every bunch. However, one way journalism is like science is that journalists' output can be checked against the real world. They constantly check up on each other, not out of altruism of course--possibly the reverse, but as long as it works...
As for teaching them to blog or use computers in any way, I don't envy the teachers. Journalists, like lawyers, politicians, preachers, writers, and some/most teachers (the "word-oriented professions"), live and work in a conceptual world that is non-physical.
There seems to be a natural antipathy between word-oriented professionals and machinery. Most word-oriented professionals could, or imagine they could, do their job as well in a non-technical society as in ours. I think it derives from the ancient Greek division between philosophy and work.
This is only a theory. But if you've ever tried to provide tech support to a bunch of reporters you know it's about as easy as convincing cats to become amphibious.
How the editors seem to think that everyone who reads the post automatically knows what they're talking about. How many others had no idea what "blogging" meant?
With so much crap out there, the emergence of blogging (and hell yes, I think Slashdot is a blog, insofar as it is an aggregator of information gleaned from other people's web sites, with opinions about that information tacked on to lend credibility) -- the emergence of blogging has helped create a layer of information above the glut -- meta-glut, you might say, but eventually you come across a site or two (or ten) that you actually trust (like this one), and chances are those sites are likely some form of blog -- some kind of aggregator of information you use to determine what you might actually want to spend your time reading. Statements like "a blog is a diary" are just silly at this point; a blog is what a blog is, and I think we're still learning what that means. As for blogging as journalism -- Nobody but Druge is Drudge, but sadly, most people would like to think of themselves as Drudge or Drudge-like, so you get what we've gotten. As a journalist myself, I'm hesitant to call blogging (even at its best) journalism; at most, you might call it op-ed.
My hunch, in fact, is that considering the various reviews, interviews, and articles, Slashdot's percentage of original content compares favorably with lots of so-called mass media outlets. In fact, it's got a big leg up on mass media insofar as one often finds the people mentioned in the stories, or people with a personal connection to the story, posting comments, giving readers a different perspective on the article. I'm not prone to hyperbole, so I won't call slashdot "visionary" or "groundbreaking" but I do call it "really cool" and, most definitely, "journalism".
Blogs, too, are journalism. Personal diaries may be the most trivial form of journalism, but it is, at least, reporting. It may not be up to the standards of Columbia, or conformant to the AP style guide, but I've read a lot of crap in "real" news outlets and a lot of informative, if non-traditional, reporting on blog sites. In any case, I'm leery of refusing to call blogs journalism, as it plays into the hands of those who would separate "journalists" from the rest of the public and confer upon them rights that are (IMO) properly invested in us all - particularly freedoms of speech and of the press.
Consider the case of Paul Trummel who has been jailed for refusing to take down articles on his website, on the grounds that he is "not really a journalist." Understand why I'm not so keen on drawing a line between "journalist" and blogger?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
After all, is it a set of standards and proceedures for reporting information, or is it just the actual presenting of information that one discovered/uncovered/learned/etc.?
An editoral or opinion piece in many major newspapers are good examples, as some of them have the writers actually out covering some sort of story, whether it be government corruption or international tensions or what have you, but the only difference between the editorals and the articles is that the editorals have the author stating their own personal feelings about it, rather than "Just the Facts, Ma'am." Their opinionated pieces are basically the same as something the a guy posts on his website regarding something important to him.
Similarly, let's say I'm wondering about a topic, so I go out and ask around with some people connected to it, check what records I can find, do fact-checking, and then post my findings on my personal website, would that be journalism? I'm not a professional, and it's posted on a site that's not claiming to be a source of hard news, but all the same, if I followed the same proceedures that any other reporter does, what's the difference if it was read in a newspaper or on the web?
Very few people believe all the read on the 'Net, for good reason. Similarly, very few people believe all they see on TV, as well, also for good reason.
The whole concept of what "blogging" really is seems to a rather pointless debate. News can be reported in any format by any person, really -- the means doesn't make the difference. Teaching blog at a school just seems to me more or less showing students one way that a web site can be run, and not an exercise in some new "cutting-edge" journalism technique.
Matt
It should be titled "Blogging IS for dummies".
Well, if you have to ask then you're still not sure of what your definition of "reall journalism" is yet!
Really though, I think /. technically qualifies as real journalism because not all of the stories are from other sites and sources right?
You're right, I have no clue either.
It was a good book, but mostly just a remake of The Idiot's Guide to Rogering.
like... slashdot?
