New York Times mention in article on Abramoff scandal January 23, 2006 7:29 PM Subscribe
Metafilter mention and a quote from Matt in today's NYT article about comments at blogs in the wake of the Washington Post/Abramoff/comments episode.
I'm pretty sure the times has matt on speed dial.
posted by puke & cry at 7:38 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 7:38 PM on January 23, 2006
actually someone from gawker gave the guy my name. I told him all sorts of ways the washington post could have had comments go well, but mentioned that yahoo news boards are generally a mess and newspapers can often expect that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:44 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:44 PM on January 23, 2006
"There is no signal there, it is pure noise," said keswick, troll of the blog MetaFilter. "In the MetaFilter comments section, every other word is Bush or 'peak oil.'"
posted by keswick at 7:51 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by keswick at 7:51 PM on January 23, 2006
Wow, I didn't check the web for a weekend and I missed a whole scandal.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by smackfu at 7:52 PM on January 23, 2006
It's very strange how David Carr uses Matt's quote to reinforce his point that open forums are not manageable on the Web and he doesn't ask him (or doesn't quote him if he did) why MetaFilter (and countless other forums) works. He uses the $5 just to prove his point.
The fact that mass medias can't (and don't know how to) manage users generated content is not surprising: it's the story of the last 10 years.
What is more surprising is that David Carr is not the least interested in learning how users generated content works. The last paragraph of his article will undoubtly be quoted among the lamest jokes of the year.
On preview: what Matt said.
posted by bru at 8:02 PM on January 23, 2006
The fact that mass medias can't (and don't know how to) manage users generated content is not surprising: it's the story of the last 10 years.
What is more surprising is that David Carr is not the least interested in learning how users generated content works. The last paragraph of his article will undoubtly be quoted among the lamest jokes of the year.
On preview: what Matt said.
posted by bru at 8:02 PM on January 23, 2006
spin spin frame spin. it isn't that a mob was "enraged by something they read". it's that a mob was enraged by outright bald-faced lies. this article just facilitates further the burying of that fact under a mudslide of diversion about 'crazy rude internet people' and 'silly bloggers'. they've got people talking about an internet phenomenon instead of talking about the bald-faced lie being passed off as fact. abramhoff directed no tribal money toward democrats. way to step into the dog poo, matt. you shouldn't have allowed yourself to be used.
posted by quonsar at 8:07 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by quonsar at 8:07 PM on January 23, 2006
bru: the issue isn't user-generated content, the issue is media-generated lies.
posted by quonsar at 8:09 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by quonsar at 8:09 PM on January 23, 2006
Also, 'media' is already plural.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:36 PM on January 23, 2006
Now with 60 percent less Hitler and abortions!
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:43 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:43 PM on January 23, 2006
The print media gets so glib whenever it is revealed that the 'blogosphere' is doing something right that, when they try, they fuck up royally.
It's like a rich kid who goes to the bowling alley for the first time. He knows in his heart that he's lonely and he needs to make friends with these people, but he can't help feeling superior. He's feeling confident, he's got the shoes, he bought a new shirt that matches, all the best stuff, a monogrammed ball, he glanced at a book giving him the basics. Finally it's his turn to bowl and people have been rolling strikes and spares. He marches in, tosses the ball right into the gutter two lanes away and falls down on his ass. When he makes it back to the booth he sneers at his would-be-friends, talks about how stupid bowling is, how their laughter is like the braying of donkeys, hints that the leisure activities are the country club are infinitely more difficult and rewarding, and walks out in a huff.
It probably should have been a WaPo policy guy calling Matt, not a NYT fluff piece guy.
posted by fleacircus at 10:16 PM on January 23, 2006
It's like a rich kid who goes to the bowling alley for the first time. He knows in his heart that he's lonely and he needs to make friends with these people, but he can't help feeling superior. He's feeling confident, he's got the shoes, he bought a new shirt that matches, all the best stuff, a monogrammed ball, he glanced at a book giving him the basics. Finally it's his turn to bowl and people have been rolling strikes and spares. He marches in, tosses the ball right into the gutter two lanes away and falls down on his ass. When he makes it back to the booth he sneers at his would-be-friends, talks about how stupid bowling is, how their laughter is like the braying of donkeys, hints that the leisure activities are the country club are infinitely more difficult and rewarding, and walks out in a huff.
