> I don't understand. Are you implying that C|Net should have
> discarded the second story because it didn't jibe with the first a
> week earlier?
Well, if journalistic standards are all that you say they are,
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 before
> spreading that bogus Nostradamus quote around.
I guess this is my real point: That just as I don't trust the Weekly
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/
> Who is JRobb?
, one of the two speculating people Dave
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 somehow
> better, revolutionary even. I just don't see it. At best, weblogs
> are just as awful as the traditional media.
Here's where we differ. At their worst, weblogs are much like the
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.