5 th5n2 th5s ca33s f6r an 6ra3secx 060ent......
3et 4s a33 have a 060ent 6f s53ence f6r the banned.....
handyb4nd3er
What interests me the most is point 3, because most of the time here, people with give their views and opinions of posts. Therefore
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
The levels of irony of your statement just kill me... Who is wasting time?
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
It doesn't take an in-depth analysis of the news story to make journalism. It only needs to be true, correct, and competently addressed even if it's little more than a footnote.
Not everything in a newspaper is a front-page story, you know? News companies have limited space and resources to create and publish those marvellously researched pieces you're so fond of. There are also columns, socials, and those collections of AP/REUTERS notes that you find almost as a margin to the "big news" and compose 90% of what's happening in the world.
"Online news sites" are similar to these last. They condense information as much as possible while trying to give a non-misleading picture of what it is about (and usually fail), so that interested readers can do their own research and find out more.
Blogs with active comment systems are a mix of these with "open-eds" and "letters to the editor".
But Blogs may also be more than just a collection of links. While Slashdot follows this pattern, it's mostly because that's what it does best and/or what the community values (witness the popularity, on the other hand, of Jon Katz).
Kuro5hin, for example, follows more closely the pattern of a magazine or publication. MLPs are similar to the link collections (or AP notes), while the rest of the site is often populated by articles where the links are secondary to the argumentative content... which is in some cases not entirely about the current emotional state of the poster. Original content that is not a substitute for group therapy is possible in a blog, after all.
The advantage of blogs is that they provide an immediate source for the reader to do their research, so they don't necessarily have to accept the incomplete, inevitably misleading piece of news they were given. Users can interact with each other and with the author exchanging sources of research, and even correcting intentional and unintentional errors in the article.
The disadvantage is that, being posted by amateurs, they degenerate into diaries with links... that is, a throughly unentertaining and unresearched "opininion column" on electronic media.
Communities formed around these throughly biased weblogs (witness Slashdot), and will react against the removal of that bias because it gives them "a sense of community". They enjoy the non-journalistic flavor of the blog, but that does not mean a journalistic endeavor cannot benefit from the blog format. Rather, it means it must resist the temptation of pandering to the public which is probably greater than in other formats because of the greater level of feedback.
A journalistic "blog" should not foster that bias and would probably be unable to provide any "sense of community" while being competent in the journalistic sense, but one or many biased communities could be "resident" in a journalistic blog, though, much in the same way Clans or Guilds are specific to some online games.
I agree with you, though. Blogs are not the future of journalism, nor should they be. Hyperlinks are the future of journalism and should be the present; Blogs are just one of the ways of getting that into the heads of stubborn journalists half a century too late.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
It's just an endless stream of links and editorials.
Most newspapers are just endless streams of newswire stories and editorials, what's the difference?
i'm not an 'net expert like some /.'ers, but i thought it was common knowledge that blogs were personal things....
As far as journalism goes, I have a little more expertise. Sites like slashdot are best compared to the old 'reader's digest' type publications that collected interesting articles from other sources and combined them with some original content. It's worth study in a journalism class, but I don't think it merits it's own corses/majors and such.
Thank you Dave Raggett
a blogging site, running a story about another blogging site not being real journalism.
lunky> c++; lunky> do{;}
That's an odd reminder to make; surely it's a settled matter for this audience. Consider whether you'd ask a Catholic monk if he thought Catholicism was "real religion." Of course, it isn't as weighty a domain, but in both cases it's about the concept being defined by the usage, rather opposed to the presupposition required of your point.
Slashdot is no less authoritative than CNN and no more than a journalist's daily diary entires, if you let go the notion of a pure objective journalism. Each fulfills a need and an expectation that in the whole provides us with "journalism." Besides, isn't the "blog: is it or isn't it" debate only being conducted through the proxies of media conglomerates? Is a conservative professor going to change my mind about covering any topic I choose and taking advantage of available technology for delivery?
Instead of providing a field for the self-preservation instincts of a AOL-TW, let's embrace the newly discovered (but always extant) complexities of journalism as a given.
It seems only natural for Berkeley to host a class on the topic.
Sure, most blogs are diaries, or opinion, or rant, and blogrolling for the most part is an added value link farm.
But one of the real virtues of blogging by the old media, is the introduction of new feedback loop, the increased immediacy of the the actual report, and the removal of layers between the reporter and participants or analysts.
