Old dogs, meet your new tricks
: Alan Nelson of Command Post gives a great speech to the AP Managing Editors’ confab.
The Rather story illustrates all of these laws
6 responses to “Old dogs, meet your new tricks”
-
‘Will they get it?’
Judging by CBS, there seem to only two possible answers:
a) no, never
or:
b) they already got it but are afraid to say so -
“And it works both ways … when a blogger posts something dubious, those same tens of thousands of readers and mavens quickly debunk and dismiss that information as not factual, and it goes nowhere.”
I’ve worked in the field of Information Processing for almost 3 decades.
The above is the most patently ridiculous thing that has ever been written, in blogging or any reputable media, either one.
I’ve posted this before.
The above is a fantasy, created by infantile bloggers wild imaginations. Although I prolee agree with Command Post on a variety of issues, this is, as I said, blantantly, empirically and just-plain-common-sense-wise:
False.
So how long does this fact take to rise. Well, we’re going on 1.5 to 2 years now.
If I had the time, I’d take any blog (like Dave Winer’s, that’d be a send-up!…;-) and deflate just about every-other post. Blogs are a way of cat-herding, and blogs have cat-herded The PRess for a while now.
That’s why The PRess is ABLE to be so uniformly anti-Bush (formerly “pro-Dean”, now “pro-Kerry”). They’re believing their own PRess, because it’s confirmed through “independent” blogs. Just as it’s confirmed with other “news sources”. The PRess: WE GOTTA GET RID OF BUSH!.. DOESN’T MATTER WHO REPLACES HIM!!.. GOTTA GET RID OF BUSH!!! (Which largely explains how candidates like Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards “rise to the top”, btw. I suspect, in hindsight and icbw, that Lieberman and/or Gephardt would-a tore up Mr. Bush, by process of elimination. Given historical trend in follow-up elections where the voting majority was over-ruled by Electoral College, 3 times in the past. Look at the tepid recommendations by Mr. Kerry’s supporters, like Dr. Weinberger and John Perry Barlow. They were hoping for Dean, anyhoo, and it shows.)
Iow, in MSM and blogs both, bull manure confirms the wisdom of bull manure.
YOU “get it”, Jeff…? YOUR READERS “get it”…??
THERE IS (essentially) NO FACT CHECKING IN EITHER jOURNALISM BUT ESPECIALLY NO FACT-CHECKING IN BLOGS. You can site the 2 exceptions to this rule, all ya want. The “memes” (ie, falsehoods) carry the day, because they are not sufficiently fact-checked and EVEN MORE insufficiently analyzed.
Like the one that World of Ends was a great work, for but one example. It was trash, PURE trash. Look at jes about any blog, with skepticism, and you’ll see my point.
(You fall “in love” with the author, and you CAN’T evaluate the work, which is why blogs are SO GREAT for MARKETING.)
Sorry for pretending to SHOUT IT OUT, but as I said I’ve been ‘saying’ this for months/years.
You see anyone point out the error in this very post here? (Dunno if Command Post allows comments.) Go figure. -
I couldn’t help but observe, Jarvis, that “JamesJayTrouble” was banned from posting the above.
You, being so in favor of “free speech” and all, like all the rest, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind me posting same under my name.
Right? -
J. Toran, I’ve often banned people from my website (which is quite popular on a good day) even when I agreed with the opinions of the poster.
Why? Simple dislike of the person. No more, no less. Life is short. Just because I believe in democracy doesn’t mean I have to give some ill-mannered loser the time of day.
I have been watching people leave comments on Jeff’s site for a while and it utterly APPALLS me what some of them say… and I assure you, I would ban a lot of them of them on my site far sooner than he.
Jeff may have his biases and his foibles, so do we all. But in terms of effort expended, Jeff tries to be as open, informed, balanced, honest and fair minded as any blogger I know (and I know a lot of them).
If Jeff bans you, believe me, it’s not because of your opinions differing with his own. It’s because somewhere along the line you forgot your manners- which let’s face it, is rather unbecoming in a person over a certain age. People who are smart enough to follow Jeff’s blog have no excuse for it, really.
Any fool can use the passive-aggressive “free speech” snark attack. And a lot of fools do. -
So, JT, are the opinions expressed in the first post “J.Toran’s” or “JamesJTrouble’s” or both?
I’ve worked in the field of Information Processing for almost 3 decades.
Okay…
The above is the most patently ridiculous thing that has ever been written, in blogging or any reputable media, either one.
Ignoring the rhetorical excess (“most patently ridiculous thing that has ever been written” covers a lot of ground!), please elucidate…
I’ve posted this before.
I’ve posted things before, too. Doesn’t make ’em accurate :-)
The above is a fantasy, created by infantile bloggers wild imaginations…
Okay, opinion followed by ad-hominem. Continue…?
Although I prolee agree with Command Post on a variety of issues, this is, as I said, blantantly, empirically and just-plain-common-sense-wise:
False.
More rhetoric. You already said that. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU?
So how long does this fact take to rise.
Haven’t seen any facts yet. Just opinion and rhetoric.
Well, we’re going on 1.5 to 2 years now.
And if this is what’s been going on for “1.5 to 2 years,” I’m not surprised Jeff got fed up with it.
If I had the time, I’d take any blog (like Dave Winer’s, that’d be a send-up!…;-) and deflate just about every-other post.
And if you’d been doing that, instead of just ranting, you might have a bit more credibility.
Just a reminder: “Free speech” means you’re free to speak. Doesn’t mean that somebody else has to provide a forum for you, or that they have to listen. HTH.
-
Thanks for the compliment, Jeff. It’s high praise.
