Comments on: Just kidding? http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/ by Jeff Jarvis Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:42:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: kostenlos poker spielen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-372912 kostenlos poker spielen Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:56:39 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-372912 <strong>risposte eurobarre casino on net...</strong> Think full tilt poker poker rule... risposte eurobarre casino on net…

Think full tilt poker poker rule…

]]> By: Pat Thornton http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-358322 Pat Thornton Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:25:57 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-358322 The problem with the Times making that comment is that they have been so backwards with the Web (as all of Tribune Co. has been) that it doesn't come off as ironic. If the Post made that comment, we'd all get it. But when an extremely backwards and faltering paper makes that comment, it seems like the truth. The problem with the Times making that comment is that they have been so backwards with the Web (as all of Tribune Co. has been) that it doesn’t come off as ironic.

If the Post made that comment, we’d all get it. But when an extremely backwards and faltering paper makes that comment, it seems like the truth.

]]> By: ENGRENAGEM - Media e Tecnologia: blog sobre jornalismo, citizen journalism, blogosfera e novas tecnologias http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357700 ENGRENAGEM - Media e Tecnologia: blog sobre jornalismo, citizen journalism, blogosfera e novas tecnologias Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:12:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357700 [...] resto, o jornalista Jeff Jarvis reagiu à discussão, com direito a resposta por parte do [...] [...] resto, o jornalista Jeff Jarvis reagiu à discussão, com direito a resposta por parte do [...]

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The L.A. Times responds http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357632 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The L.A. Times responds Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:46:35 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357632 [...] LA Times just responded to my post about its excoriated editorial that reacted to the new GoogleNews feature enabling subjects in news [...] [...] LA Times just responded to my post about its excoriated editorial that reacted to the new GoogleNews feature enabling subjects in news [...]

]]> By: Jon Healey http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357630 Jon Healey Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:29:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357630 Hey, thanks for the post. It's a sign of bad writing when so many people miss the point, and aside from you, just about everybody seems to have missed the point of this editorial. I'll take the rap for that. The comment about Osama was meant to be ridiculously over the top because, as the Times' editorial board has said in the past, publishers have been quite wrong about Google. And that includes the guy soon to be my boss. Maybe it was confusing to readers to include a non-genuflecting reference to the new boss.... Anyway, some readers also seem to think we were criticizing Google by saying it's not journalism. Umm, we're not *that* hubristic. We were simply trying to remind people of the shortcomings inherent in its approach. For starters, unfiltered does not equate to true. And IMHO, it's a really bad thing if people assumed that the comments are, in fact, screened for truth. They won't be. That's not to say newspaper stories are, but at least there's often some critical thinking at work there. Here's the scenario that really troubles me. Investigative reporter digs up tons of documents showing that Company X lied to regulators. Reporter calls Company X, which curtly denies wrongdoing and stonewalls. Reporter writes story, including denial. Company officials then use Google to launch a lengthy and utterly bogus defense of their behavior. Is that a value add by Google? Sure, it's just as easy to dream up the opposite -- where a reporter writes something that's just plain wrong and Google provides what amounts to a high-profile forum for a correction. And maybe that will end up being the predominant use. But there's no telling, and in the face of conflicting assertions, Google won't be giving readers any help figuring out who's right. As the editorial says, that's not its mission. BTW, we do give people fora to respond to stories about them after they run. In addition to letters to the editor and op-eds in the newspaper, we have the Blowback section online. It would clearly be better if we enabled people to comment and discuss stories online on the same web page as the stories themselves, and we're on our way there. So yes, what Google's doing is a prod for us to come up with a better mechanism online. All criticism on that front is accepted. One last point: the criticism of journalists' listening skills (and those of the organizations they work for) is apt. But Google's new feature isn't just about that. It's also about giving newsmakers a route around skeptical ears. We in this biz get it from both ends, remember; we're stenographers *and* deaf. But sometimes, we're also capable of recognizing when someone is lying, spinning, dodging or obfuscating. I'm not arguing that less information is better than more information. I'm just saying it's good for readers to understand what they're looking at and how it got there. Hey, thanks for the post. It’s a sign of bad writing when so many people miss the point, and aside from you, just about everybody seems to have missed the point of this editorial. I’ll take the rap for that. The comment about Osama was meant to be ridiculously over the top because, as the Times’ editorial board has said in the past, publishers have been quite wrong about Google. And that includes the guy soon to be my boss. Maybe it was confusing to readers to include a non-genuflecting reference to the new boss….
Anyway, some readers also seem to think we were criticizing Google by saying it’s not journalism. Umm, we’re not *that* hubristic. We were simply trying to remind people of the shortcomings inherent in its approach. For starters, unfiltered does not equate to true. And IMHO, it’s a really bad thing if people assumed that the comments are, in fact, screened for truth. They won’t be. That’s not to say newspaper stories are, but at least there’s often some critical thinking at work there.
Here’s the scenario that really troubles me. Investigative reporter digs up tons of documents showing that Company X lied to regulators. Reporter calls Company X, which curtly denies wrongdoing and stonewalls. Reporter writes story, including denial. Company officials then use Google to launch a lengthy and utterly bogus defense of their behavior. Is that a value add by Google? Sure, it’s just as easy to dream up the opposite — where a reporter writes something that’s just plain wrong and Google provides what amounts to a high-profile forum for a correction. And maybe that will end up being the predominant use. But there’s no telling, and in the face of conflicting assertions, Google won’t be giving readers any help figuring out who’s right. As the editorial says, that’s not its mission.
BTW, we do give people fora to respond to stories about them after they run. In addition to letters to the editor and op-eds in the newspaper, we have the Blowback section online. It would clearly be better if we enabled people to comment and discuss stories online on the same web page as the stories themselves, and we’re on our way there. So yes, what Google’s doing is a prod for us to come up with a better mechanism online. All criticism on that front is accepted.
One last point: the criticism of journalists’ listening skills (and those of the organizations they work for) is apt. But Google’s new feature isn’t just about that. It’s also about giving newsmakers a route around skeptical ears. We in this biz get it from both ends, remember; we’re stenographers *and* deaf. But sometimes, we’re also capable of recognizing when someone is lying, spinning, dodging or obfuscating.
I’m not arguing that less information is better than more information. I’m just saying it’s good for readers to understand what they’re looking at and how it got there.

