Tom Clancy's Favourite Blogger

[nfotxn]

It's sad that cable news has lowered the bar for journalism so far.

So, great, instead of Fox's sensationalistic fair-and-balanced-ness all the awesomely awesome counter-culture dudes with a cable modem are going to blogs like The Drudge Report and interdictor for some "news".

Back in the day, before journalism sucked a hard leaky dick, we used to call these people "nut jobs" or "conspiracy theorists" because they sensationalize and lack integrity to fully investigate a situation. But because we don't actually have journalists practising journalism on many news outlets this seems like a viable alternative.

But I'll tell you something, it's NOT and never has been. Lump all these hacks together and you have a bunch of charlatans who want your eyes glued and your fingers clicking. And we all take it at face value, wanking off at the power of the internet like a fucking Sun Microsystems commercial from 1997.

Fact of the matter is that immediate is almost never accurate. And all this technology means jack shit if the end product is mis-informative.

Here in the 21st century with all our technology it's still wisest to sit and wait.

Comments

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

B sweetie, journalists have always sucked the leaky whatever. There have been monumental exceptions, like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, but what we have in the US now is much more the status quo. There would not have been a Spanish-American War if not for William Randloph Hearst, and not much has changed since.

So while "it was on the Internet" may not be a good basis for making decisions, blogs have changed the flow of information enormously. Everyone has an axe to grind, but shit, it's nice to have a lot of really sharp blades to look at. I'm sure there would be more bloggers from NO, except that internet use there is down over 90%. Because web users got out, and those that stayed have no power or bandwidth.

I keep thinking how the gits in the White House must be freaking out. They've had no control over the flow of information, and they're not looking pretty this week.

what was the question again?

[slumberjack.livejournal.com]

I've been having lots of conversations like this about the media all week. The only point from which I'd deviate is: "immediate is almost never accurate." That in itself is often true, but the issue is that now, thanks to the internet, the public demands immediate. Is there any way to restore accuracy and accountability while spitting out the content as fast as people start looking for it? I'd lean towards "no," but something has to give somewhere soon.

Re: what was the question again?

[sunsmogseahorse.livejournal.com]

Immediate information helps and must be gathered but it's never the whole story. Using it to inform all but the shortest-range decisions is as smart as crossing a two-way street after having looked in only one direction of traffic.

[sunsmogseahorse.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I am so sick of hearing people write as his proponents. He's fucked in the head.

[(Anonymous)]

Very good reactions in that perhaps the sensationalism of today is not exaduraged so much as just more transparent thanks to all this blogging.

However, the point does still stand, I think. That the widely available N-th rate amateur journalism of today is fantastically overated.