MetaFilter posts tagged with Salon and journalism

Now you read it, soon you won't.

adamvasco — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:16:48 -0800

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.

Downgrading the Fourth Estate

digaman — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:58:04 -0800

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.

Blog people, Wikinewsies, and other citizen journalists

reflection — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:32:53 -0800

Blog people, Wikinewsies, and other citizen journalists are coming together to provide new and timely sources of information in the continuing Digital Revolution. OhmyNews swung the election in South Korea, Wikinews published 9 stories on the London bombings, and NowPublic aims to combine murmurs in the blogosphere with a sleek, media-filled interface. Indymedia has been publishing citizen-written news since 1999 and in the same year Salon first penned the idea of Open-source Journalism. OhmyNews continues to be the mold-breaker, combining open-source with revenue. According to CyberJournalist, to the tune of $500,000 a month. Now hiring too.

Unger chews Isikoff a new one

troutfishing — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:39:29 -0800

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?

Sony writes salon article

4easypayments — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:54:25 -0800

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.

solistrato — Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:17:21 -0800

More badly-written paranoid dreck from everyone's favorite floundering Web daily. Like a sore tooth, I can't stop picking on Salon. (more inside)

solistrato — Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:06:34 -0800

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?

bumppo — Tue, 01 May 2001 09:05:50 -0800

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.

solistrato — Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:29:07 -0800

Salon's new strategy: make the banner ads AS ANNOYING AS HUMANLY FUCKING POSSIBLE. Now it's either the subscription model or horrifying Flash ads that take up more column inches than the articles. Are they on crack, or merely dumb?

aaron — Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:59:17 -0800

"I've been a broadcast journalist for a quarter of a century and I've never seen a slower period ... There is really no comparison in our lifetime." Are we facing The End of News? Will we ever again live in interesting times? (Yes, I know it's a Salon link. But I've been thinking about this for a while.)

jaybarrow — Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:27:11 -0800

Salon gives in. Back to readability, baby.