Slashdot Mirror
Wonkette and the Ethics of Online Journalism
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "The New York Times offers up a thought-provoking article ('First With the Scoop, if Not the Truth' - free reg. req.) on Ana Marie Cox, proprietor of the popular inside-the-beltway gossip blog Wonkette. Known for her site's 'gossipy, raunchy, potty-mouthed' coverage of Washington politics, site owner Nick Denton is quoted in the article as saying, 'I think it's implicit in the way that a Web site is produced that our standards of accuracy are lower. Besides, immediacy is more important than accuracy, and humor is more important than accuracy.' Needless to say, such a statement raises some interesting questions about the growing influence of blogs and other non-traditional online news sources. That being said, does the nature of the World Wide Web in fact give sites like Wonkette, Drudge, or even Slashdot a free pass on accuracy if it means the difference between getting the scoop or not?"
brilliant:
... 'I think it's implicit in the way that a Web site is produced that our standards of accuracy are lower, he said. "Besides, immediacy is more important than accuracy, and humor is more important than accuracy."'
you say ''Cox is quoted in the article as saying, 'I think it's implicit in the way that a Web site is produced that our standards of accuracy are lower. Besides, immediacy is more important than accuracy, and humor is more important than accuracy.'''
No she ISN'T
From the article
'The rules of the blogosphere demand displaying corrections quickly and prominently, said Mr. Denton [the publisher of wonkette]
http://milkshake.dexy.org
In the era of Rolling News, Being the first with the scoop is important. In the UK we have 2 major 24/7 channels, News24 (BBC), and Sky News (Murdoch). Sky is usually first with the breaking news, and it drives the News24 editors mad. However their braking news involved stuff like this
1:07: "BREAKING NEWS: Bin Laden Captured"
1:09: "BREAKING NEWS: Bin Laden *not* Captured"
News24 generally waits for a higher standard of conformation before going onair with breaking news, but it's not infalliable.
The BBC also have another rolling news channel, BBC World, which is broadcast everywhere but the UK. Due to its audience it is essential it's accurate. It isn't always accurate, but it's the most accurate, and slowest, rolling news stations I know. It waits for 2 independent sources before breaking a story.
Most readers will naturally flock to a source that reflects their philisophical/political views sure, but do they actually realize they are trading accuracy?
Except in cases of really blatant contradictions of fact, (Canada launches nukes against Mexico, jealous for US affections) then by virtue of holding a particular view, one tends to see thing which reinforce it as true and things which dispute it as false. I doubt there are many people who see it as a tradeoff between their view and accuracy. If they did, they wouldn't hold that view in the first place.
In order to shift that view with truth and real data, you have to somehow present people with a source they will trust, and there are very few of those remaining. In general, I think the trend of increased skepticism is good, and that people should question all sources of news, but if someone holds an extreme view, and counter evidence is published in the New York Times, all they have to do is distrust the New York Times. This isn't a decision to value agreement over accuracy, but rather a perception that the NYT is inaccurate.
Let's remember that Drudge's big breakthrough came when he revealed the Monica Lewinski scandal. This was a verified story that Newsweek
spiked after months of rigorous investigation by Michael Isikoff. Far from getting a pass on accuracy, Drudge was right about a story that mainstream media outlets were censoring for political reasons. It's all very well for these dinosaurs to accuse Drudge of a lack of accuracy, but the irony is that with his breaking news he's been correct and the vast majority of his other articles link to mainstream stories. Drudge is more of a news aggregator than anything else where the stories link to an eclectic mix of media outlets. Claiming he doesn't match their standards for rigor is a bit of a joke considering some of the unconfirmed nonsense that gets published by media outlets. These are the same media outlets who showed us the Iraqi Minister of Information day in and day out without so much as a comment about the veracity of his claims until the M1s rolled into the city. That's not unbiased or even handed reporting, these organizations had reporters advancing on Baghdad and new darned well the claims were false but never explicitly pointed it out.
Dan Rather on CBS announces the Florida election results way too early
It wasn't Dan Rather. It was John Ellis at Fox News...
For those who don't know... John Ellis is the cousin of GW Bush. If the phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind, it unfortunately didn't to the Editors at Fox News.
At least with a newspaper, they'll print a correction. If I hadn't been here, your disinformation would have been recorded for posterity unchecked.