It probably should have been a WaPo policy guy calling Matt, not a NYT fluff piece guy.
posted by fleacircus at 10:16 PM on January 23, 2006
the issue isn't user-generated content, the issue is media-generated lies.
Exactly. The whole reason it's even a story is because she got caught telling lies and didn't like it--her "correction" was even worse, and completely regurgitated GOP spin, not backed up by fact. When the Washington Post's "ombudsman" is not dealing in fact, they'll hear about it. ...But just to recap: She made some sloppy and inaccurate remarks, which dovetailed, accidentally or not, with Republican spin. Then, instead of just correcting herself, she hedged, claimed it was a distinction without a difference and then tried to hide behind claims that it was simply a matter of poor phrasing.
... But the whole blow-up has created this subdiscussion about whether honorable press types like Howell and others are being mauled and knocked around and generally abused by cyber-ruffians who have been on her case over the last few days.
This stuff isn't always pretty. But, really, thank God those folks are on her tail because shoddy reporting isn't pretty either.
So much of the imbalance and shallowness of press coverage today stems from a simple fact: reporters know they'll catch hell from the right if they say or write anything that can even remotely be construed as representing 'liberal bias'. (Often even that's not required.) ...
posted by amberglow at 10:31 PM on January 23, 2006
Exactly. The whole reason it's even a story is because she got caught telling lies and didn't like it--her "correction" was even worse, and completely regurgitated GOP spin, not backed up by fact. When the Washington Post's "ombudsman" is not dealing in fact, they'll hear about it. ...But just to recap: She made some sloppy and inaccurate remarks, which dovetailed, accidentally or not, with Republican spin. Then, instead of just correcting herself, she hedged, claimed it was a distinction without a difference and then tried to hide behind claims that it was simply a matter of poor phrasing.
... But the whole blow-up has created this subdiscussion about whether honorable press types like Howell and others are being mauled and knocked around and generally abused by cyber-ruffians who have been on her case over the last few days.
This stuff isn't always pretty. But, really, thank God those folks are on her tail because shoddy reporting isn't pretty either.
So much of the imbalance and shallowness of press coverage today stems from a simple fact: reporters know they'll catch hell from the right if they say or write anything that can even remotely be construed as representing 'liberal bias'. (Often even that's not required.) ...
posted by amberglow at 10:31 PM on January 23, 2006
not a NYT fluff piece guy
Actually, David Carr is one of their main media reporters, which makes it all the more disappointing that he couldn't be bothered in this case to mention how it is that some forums manage to keep things at a bare minimum of civility. I think the etiquette rules at comics writer Bill Willingham's Fabletown forum, for instance, would work pretty well at just about any mainstream newspaper site.
posted by mediareport at 10:36 PM on January 23, 2006
Actually, David Carr is one of their main media reporters, which makes it all the more disappointing that he couldn't be bothered in this case to mention how it is that some forums manage to keep things at a bare minimum of civility. I think the etiquette rules at comics writer Bill Willingham's Fabletown forum, for instance, would work pretty well at just about any mainstream newspaper site.
posted by mediareport at 10:36 PM on January 23, 2006
when there's no difference bet. what the Washington Post and Bill O'Reilly both spout, they really need to examine what they report as news and truth, and what their job actually is.
posted by amberglow at 10:40 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by amberglow at 10:40 PM on January 23, 2006
quonsar: the issue isn't user-generated content, the issue is media-generated lies.
Nice jab, but Carr doesn't lie here: he chooses only facts (real, documented facts) that illustrate very well the basic terror that paralyzes traditionnal mass medias (see *below) on the Web: they still think that their readers need just to read (or listen, or watch) and pay. The last paragraph of Carr is exemplary: he is fearful that readers could contact him and overwhelm him, as in his choosen anecdotes.
