Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
morphine wrote:Don't get me started on this topic.
Even worse, don't get Jeff started on this topic.
DancinJack wrote:I find it funny that there were multiple typo/auto-correct mishaps in the OP. I agree though that this is ridiculous and horrifying. Droid-Life is especially bad. I complain to my friends about that particular "intense Android news community" very often.
slowriot wrote:Plus a site like "Droid Life" really has no pretense of high quality journalism in the first place.
Now a company like Gawker Media who does all of these things plus much, much worse... now that really bothers me.
DancinJack wrote:I find it funny that there were multiple typo/auto-correct mishaps in the OP.
Is it sad that I couldn't get paste the first paragraph?
derFunkenstein wrote:Flatland_Spider: Droid Life routinely breaks Android stories, particularly when it comes to Verizon-exclusive devices. They bear more responsibility than the typical "fan site" in that regard, so they should at least try to write properly.
Welch wrote:Is it sad that I couldn't get paste the first paragraph?
biffzinker wrote:Welch wrote:Is it sad that I couldn't get paste the first paragraph?
Paste huh?
MOSFET wrote:Seriously, Welch, you've given us all a chuckle here. Well I can't speak for all of us, but I've laughed several times at the topic of thread followed by the execution of your quick-typing.
Welch wrote:I usually get a chuckle out of my own posts the next day after I have the inclination to rant about something.
Flatland_Spider wrote:They post everything from their phone?
I either have a very low bar for stuff posted on the Internet, particularly on random websites, or I have very high standards about what qualifies someone to be called a journalist. It might be both.
derFunkenstein wrote:This is their livelihood, so they should take some pride in it. To me that doesn't matter if it's posted on the internet, printed in a magazine or newspaper, or read aloud on TV or in videos.
(edit: those links are all from today. I didn't have to look hard to find horrible "professional" writing)
Krogoth wrote:I blame Web 2.0 and its successors (Tumblr, image boards, blogspheres) for the current state of online journalism. The sad part is that it is only to get worse.
TwoEars wrote:These are news outlets which once prided themselves on remaining neutral and objective, but which now have no problem letting the personal biases and opinions of their reporters shine through in subtile (or less subtile) ways.
TwoEars wrote:I wonder how many old-school investigate fact-driven objective actual journalists there are left in the world, those who solider on have my deepest respect but they seem to be going the way of the dinosaurs. I fear oligarchy and nepotism is what follows next, even more so than now.
TwoEars wrote:"internet killed the journalist" - maybe not so catchy but it might come true, if it hasen't already.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Idiot managers are the real reason. The Internet didn't help anything, but they didn't play to their strengths or iterate on what worked. They chased buzzwords and tried to replicate the "new media" model. I come from a newspaper family, and I've had a front row seat for the whole thing.
Krogoth wrote:I can hear the lamentations of the grammar nazis.
I blame Web 2.0 and its successors (Tumblr, image boards, blogspheres) for the current state of online journalism. The sad part is that it is only to get worse.
Jeff Kampman wrote:The incentives in online journalism right now favor speed and sensationalism above neutrality and good English. 95% of the reader base probably won't get past the headline—much less to the last sentence of the article—just because there are a million other things happening across hundreds of thousands of other platforms. That means sites need to be as attention-grabbing and hard-hitting in their approach as possible.
Copy-editing and fact-checking both take precious seconds away from the time a story can be on the front page of a site. The fact is that most of the online reader base doesn't care in the least about the nuts and bolts of writing. So long as the basic facts are somewhat accessible and presented in a provocative way, that's probably good enough for the vast majority of the audiences these sites are trying to reach.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Idiot managers are the real reason.