The death of the news. What is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting -- on-the-ground reporting by trained journalists who know the subject, have developed sources on all sides, strive for objectivity and are working with editors who check their facts, steer them in the right direction and are a further check against unwarranted assumptions, sloppy thinking and reporting, and conscious or unconscious bias.
posted by adamvasco
on Feb 17, 2009 -
94 comments
Rollback. Media critic Jay Rosen rises above the McClellan/"shake-up" foofaraw to put several pieces of the puzzle together and show how the Bush administration has significantly altered the long-standing relationship of the press to the White House. (More from Rosen
here.) Another piece that fits: Donald Rumsfeld's
bold, frequent, and rarely-challenged assertions that the American press is being expertly "manipulated" by Al Qaeda
"media committees" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted by digaman
on Apr 20, 2006 -
19 comments
The Newsweek-Fahrenheit wars - Michael Isikoff's "seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information" detailed by Craig Unger, "
House of Bush, House of Saud" author (read excerpts of his book
at Salon.com, for members or by a "day pass") Isikoff has heavily cited Unger's book but, it seems, not bothered to read Unger's generously provided
source files. "Liberal" PBS is not excluded, as credulous (or ignorant) "On the Media" host Bob Garfield's July 2 interview with Isikoff
demonstrates. What shall we call such
pervasive, ongoing and seemingly willful patterns of inaccuracy, distortion, and selective omission?
posted by troutfishing
on Jul 7, 2004 -
34 comments
Sony writes 'article' for Salon. In an effort to find new revenue streams, Salon has published an ad/article written by Sony Corp.
National Geographic and
Parent Soup have also published ad/articles, though
the New York Times said no. While the articles do not directly reference Sony products, the feature people who do fascinating things with technology... technology which, it just so happens, is advertised conveniently right next to the technology featuring passage.
Is this sort of thing ever ethical? If so, what sort of disclosures are necessary. Clearly the ad/articles are intended to appear to be regular content.
posted by 4easypayments
on Dec 2, 2002 -
29 comments
The Salon Death March continues. I personally thought the nadir was the cover story last week featuring a photographer reminiscing about
almost nailing Marylin (not work-safe), but no...now Salon has dared to crawl into the underbelly of this country and expose the horror of...
hippie parents. Good to see the most high-profile online magazine tackling these hard-hitting issues. How's that stock price doing again?
posted by solistrato
on Aug 22, 2001 -
65 comments
Is this a typo? Salon's David Talbot in the NYT:
"'A lot of our audience pays $300 a year to join National Public Radio and they don't have to pay anything,' he said. As early as next year, Mr. Talbot said, Salon hopes to impose a fee of $75 to $150 a year to read any of its site with ads." Now, I would have read that last sentence as "to read any of its site without ads", but perhaps I'm just being naive.
posted by bumppo
on May 1, 2001 -
30 comments
