[webloggerusergroup] Re: "Journalistic Integrity"...
- info@... writes:
> I don't understand. Are you implying that C|Net should haveWell, if journalistic standards are all that you say they are,
> discarded the second story because it didn't jibe with the first a
> week earlier?
wouldn't a retraction of the first story, or at least an editorial
comment linking the two, as I'd expect to see in a 'blog I trusted.
> Of course, a ton of bloggers didn't bother to check Google beforeI guess this is my real point: That just as I don't trust the Weekly
> spreading that bogus Nostradamus quote around.
World News, or the Washington Post, there are quite a few webloggers I
But for the few 'bloggers I do trust, I expect that I get a higher
quality of data, faster, and with more of a chance of seeing a
retraction if they discover that they're wrong, than with mainstream
> > Although I think JRobbhttp://jrobb.userland.com/ , one of the two speculating people Dave
> Who is JRobb?
Winer quoted yesterday. Incidentally, Dave is the only person on my
daily reads who was printing speculation or speculating.
> But a lot of emphasis has been placed upon how weblogs are somehowHere's where we differ. At their worst, weblogs are much like the
> better, revolutionary even. I just don't see it. At best, weblogs
> are just as awful as the traditional media.
Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. Good primarily for
But at their best, webloggers are more likely to be domain experts and
more likely to be intelligent than your average journalist.
As I see it, the only thing weblogging does is spread out the
bell-curve, making it more likely that there'll be more area under
both ends, and less in the middle, and makes the authors individually
accountable for what they write.