The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 11-24-2001, 11:18 AM

I was being a tad facetious when I said "print is dead" -- which is really a <i>Ghostbusters</i> quote, and not one of the more memorable quotes from that film. But I can take sides and advocate if you like!

I'm a little unique in my situation, in that I'm able to watch CNN for about 5 hours a day, and have a very serious broadband situation from which to watch the net. Now, CNN doesn't take anything from the AP. The other day, I watched Christiane Amanpour - the future Mrs. Undertoad, in my dreams - sorting through actual papers she'd actually found in an actual Taliban house, to find the documents that referred to nuclear weaponry and hold them up to the camera. Now that's reporting!

Now, I read a paper recently but was nonplussed to find that there was no "reply" button. People said that in order to reply I should send the folks at the paper an email. And I did that, and nothing happened.

Furthermore, I notice that in most papers the editorials aren't signed. What the hell!

How much traffic would any web site get if it only published unsigned and unreplyable editorials? What is the worth of an anonymous opinion? How can I correctly judge the biases involved if I don't know who wrote it?

Five years ago the Philly Inquirer wrote an editorial in which they called my wife's views "wacky". I share her views. So I am kinda biased against my hometown rag. (By the way, most people here would share her views too; they had no idea what her views were when they wrote that.)

Socialize around a newspaper? Jesus, do people actually do that? If I'm in a coffee shop reading a paper - leave me alone, woudja?

Here's another one for you. In 1999 the Eagles drafted Donovan McNabb, and I was in the media room at the time. (I swear I'm not just saying this to show off. We lost the Eagles gig, so there are no bragging rights in it.) The first thing the team did was to toss him into a limo and speed him from the draft (in NYC) to the Vet (in Philly) so the folks there could interview him and get pictures, etc.

But the very first thing that McNabb did upon arrival was go into a side room for a web chat we had set up.

After we were finished with the chat, we transcribed it (well, copied and pasted and formatted) for the site. As I finished up the work of putting the chat up, a few NEWSPAPER reporters gathered, looking over my shoulder. They figured out what it was, and were very excited. They started writing down quotes FROM THE CHAT for their stories, which would appear in the next day's paper. Well, it would be easier and probably better than gathering their quotes from the press conference.

I know this is just sports, and I know much of sports news is staged, and I know nobody cares. But when I saw that happen, it really blew me outta the water. What lousy reporting: pulling quotes from the chat that appeared in real time, then again in transcript. They didn't even have to be in the media room - they could have sat at home and read the web site to write their stories.

Lastly, the BBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc. all post full unadulterated versions of their stories to the web, so I'm not missing anything. In fact, by selecting stories from lists of relevant headlines, via news-accumulating weblogs and sites like newshub.com (try it), I'm getting sources out the wazoo.

Okay, now having advocated my side, I'll advocate yours. The worst thing about my approach is that I wind up ill-informed about local events. The local TV news, from all five TV stations that offer it, is just horrible. Webloggers don't offer a local perspective very often, and when they do, they don't have a wide variety of sources to pick from. I do hit the local suburban rag's site, but they don't publish all their stories and the site is awful.

11-24-2001, 11:18 AM	#24
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I was being a tad facetious when I said "print is dead" -- which is really a <i>Ghostbusters</i> quote, and not one of the more memorable quotes from that film. But I can take sides and advocate if you like! I'm a little unique in my situation, in that I'm able to watch CNN for about 5 hours a day, and have a very serious broadband situation from which to watch the net. Now, CNN doesn't take anything from the AP. The other day, I watched Christiane Amanpour - the future Mrs. Undertoad, in my dreams - sorting through actual papers she'd actually found in an actual Taliban house, to find the documents that referred to nuclear weaponry and hold them up to the camera. Now that's reporting! Now, I read a paper recently but was nonplussed to find that there was no "reply" button. People said that in order to reply I should send the folks at the paper an email. And I did that, and nothing happened. Furthermore, I notice that in most papers the editorials aren't signed. What the hell! How much traffic would any web site get if it only published unsigned and unreplyable editorials? What is the worth of an anonymous opinion? How can I correctly judge the biases involved if I don't know who wrote it? Five years ago the Philly Inquirer wrote an editorial in which they called my wife's views "wacky". I share her views. So I am kinda biased against my hometown rag. (By the way, most people here would share her views too; they had no idea what her views were when they wrote that.) Socialize around a newspaper? Jesus, do people actually do that? If I'm in a coffee shop reading a paper - leave me alone, woudja? Here's another one for you. In 1999 the Eagles drafted Donovan McNabb, and I was in the media room at the time. (I swear I'm not just saying this to show off. We lost the Eagles gig, so there are no bragging rights in it.) The first thing the team did was to toss him into a limo and speed him from the draft (in NYC) to the Vet (in Philly) so the folks there could interview him and get pictures, etc. But the very first thing that McNabb did upon arrival was go into a side room for a web chat we had set up. After we were finished with the chat, we transcribed it (well, copied and pasted and formatted) for the site. As I finished up the work of putting the chat up, a few NEWSPAPER reporters gathered, looking over my shoulder. They figured out what it was, and were very excited. They started writing down quotes FROM THE CHAT for their stories, which would appear in the next day's paper. Well, it would be easier and probably better than gathering their quotes from the press conference. I know this is just sports, and I know much of sports news is staged, and I know nobody cares. But when I saw that happen, it really blew me outta the water. What lousy reporting: pulling quotes from the chat that appeared in real time, then again in transcript. They didn't even have to be in the media room - they could have sat at home and read the web site to write their stories. Lastly, the BBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc. all post full unadulterated versions of their stories to the web, so I'm not missing anything. In fact, by selecting stories from lists of relevant headlines, via news-accumulating weblogs and sites like newshub.com (try it), I'm getting sources out the wazoo. Okay, now having advocated my side, I'll advocate yours. The worst thing about my approach is that I wind up ill-informed about local events. The local TV news, from all five TV stations that offer it, is just horrible. Webloggers don't offer a local perspective very often, and when they do, they don't have a wide variety of sources to pick from. I do hit the local suburban rag's site, but they don't publish all their stories and the site is awful.