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?"

Comments

So they're not up to your standards.

[subVorkian]

"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?

I think it's arrogant and ignorant to impose your values and standards on someone else's free speech. Would you like these sites to conform to your litmus test for accuracy?

I think you're full of shit.

Consider the source...

[mtrupe]

Yeah, I don't put much faith in blogs as news either- they are biased (as is my own The Rupertzone. But that's the point. On the other hand, Drudge, who definately leans to the right, gives the scoop much faster than the New York Times, ABC News, CNN, Washington Post, you name it. These places aren't happy that most web users go to The Drudge Report more often to get the latest breaking news. I've never seen anything posted inaccurately on Drudge's web site. This isn't to say it doesn't happen- I am sure it has.

The established press, or "big media" (Libs like to put the word "big" in front of things to make it sound worse) doesn't like it that individuals have the ability to spread their news and commentary to the worlds just as simply as they can. The more media giants slam sites like Drudge and private blogs, the more they validate the worth of such sites.

Re:Fundamentalists vs. Evolution

[Archangel Michael]

What if the text books you learned from are all wrong. The fact is they are, often quoting sources long since proven wrong.

Evolution hasn't proven its case by a long shot. In fact, much of the evidence evolutionists claim does not prove anything close to Evolution.

Evolution has yet to show any sort of steady change in a species over time, though most of the time they interpret it that way.

Why is there so little variation among the fossil record within a single species (say T-Rex) even though that record supposedly spans millions of years?

Evolutionists ignore the obvious problems with evolution.

Re:Demographics

[blunte]

Actually I stated that the data should be represented anonymously (as in, not with your user).

Picture a "registered /. user demographics" graph along either side of the site. It wouldn't associate you with specific demographics (externally). Nobody except Perl would see your demographics.

Anyway, if you were so worried about your demographics being displayed, you shouldn't be offering up your website. Assuming it's yours, then your name is Katherine X. Xxxxx (obscured for your benefit), you graduated from Binghamton University in New York, you're in your mid 20s, you live in Atlantic City (or you've visited there), and you're a heavy social drinker/partier.

If I were going to let anything affect my opinion of your posts, it would likely be your website that you freely give out.

Incidentally, what little I discovered about you was without doing web searches. Perhaps you should reconsider putting your website as part of your /. information.