Hee hee! Anyone who doesn't think that "citizen journalism" is the wave of the future, raise your hand!
Thanks to all of you guys, it's really, really great to get a real take on the news. Thanks to blogs I can pick my content. Yes, it's filtered through my own myopia, but most of you guys force me to at least glance at what the other side is saying.
That's more than can be said of the print and TV media.
Keep on, keep on. Ya'll are doing one hell of a job.
I especially like how Bucks County PA is "the Hinterlands." To anyone who knows their ass in NYC, they'd know that Bucks County is where the REAL wealthy of Manhattan flee on the weekends--it's closer than the Hamptons, and more low profile. The only people who drive the five hours to the Hamptons are people who want to be seen with Billy Joel.
The NY Times: Good enough to roll up and spank someone with. Otherwise, why bother?
The above poster has it right. Even without the advent of blogs the unfading, easily accessed colective memory we share on the net makes fabrications and the more frequent strategic ommissions untenable. This is also the corrective to the "accuracy problem" of blogs, such as it is. Finally there is a response to that old gag; "Don't take on anyone who buys ink by the barrel." It is of course, "Ink? What's 'ink'?"
You guys have hit the nail on the head in one very important respect: people claim regularly that weblogs don't have the "fact checking" that traditional media does. The truth is just the opposite: fact-checking is better in the blogosphere than in any medium in history. That's right, any medium in history. Because webloggers form a system of peer review that exposes falsehoods, half-truths, distortions, and missing data faster than any medium in history.
It's the power of peer review, and no newspaper or television organization can come even close to matching it.
Hee hee! Anyone who doesn't think that "citizen journalism" is the wave of the future, raise your hand!
Thanks to all of you guys, it's really, really great to get a real take on the news. Thanks to blogs I can pick my content. Yes, it's filtered through my own myopia, but most of you guys force me to at least glance at what the other side is saying.
That's more than can be said of the print and TV media.
Keep on, keep on. Ya'll are doing one hell of a job.
Blogs all the way, you screw up...everybody knows, you lie...everybody knows, you twist the truth and say 'you never said that'....everybody knows.
The internet has everlasting memory, may Google be blessed,....
The Truth Shall Set Thee Free!
That's cool.
I especially like how Bucks County PA is "the Hinterlands." To anyone who knows their ass in NYC, they'd know that Bucks County is where the REAL wealthy of Manhattan flee on the weekends--it's closer than the Hamptons, and more low profile. The only people who drive the five hours to the Hamptons are people who want to be seen with Billy Joel.
The NY Times: Good enough to roll up and spank someone with. Otherwise, why bother?
The above poster has it right. Even without the advent of blogs the unfading, easily accessed colective memory we share on the net makes fabrications and the more frequent strategic ommissions untenable. This is also the corrective to the "accuracy problem" of blogs, such as it is. Finally there is a response to that old gag; "Don't take on anyone who buys ink by the barrel." It is of course, "Ink? What's 'ink'?"
You guys have hit the nail on the head in one very important respect: people claim regularly that weblogs don't have the "fact checking" that traditional media does. The truth is just the opposite: fact-checking is better in the blogosphere than in any medium in history. That's right, any medium in history. Because webloggers form a system of peer review that exposes falsehoods, half-truths, distortions, and missing data faster than any medium in history.
It's the power of peer review, and no newspaper or television organization can come even close to matching it.