Comments on: Can you fact-check a twerking video? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: male hormone replacement http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-56143 Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:49:49 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-56143 I like the helpful information you supply for your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check once more here regularly. I am relatively sure I’ll be told lots of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the following!

]]>
By: junkcharts http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48884 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:47:54 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48884 I am fascinated and interested in the internal Gawker debates. In the “old” world, we have tabloids and we have “real” newspapers. It is very clear which is which. This becomes difficult on the Internet because of the business model constraints, especially the fight over traffic. Part of the problem lies with us readers – clearly lots of people don’t care for the truth and just want to be entertained – somewhat delusionally believing they are reading news. This is analogous to the idea of reading Playboy for the articles.
I encounter this problem especially in science reporting. There are way too many sensationalist headlines and mis-reported results which are then passed around confidently. And then you mix in Big Data and we have one big mess.

]]>
By: arglebargle44 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48815 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:36:10 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48815 This is horsemeat; lies are lies. Don’t lie to your audience, ever, about anything. These companies are manipulating and exploiting their audience, full stop. Be ashamed of your apologetics, FS. Truth itself is a norm, and you’re killing it.

]]>
By: arglebargle44 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48814 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:34:28 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48814 This is horsemeat; lies are lies. Don’t lie to your audience, ever, about anything. These companies are manipulating and exploiting their audience, full stop. Be ashamed of your apologetics, FS. Truth itself is a norm, and you’re killing it.

]]>
By: arglebargle44 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48813 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:29:11 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48813 This is horsemeat; lies are lies. Don’t lie to your audience, ever, about anything. These companies are manipulating and exploiting their audience, full stop. Be ashamed of your apologetics, FS. Truth itself is a norm, and you’re killing it.

]]>
By: arglebargle44 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48812 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:26:53 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48812 I can’t remember the last time I heard so many words spent on such a pile of twisted apologetics. This is not complicated – if you produce fake viral content, you are a scam artist, you are lying to your fan base, and you deserve to be shunned. The grandma’s letter deal is NOT a giant wink-and-nod performance art piece; millions of gullible people out there are sharing it because they think it’s real. It’s a lie, made by lying scum. It may be less harmful than lying about stuff FS has decided is the important stuff, but it matters to the people sharing it, and it’s a lie. Lying is bad. Don’t lie. Don’t share lies. And don’t write freaking stories based on lies, or links, or blog posts, or ANYTHING without establishing that it’s a lie, if you know it’s a lie, or think it is.

Christ on a crutch, Felix. Smart guy, but you have lost the moral tether.

]]>
By: Altoid http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48808 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:29:42 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48808 If you’re Buzzfeed or Gawker, doesn’t it have to be all about the brand? Your revenue and visibility and currency depend on being a place people go in order to see where everybody’s going?

How, then, does content matter? Zimmerman says “fleeting instances of joy or comfort.” His boss says they’re being ruthlessly honest– by tracking where people go. To raise the question what’s actually true in a real-world sense and what isn’t is either obsolete or beside the point, unrelated to what these operations do. They do what the NSA does, they map networks. The meta-data is the message. They’re as uninterested in what’s inside as the agency says it is.

Traffic, not truth value, is what makes money for them. For these purposes, attention-catching presentation has to be where it’s at, and that means contrivance prevails. What else is possible?

]]>
By: realist50 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48807 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:16:16 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48807 If the two kinds of pointing can’t be distinguished, then I agree with Dave Weigel’s argument. As a reader, how I can view BuzzFeed as credible if anything there might be the first type of pointing? A media outlet, unless it makes clear that different standards apply to different types of stories (or its decision to link to stories), is only as credible as its lowest common denominator – basically a Gresham’s Law of media credibility.

]]>
By: Altoid http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48806 Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:40:34 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48806 ABC has been driving me crazy with that stuff, AndrewTyndall– and somewhere there’s bound to be a “news” story saying that in fact ABC has aired a particular video just for its picturesqueness.

As a card-carrying curmudgeonly old fart, the bigger phenomenon also drives me crazy. I’m not quite sure I have the language for it, but it’s something like this– a “story” about what other outlets are carrying is a second-order abstraction not about the real world but about a representation of something that’s supposed to be related to the real world somehow. It seems analogous, imho, to the abstraction and removal we’ve seen in financial derivative creation in the earlier 2000s, with second- and third-order securities being marketed as actual claims on actual cash flow.

To me, that degree of abstraction can easily get very dangerous because it makes it impossible to connect with what’s real in the lives of people who after all need to eat, shelter, etc. It magnifies a tendency that’s already far too strong.

In the journalistic case, at least, it’s also a complete evasion of responsibility akin to the way the right-wing noise machine has worked. A responsible journalist supposedly can’t report something without two sources, but can report with a straight face what any loon with a few electrons and an ax to grind posts somewhere, without a care in the world what relation it might bear to the real world. Just reporting what somebody said, not my responsibility in any way.

We’ve arrived at a point where “news” isn’t news, especially on tv (and maybe especially at ABC); it’s reality tv, celebrity, and eye-catching visuals. News about what’s the buzz isn’t news either for those who aren’t involved in the insider pursuit of knowing what’s the buzz. I’m inclined to say that even if I cared what the buzz was, it wouldn’t really be news. But right off the cuff I’m not willing to go there without a little more consideration.

]]>
By: AndrewTyndall http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/12/10/can-you-fact-check-a-twerking-video/comment-page-1/#comment-48804 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:15:22 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22872#comment-48804 There is a third, interesting, midpoint on the spectrum between Newitz’s “Meme” and her “Truth-Telling” —

If, on the one extreme, lies the phenomenon, which has no actual importance (or even existence) in the real world, that is newsworthy purely because people are sharing it virally on social media…

…and, on the other, there is a concrete newsworthy event in the real world, which journalists seek to make compelling by using virally-attractive newsgathering techniques to describe it…

…the mid-spot consists of events, which actually happen in the real world, yet would otherwise not be newsworthy, except for the fact that they happen to have been documented by virally attractive media.

We can recognize the type of story: the ones that contain the vivid piece of photojournalism, the eyewitness cellphone footage, the grainy CCTV surveillance video, the tone of terror in the 911 audio; or the ones that involve a celebrity, or an attractive young blonde, or a toddler stuck down the well, or a cute animal.

It is a fun drinking game while watching Diane Sawyer’s ABC World News: a shot of Jagermeister for each story that only warrants coverage because of the soundbite, or snippet of actuality footage, or central character that makes it vivid.

]]>