Newspapers Verses Blogs.

dreama said:
The fact is what they wrote wasn't true.

I'm not saying all newspaper articles are bad. I'm just saying that you can't trust what you read in newspapers, any more then you can trust what you read in blogs because the newspapers wantt o sell and if things will go down better sensationalised or twisted in some way they will do just that.

I trust what I read in some blogs more then I trust what I read in some newspapers.
Click to expand...

That would be considered a human interest story. Journalists have much more creative leeway in a story of this nature than a news journalist has in reporting factual accounts of a newsworthy event.
 
dreama said:
Of course it's the bloggers opion. Same as it's the Journalists opion. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Sometimes bloggers will write from personal experience in which case what they say generally carries more weight.
Click to expand...

Only if it is clearly stated that it is an opinion piece.
 
Hear Again said:
this is true as well. as my statistics professor said, the only thing you can do when reading a survey is to interpret the methodology, numbers and results as best you can before arriving at your own conclusion.
Click to expand...

Looking at the methodology is extremely improtant if one is to interpret the generalizability of any statistical analysis. I have said it over and over on this forum.
 
Jiro said:
that's why there's a big difference between New York Times and Bergen Record. but yes - with reputable newspaper... and reputable blogger on same issue... it's a good balance.
Click to expand...

Actually, New York Time got busted quite a few times. Like I said, more than often, the news stories you read are misleading and not the whole straight story. It's difficult for journalists to do that if they are unable to get the information they need.
 
dreama said:
Of course it's the bloggers opion. Same as it's the Journalists opion. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Sometimes bloggers will write from personal experience in which case what they say generally carries more weight.
Click to expand...

wrong. journalists are expected to practice ethical reporting -- bloggers aren't. aside from that, personal experiences don't translate into facts and since they can't be proven, they have no validity.
 
Banjo said:
Actually, New York Time got busted quite a few times. Like I said, more than often, the news stories you read are misleading and not the whole straight story. It's difficult for journalists to do that if they are unable to get the information they need.
Click to expand...

yes... better "quite a few times" than strings of rambling blogs otherwise NYT's reputation will take a dive. and yes of course journalists cannot get the whole picture but they do the best they can. It is understandably misleading but not as blatant as blogs.... just like in statistic or measurement - there is expected margin of error. That's why there are follow-ups and continued coverage... and we'll slowly learn the whole truth. You don't often see that in blogs (except reputable bloggers with humbleness)

Bloggers don't need to do the best they can. They merely voice their opinion based on what they read or heard and stick with it without listening to other side.
 
Babyblue said:
I truly don't trust either.
They do tell a story and the news. Sometimes they are not accurate or they are exaggerated,
But it is not entirely false.

Media is out to get paid.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

In my opinion, there is no debate because newspapers and blogs are both biased. Newspapers will slant events according the section of population they want to appeal to; whereas blogs are merely opinions stated by an individual. They both should be eyed critically and subjected to vast interpretation.
 
Hear Again said:
wrong. journalists are expected to practice ethical reporting -- bloggers aren't. aside from that, personal experiences don't translate into facts and since they can't be proven, they have no validity.
Click to expand...

I agree, completely.
 
Jiro said:
yes... better "quite a few times" than strings of rambling blogs otherwise NYT's reputation will take a dive. and yes of course journalists cannot get the whole picture but they do the best they can. It is understandably misleading but not as blatant as blogs.... just like in statistic or measurement - there is expected margin of error. That's why there are follow-ups and continued coverage... and we'll slowly learn the whole truth. You don't often see that in blogs (except reputable bloggers with humbleness)

Bloggers don't need to do the best they can. They merely voice their opinion based on what they read or heard and stick with it without listening to other side.
Click to expand...

:werd:
 
Jakob Nielsen - world renowned usability expert

No Blogs, Though
Nielsen may be ruthless about brevity, but he doesn't advocate blogging. Here's his logic: "Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easier to write. But they don't build sustainable value."

That's a debatable point. My experience has been that a thoughtful blogger who tags his posts can cover a subject well. But Nielsen's idea is that people will read (and maybe even pay) for expertise that they can't find anywhere else. If you want to beat the Internet, you're not going to do it by blogging (since even OK thinkers occasionally write a great blog post) but by offering a comprehensive take on a subject (thus saving the reader time from searching many sites) and supplying original thinking (offering trusted insight that cannot be easily duplicated by the nonexpert).

Like a lot of what Nielsen says, this is both obvious and thoughtful.
Click to expand...
 
:gpost: Jiro. If you are looking for perspective, a blog can be useful. If you are looking for supportable fact, better use another source.
 
lsfoster said:
I like to quote the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" on situations like these.

"There are preachers who kill,
There are killers who preach,
There are teachers who lie,
There are liars who teach."

As far as I'm concerned, newspapers are more reliable. Granted, there are some journalists and some newspapers that have agendas, but there are very few bloggers that don't. The fact that some newspapers might be biased does not change the fact that most bloggers are.

Also, there are no requirements or restrictions on bloggers. Are there some journalists and newspapers that still abuse their position? Sure, watch Fox sometime. But the fact is, why bother blogging if you don't have an agenda, and who would care what you have to say? There are so many dependable news sources out there, I don't see why anyone would bother blogging/vlogging if they didn't have an agenda.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that quote......and it's a scary quote!
 
shel90 said:
If newspapers tell lies, they would have been slapped with several slander suits and bankrupt by now...
Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic but have you tried to sue any newspapers for talking nonsense about CI? Like the one we discussed in that thread a while back.
 
dreama said:
Sorry to go off topic but have you tried to sue any newspapers for talking nonsense about CI? Like the one we discussed in that thread a while back.
Click to expand...


That was written by a family member. It wasnt in the news...
 
lalalaaaaa lalaaaaaaa lalaaaaaaa

:fruit:
 
shel90 said:
That was written by a family member. It wasnt in the news...
Click to expand...

It was in a newspaper though. And I don't think it's an isolated case either.

The point is it offended a lot of deaf people but nobody as far as I know tried to sue the paper.

Besides how would the average parent know it was nonsense since poeple generally believe what they read in newspapers.
 
Back
Top