Comments on: Curious WSJ Attack on Blogs

By: DenkaOlssen

DenkaOlssen — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:40:22 +0000

Некоторые бесплатные порно ролики порнография смотреть видео извращенецы фото видео шлюхи скачать видео хамзинский район шлюхи польские шлюхи порнофильмы длЯ скачки фотогалерея секс животными шлюхи города клин vrotmnenogi

By: Does Social Media Make You Dumb? « @Revolution: New Economy & Global Business Trends

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:37:02 +0000

[...] Posted on September 13th, 2007. The “Mainstream Media” has had somewhat of an antagonistic relationship with “New Media”. Journalists have bemoaned blogging on several occasions, stating simply that “Journalism requires journalists”. Once again journalists are gracing us with another study linking the success of the social news sites to the downfall of society.The study, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), compared the mainstream media’s headlines for one week against those of a host of user-news sites. Specifically: “PEJ took a snapshot of coverage from the week of June 24 to June 29, 2007, on three sites that offer user-driven news agendas: Digg, Del.icio.us and Reddit. In addition, the Project studied Yahoo News, an outlet that offers an editor-based news page and three different lists of user-ranked news: Most Recommended, Most Viewed, and Most Emailed. These sites were then compared with the news agenda found in the 48 mainstream news outlets contained in PEJ’s News Coverage Index.” [...]

By: Does Social Media Make You Dumb?

Does Social Media Make You Dumb? — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:12:12 +0000

[...] The “Main Stream Media” has had somewhat of an antagonistic relationship with “New Media”. Journalists have bemoaned blogging on several occasions, stating simply that “Journalism requires journalists”. Once again journalists are gracing us with another study linking the success of the social news sites are fueling the uninformed masses. [...]

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:54:03 +0000

I don’t see how someone who hired a professional writer for some of the same reasons this guy is outlining can find this pronouncement curious.

I think the guy’s absolutely right; most blogs are complete shit. This is one of the very very very very few exceptions.

The guy commenting above me, Thomas, hits it pretty well on the head, as do others.

The function of well over 90% of blogs is to pull together stories that they steal from MSM outlets into one niched place on the internet, along with some irrelevant and pretentious commentary by the author that no one cares about, along with some even more irrelevant and unimaginably pretentious commentary in the comments section that -really- no one cares about.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:55:42 +0000

I have to agree with the article. Bloggers provide commentary.. NOT journalism. Bloggers comment on stories that others have researched and put together. It’s a rare occasion to see a blog post that gives an actual journalistic report rather than just linking to another article.

Don’t get me wrong, I think blogs are very valuable for their commentary. But if you’re a blogger, please don’t think that makes you an equal to a MSM journalist too!

By: arghyle » Blog Archive » Links

arghyle » Blog Archive » Links — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:16:30 +0000

[...] The WSJ hates blogs [...]

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:15:39 +0000

“The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.”

Rather like this post, no? Two sentences of blogger commentary attached to two paragraphs of quoted MSM commentary.

By: bonkydog

bonkydog — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:54:59 +0000

You didn’t expect pompous nonsense from the WSJ Opinion page? You must not read it very often.

Or like, ever.

By: Matt Terenzio

Matt Terenzio — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:53:46 +0000

Interesting, Mike. I posted some time back about Blogs being like the remora, but in my example it was to point out that the Shark doesn't eat the remora because it's a symbiotic relationship. The WSJ neither understands the shark/remora relationship, nor the blogger/MSM one, I guess.

By: patricia

patricia — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:28:15 +0000

Interesting. It must be very difficult, having this mindset, to then see such deplorable outlets attract the same thing media does – advertisers, scoop, PR pitches and recognition from business as value. Ouch. I don’t blame journalists for being pissed – afterall, they paid all that money for college and here others who are just as good at writing – but maybe went to school for something else (or not at all) – are taking away their eyeballs.