Have you ever been present at an event reported in the old media? You know then how different your perception, as a participant or as an expert was from the perception as reported by the journalists. What is important about blogs are the discussions and the mailto links that let you converse with the reporter and bring in new information or new perspectives.
In the past, the journalist went to his rolodex of so called analysts (Giga) or so called neutral experts. But there was no such thing as a neutral expert. And in the past you might be able to get your letter written to the editor, but did that really affect the reporting?
Journalistic blogs, those with discussions with the authors or editors are wonderful. Immediate. New feedback loops. The story is reported much more accurately, clearly, and timely. Pros and cons can connect with each other in a dialogue in ways they never could before.
It's a community, it's dialogue, it's no longer a monologue, it's a symbiosis of peers, it's a well informed conversation, not just a well-meaning, pc, overview.
For those of us old enough to remember, the corp-blog phenomenon could turn into an amusing rerun of the mainstreaming of sixties hippie culture by seventies marketing weenies. Macromedia's phrase "the blog strategy" sort of tells it all. The most important thing is sincerity... if you can fake that you've got it made.
We're gonna need a new buzzword pretty soon that means "painfully lame yet expertly produced synthetic blog". I can't think of one at the moment, but then I don't even know what "leet" means.
Hey chicks and dudes, let's rap!
Coming from a country of linguistic puritans (Iceland), I think that it is vital for a language to have a committee of knowledgable people working to come up with new words to describe new things, instead of just accepting every new English term that comes along. That said, the native speakers usually decide amongst themselves if that word is a good addition/suggestion or not, just by using it or not!
:) "Chat" on the other hand is useless as an Icelandic word, and we use "spjall" instead, which means chit-chat...
What's most important is to protect the overall feel and rythm of a language, and having good people dedicated to that cause is applaudable! Why aren't people as worried about languages becoming extinct as they are about animals?
Regarding the word "blog", it seems to have made it into the Icelandic language, as we now have the verb to "blogga" and some people are known as "bloggari". And as far as I know, it only applies to personal blogs and bloggers...
(not to mention our own new-anarchist Slashdot :-) [...] In short, it is news by consensus.
Someone else pointed out that the correct term is "neo-anarchist", and second, it's not really anarchist. It's more of a dictatorship, quite frankly. The articles to be discussed are chosen by an unelected group of editors, and we just get to rant. "News by consensus" would imply that the editors decide collectively which stories will be posted, all stories were unanimously agreed upon, and tossing in the word "anarchist" implies that all participants have a say in which stories are posted, instead of the unchosen few. It sounds a bit harsh, but at 3 am, I can't think of a nicer way to explain it:)
A slightly better example might be Indymedia's features. The center-column stories are developed by individuals or groups, and they're posted and edited on a collective, consensus basis. Anyone may submit a feature to any IMC (generally, it's good to try to make a feature relevant to the local IMC you're submitting to, though this varies greatly), and anyone can get involved in the editing and decision process.
Admittedly, the consensus process breaks down for breaking stories, as someone occasionally takes initiative and posts a hot story in a features column, but editing and development continues collaboratively.
This is mostly based on my observations of and occasional participation in the "global" features collective; some locals have a similar style of features development, some rely heavily on dedicated volunteers to handle development. A few rely on one or two people, simply due to a lack of volunteers.
Newsmax, from what I gather, is like a "traditional" newsroom, only really right-wing, and Drudge is the man himself plugged in to everywhere and posting anything hot. It's his site, dammit, and he'll do what he wants:)
Hashing out new ways of using a powerful medium is fun!
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I see this class as being more about exploring alternative avenues for freelancing then actually being about 'blogging' as a form of journalism.
There is a decreasing number of jobs available full time on newspapers and in television as more media companies merge and cut staff, especially in rural areas.
Hence, a need for journalists to become their own employer, and to create freelance opportunities.
Journalists are also traditionally slow to adopt new technology, and have been particularly apprehensive about the Internet. The blogging class serves two purposes, to give them ideas, and also to show them ways to evaluate Internet information and use new technology.
You refer to the prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the trolls. You believe it's this troll?
There really is very little difference between journalism and blogs in my mind's eye. The "accuracy" or "truth" of any given report is always suspect. In contemporary jounalism the agenda of the reporter is the message.
- It's not just that many bloggers are outside the USA; what if a Yank's web hosting is located outside the USA? If you send libellious material across the Net, does that constitute border-crossing, involving the FBI?