Carr and most mass medias still think about user generated content in terms of "taming the beast". They don't have any clue that herein lies countless riches, as MeFi, eBay, slashsdot, Worth1000, Fark, MySpace, SomethingAwful, flickr and thousands of communities show every single day. The cultural gap is huge.
*stavros: Also, 'media' is already plural.
Hahaha, sure: my 7 years of Latin and all my spellcheckers agree with you. I just don't. 'Media' is nowadays also used as singular. When I need to differentiate "a media" from "several medias" I just add an 's' and, at the level of basic understanding, it works pretty well. Sometimes I have to add a note about it. Sorry I forgot.
posted by bru at 5:57 AM on January 24, 2006
Nice jab, but Carr doesn't lie here: he chooses only facts (real, documented facts) that illustrate very well the basic terror that paralyzes traditionnal mass medias (see *below) on the Web: they still think that their readers need just to read (or listen, or watch) and pay. The last paragraph of Carr is exemplary: he is fearful that readers could contact him and overwhelm him, as in his choosen anecdotes.
Carr and most mass medias still think about user generated content in terms of "taming the beast". They don't have any clue that herein lies countless riches, as MeFi, eBay, slashsdot, Worth1000, Fark, MySpace, SomethingAwful, flickr and thousands of communities show every single day. The cultural gap is huge.
*stavros: Also, 'media' is already plural.
Hahaha, sure: my 7 years of Latin and all my spellcheckers agree with you. I just don't. 'Media' is nowadays also used as singular. When I need to differentiate "a media" from "several medias" I just add an 's' and, at the level of basic understanding, it works pretty well. Sometimes I have to add a note about it. Sorry I forgot.
posted by bru at 5:57 AM on January 24, 2006
Sometimes I have to add a note about it.
Yeah, it helps when inventing new words.
posted by mediareport at 8:22 AM on January 24, 2006
Yeah, it helps when inventing new words.
posted by mediareport at 8:22 AM on January 24, 2006
Dude, language is all evolving and shit so like whatever.
posted by TimeFactor at 9:13 AM on January 24, 2006
posted by TimeFactor at 9:13 AM on January 24, 2006
Yeah, it helps when inventing new words.
posted by mediareport at 9:22 AM MST on January 24 [!]
yeah, whatEVS, mediasreport.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:14 AM on January 24, 2006
posted by mediareport at 9:22 AM MST on January 24 [!]
yeah, whatEVS, mediasreport.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:14 AM on January 24, 2006
I commend the MeFi community for not making continuous FPPs about this as there are new developments, though I've been sorely tempted myself. While quonsar's right as far as he goes (except for the spelling of Abramoff, of course), and the issue really should be how someone whose job it is to communicate clearly with the public about the content of her paper somehow managed to slip directly into a GOP talking point / lie, there's also now the fascinating issue of the comment deletion: What WERE those deleted comments? How obscene WERE they really? Brady said they included words he'd never heard - though there's some indication that if so he hadn't spent much time talking to Deborah Howell - but so far from what the Kossacks have unearthed it seems the deletions were much more about dissenting content or unfriendly tone than actual profanity.
I think the Kossacks are overstating the case that it was entirely about the content, but given the clear pattern of errors and obfuscation from the Post it's now incumbent on them to back up their assertion with some hard data. Not even necessarily the full comments, but some exact numbers - what was the ratio of "obscene" comments to non? It seems unlikely that there would actually have been "thousands" as initially claimed, unless the Post considers it "obscene" to call into question the qualifications of its ombudsman.
Oh yeah, and kudos to Matt. This comment is on topic, really it is.
posted by soyjoy at 10:25 AM on January 24, 2006
I think the Kossacks are overstating the case that it was entirely about the content, but given the clear pattern of errors and obfuscation from the Post it's now incumbent on them to back up their assertion with some hard data. Not even necessarily the full comments, but some exact numbers - what was the ratio of "obscene" comments to non? It seems unlikely that there would actually have been "thousands" as initially claimed, unless the Post considers it "obscene" to call into question the qualifications of its ombudsman.