]]> By: Francis Burdett http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357403 Francis Burdett Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:50:54 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357403 Well yes, all praise to google's experimentation "Because it will improve jouranlism." Well yes, all praise to google’s experimentation “Because it will improve jouranlism.”

]]> By: Steve Boriss http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357398 Steve Boriss Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:45:42 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357398 I think it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and calm down about Google and Google News. They are helping newspapers today, and they will be of less help in the future. See my post, "<a href="http://thefutureofnews.com/2007/08/14/tough-times-ahead-for-google-even-tougher-for-google-news-the-day-of-human-judgment-is-coming/" rel="nofollow">Tough times ahead for Google, even tougher for Google News. The day of human judgment is coming</a>" (Steve Boriss, <a href="http://www.thefutureofnews.com" rel="nofollow">The Future of News</a>). I think it’s time for everyone to take a deep breath and calm down about Google and Google News. They are helping newspapers today, and they will be of less help in the future. See my post, “Tough times ahead for Google, even tougher for Google News. The day of human judgment is coming” (Steve Boriss, The Future of News).

]]> By: Martin Stabe » links for 2007-08-19 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357396 Martin Stabe » links for 2007-08-19 Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:24:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357396 [...] BuzzMachine: Just kidding? Jeff Jarvis: “I say Google is the new newsstand. It is a way to be found and read. It is a reporting tool. It is a presentation tool (with maps and such). It is now a means of continuing the journalistic process by getting response and with it more viewpo (tags: googlenews google latimes comments googlemaps journalism) [...] [...] BuzzMachine: Just kidding? Jeff Jarvis: “I say Google is the new newsstand. It is a way to be found and read. It is a reporting tool. It is a presentation tool (with maps and such). It is now a means of continuing the journalistic process by getting response and with it more viewpo (tags: googlenews google latimes comments googlemaps journalism) [...]

]]> By: Journalistopia » L.A. Times editorial board decries Google News comments http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357378 Journalistopia » L.A. Times editorial board decries Google News comments Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:43:18 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357378 [...] responses from Robert Niles at Online Journalism Review, Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine and Amy Webb at [...] [...] responses from Robert Niles at Online Journalism Review, Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine and Amy Webb at [...]

]]> By: Newspapers ignore Google at their peril » mathewingram.com/media http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357364 Newspapers ignore Google at their peril » mathewingram.com/media Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:59:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357364 [...] are for online journalism. Jeff Jarvis says — and I would agree — that the editorial seems to be mocking newspapers that see Google as [...] [...] are for online journalism. Jeff Jarvis says — and I would agree — that the editorial seems to be mocking newspapers that see Google as [...]

]]> By: Newspapers ignore Google at their peril » mathewingram.com/work http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357363 Newspapers ignore Google at their peril » mathewingram.com/work Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:57:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357363 [...] are for online journalism. Jeff Jarvis says — and I would agree — that the editorial seems to be mocking newspapers that see Google as [...] [...] are for online journalism. Jeff Jarvis says — and I would agree — that the editorial seems to be mocking newspapers that see Google as [...]

]]> By: Journalism Is Now A Continuous Dynamic Process, Not A Static Product - Publishing 2.0 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357352 Journalism Is Now A Continuous Dynamic Process, Not A Static Product - Publishing 2.0 Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:33:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/just-kidding/#comment-357352 [...] “No journalist should ever presume that a single news article ever is complete.” Jeff Jarvis calls the new Google News comment feature a “means of continuing the journalistic process by [...] [...] “No journalist should ever presume that a single news article ever is complete.” Jeff Jarvis calls the new Google News comment feature a “means of continuing the journalistic process by [...]

]]>