- I'm in the opposite situation - I'm in Ireland, but my blog is hosted in the USA (Utah), so does that mean that I could be liable for prosecution under American law?
"The whole wide world, an endless universe,yet we keep looking through the eyeglass in reverse..."
- Rush: Territories (1984)
(this is not a
When you say 'we', are you talking about 'us' the readers of /. og 'you' the Americans ?
Criticism is not dead over hear in Europe, and that is one of the reasons that Europeans and Americans have such different oppinions about world affairs.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Some get interesting, if the person has a clue.
Most are run by little whiny anti-social hosers who just sit and complain about how bad their life is and how humanity sucks.
You don't have to be a Kreskin, but more than likely, no one gives a flying fsck about your cat or what you did today. (See also: Pointless waste of valuable bandwidth.)
Do you mean to say that it isn't already?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"Please draw distinctions between webpages with news, mindless link propagation, discussion sites, personal diaries or journals, etc. "
;-)
Hey, isn't Slashdot all of that and more?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
'Blog'. From 'Web-log'. The 'log' of which derives from shipping navigation. Sailors would throw a lump of wood - the 'log' - into the water and watch it float past to measure the ship's speed. This was written in a book every day, which became called 'the log'.
'Journal'. From the latin 'Diurnalis', meaning daily. A record kept daily, like a diary, which probably evolves from the same root - latin 'dies', meaning 'day'.
'Journalism': The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
It seems that somehow people putting their journals on the web via a web-log got all up themselves and decided they were 'journalists'. Errr no. Writing a journal does not make you a journalist these days.
The UCB course mentioned in the article looks more like it will teach on-line journalism, but they've buzzworded it with 'blogging' as a PR exercise. These guys know PR, you see.
Baz
Any 'news' site wouldn't have "I wish people would X" type rants at the bottom of their 'stories'. The slashdot staff don't actually contribute any of the information, they just post it in the order it arrives, invariably with a rant attached, like this 'story'. I call that a blog by definition.
What windows/IE versions are you using? It looks rather misshapen in Windows XP using IE6.0.26.
props OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO to al
l the OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OO slash
dot OOtroll s AC or CLIT aOOdolf
hitOOr oll anal cocks anoOOn ym
ouOOs pancake big ass spork OOca
rpOO flounde rston cyborg moOOnk
OOey donkeOO y hote OOegg trolOO
OOl fecal OOtroll maOOtte r fuOO
OOnky trolOOl gaf thOOe horse OO
OOin tearsOO handy bOOundl er OO
OOl0rd karOOiy a metOOr ollica O
OO pr0n kiOOng recipOO e troll O
OO return of the spork serial OO
OOtroll er the turd report troOO
OOllaxo r your mission for todOO
OOay yr0 and all the others! pOO
OOrop OOs to all the slaOOs hdOO
OOot tOOroll s AC or CLIOOT adOO
OOolf OOhitro ll anal coOOcks OO
OOano OO nymous pancake OObig OO
OOass OOspork carp flounOO derOO
OOsto OOn cyborg monkey OOdon OO
OOkey hoOOte egg trollOO fecalO
OO trollOO matter funkOOy trolO
OOl gaf t OOOOOO OOOOO he horsOO
OOe in te OOOOO OOOOOO ars hanOO
dyOO bundler l0rd kariya metOOro
llOOica pr0n king recipe troOOll
retOOu rn of the spork seOOri a
l trOOoll er the turd repoOO rt
troll OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO axor
your mOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OO issio
Go back to turn of the Century, to the 19th Century in fact..
Imagine you are a Newspaper PUblisher..
Where do your Journalists come from?
Ah they came from the first entry level job at a enwspaper publishjer..the paper boyor gopher!
THey got rpomoted becasue they could write to the common man and women..
It is interesting that weblogs and blogs are getting promoted by the internet audience becasue they can write to the common mana, women, and child whereas readership in mainline Press has dwindled..
If I was a Online Journalist paid by TimeWarner, NewsRider, or etc I would be worried about my job..right about now..why? Becasue in a modern society there are4 a lot more people who can write that the small group of journalists..