Oh yeah, and kudos to Matt. This comment is on topic, really it is.
posted by soyjoy at 10:25 AM on January 24, 2006
English pluralizing media to medias is not very useful and it sounds like you're dumb as a rock. I'm all in favor of useful neologisms. This isn't one of them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 AM on January 24, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 AM on January 24, 2006
hijack
Ethereal Bligh: English pluralizing media to medias is not very useful and it sounds like you're dumb as a rock.
It doesn't cost me much to make you feel superior, so if this can ease the shitty day you are having, I am happy to oblige.
If you are interested in the topic, let me know.
/hijack
posted by bru at 11:33 AM on January 24, 2006
Ethereal Bligh: English pluralizing media to medias is not very useful and it sounds like you're dumb as a rock.
It doesn't cost me much to make you feel superior, so if this can ease the shitty day you are having, I am happy to oblige.
If you are interested in the topic, let me know.
/hijack
posted by bru at 11:33 AM on January 24, 2006
There was an argument there: there is not a pressing need for medias and thus there's not much justification for making yourself look like an idiot. I do not at all require classical plurals for all classically derived English words. In fact, I usually favor the English pluralization. Not this time. And why not? Because almost everyone in the US uses the word media as a plural in the first place, even if they don't realize it.
Not to mention that the singular is in common use, as well. Even with the example of datum and data, where the singular is almost unknown, most US native English speakers correctly use data as a plural—again, even if they don't realize it. In the case of medium and media, both the singular is in wide use and the plural is widely used correctly. Yours is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Quixote.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:50 AM on January 24, 2006
Not to mention that the singular is in common use, as well. Even with the example of datum and data, where the singular is almost unknown, most US native English speakers correctly use data as a plural—again, even if they don't realize it. In the case of medium and media, both the singular is in wide use and the plural is widely used correctly. Yours is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Quixote.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:50 AM on January 24, 2006
I'm still waiting for the complaints about "forums".
posted by TimeFactor at 12:10 PM on January 24, 2006
posted by TimeFactor at 12:10 PM on January 24, 2006
Ethereal Bligh: what could made you think that insulting people could help you make a point? If you care: it doesn't.
Yours is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Quixote.
This is more to the point, Sancho. Obviously, we don't have the same problems.
When writing an article or a paper about media(s) and the word has to be used several times in a paragraph as a singular and as a plural, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to find a way to clarify the meaning: a simple "s".
I agree that it is not necessary in a general context, and I apologized. But, as a sometimes technical writer, my duty is toward my readers, not toward the guardians of the temple.
posted by bru at 12:48 PM on January 24, 2006
Yours is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, Quixote.
This is more to the point, Sancho. Obviously, we don't have the same problems.
When writing an article or a paper about media(s) and the word has to be used several times in a paragraph as a singular and as a plural, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to find a way to clarify the meaning: a simple "s".
I agree that it is not necessary in a general context, and I apologized. But, as a sometimes technical writer, my duty is toward my readers, not toward the guardians of the temple.
posted by bru at 12:48 PM on January 24, 2006
I think you've just guaranteed he's going to get a lot of machine-harvested spam. Perhaps that's what you intended.
Bad form, either way....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:32 PM on January 24, 2006
Bad form, either way....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:32 PM on January 24, 2006
Yeah, it's totally not on the NYT website or anything.
posted by keswick at 9:43 PM on January 24, 2006
posted by keswick at 9:43 PM on January 24, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Even sites that do carry unedited comments have their share of troubles. Any given news article on Yahoo is inevitably followed by a surge of postings that often have no connection to the thread, and even when they do, offer little beyond personal pathology.
"There is no signal there, it is pure noise," said Matt Haughey, founder of the blog MetaFilter. "In the Yahoo comments section, every other word is Hitler or abortion."
MetaFilter has had better luck with free and unfettered discourse. Even so, Mr. Haughey has begun charging new posters $5 as a way to discourage drive-by's.
Is that why he did it? News to me.
posted by mediareport at 7:30 PM on January 23, 2006