As the case may be..its part of our jobs so we have to write in an easily understandable way..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
It isn't a blog, but Slashdot appears to be a direct descendant of BBS systems, with a mix of readers and staff posting material from other sources to a web site that facilitates reader comments. I see little evidence of anything approaching journalism here. Most real blogs that I read are more akin to newspaper columns, rather than straight journalism. Again, there's little evidence of real editorial review, but it is interesting that the blogging community has the potential to enforce some degree of fact-checking
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"News by consensus" bothers me, because it seems to imply that the facts of a story will be determined by consensus. Just because a number of people stop arguing about something doesn't make that "thing" a fact. News -- i.e., journalism -- challenges consensual assumptions with accurate, trusted, facts. Yes, something is going on with blogs, but so far, frankly, it appears to be only the webification of office gossip.
Suppose I pick up today's newspaper and point my finger at a story that piqued my interest. Is that journalism? No. Suppose I add a few sentence of personal comment. Is that journalism? Still no. Conceptually, there is no difference between pointing at a story in a newspaper and linking to the same story on a web site. Only the tools are different. And that's not journalism.
Why should I trust unfiltered and unverified statements that propagate from the bottom up? Unfiltered statements and opinions do not represent journalism.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Please fix it.
"My wife told me to clean the garage. I told her -1, Troll."
"My wife told me to clean the garage; I told her -1, Troll."
"My wife told me to clean the garage, so I told her -1, Troll."
Know teckst.
Blogging, it would seem to me is an irrelevant term. Journalism and blogging are synonymous. Slashdot has as much right to calling itself journalism as any other periodical. The difference is that one is professional (they make money), and one is amateur.
Please stop it. I've never seen an interesting one.
I like binary choices. My news sucks, so either a) it's because of 9/11, or b) it's because of the liberals.
Actually, I rather thought that Ted Turner was off the stage at this point, having been told to take a hike by the folks at AOL/TW. I was also surprised to hear his news outfits referred to in the same breath as the word "liberal". If I'm not mistaken, the majority of the government these days is run by conservatives-- and they're getting the nicest treatment you could ask for from the press.
A blog is simply a site where posts are uploaded in a chronological fashion, where each post may or may not include hyperlinks to other pages. To claim that a blog is merely a self-absorbed personal page and nothing more is just poor definition of terms. Slashdot is a blog because it's chronological and it contains links. To muddy up that definition with discussions about "journalism" is to ignore where blogs came from and the intrinsic value of this method of online publishing. I would have expected more reasoned responses from programmers.
Absolutely. I have known several people who hoped to become journalists, that never wrote. That's like saying I want to be a fisherman, but never fish. I believe blogging puts the journal in journalism.
Please draw distinctions between webpages with news, mindless link propagation, discussion sites, personal diaries or journals, etc.
So, which category does Slashdot fall into?
"Blog" now takes the cake as the most ill-used word of 2002.
I hate that word. Can we kill it?
Ver-tel-swoop:
n. pl. vertelswoopen
- The dive of the Mongolian metropolitan wattle bird (vertelus mongolius) as it attacks toupee wearing gentlemen (or ladies)
- The surprise removal of an unsuspecting person's toupee
[Hindi moribund, from Cherokee bagel. See weiner]Does that make this word official now?
www.clarke.ca
The title says it all.
reading bestiality supports terrorism.
I'm assuming Slashdot falls into the "mindless link propagation" category...
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Because fewer languages makes communication easier, while fewer species threatens the continued existence of life on earth.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
You know what? Merely calling yourself a 'journalist' does not make you one. The sad fact is, most journalists aren't journalists at all. 'Talking heads' are a prime example of this, as are the many purported journalists who wouldn't know 'research' if it jumped up and kissed them on the lips.
...and the many web 'blogs' do a fine job, as far as I'm concerned.
As for bias, since when has the major newspapers/radio/TV news reporting ever been unbiased?
Journalism comes in many forms, the purest of which is "the dissemination of information with the intention of keeping the public accurately informed" (my quote, like it?)
Oh, sorry, of course that's a silly question for an indymedia reader.
Good English is not what attracts people to a bloog. Have a look at slashdot. It is pretty much successful site. But how many posts do the creators add? Mostly the contenet is contributed by the visitors... So, the creator's English is not that important.
But what actually attracts people to the blog? First of all interesting and informative content. Not just well written. Hardly anyone will read long articles written in excellent language if they feal bored after three senteces.
On the other hand consider comics who act on the stage. Do many of them have good language. Probably, many. But hardly any of them apply their skills at speaking correctly as a part of their profession. Often pervert language is what makes people lough. So, sometimes ugly or curse language can in fact attract people to the material.
What iis important is crispy language and interesting things to write about, not the correctnes and beauty of the language.