It’s barely worth dignifying with a link but Howard Witt writes a letter to Romenesko wondering whether, Mark Cuban has been brought up on insider-trading charges, his Sharesleuth.com would cover the news. Witt uses this as an opportunity to dismiss any value from all bloggers: “I’d say this is yet another example of why the nation cannot possibly expect to rely on all these pseudo-journalistic blogs that are supposed to become the future of journalism when all the newspapers disappear.” Oh, jeesh. OK, you play the Cuban card. I’ll see you with a Jayson Blair and raise you with a Judith Miller.
Thank you! I saw that letter and thought “What a bunch of foolishness.” Sharesleuth has covered it (after the letter), and anyway, it looks l ike it hasn’t been doing much covering of anything.
Funny (ironic) thing about this comment is that by two guys with print/tv reporting experience. The editor used to work at the St. Louis Post Dispatch as a business writer. Looks like Howard Witt didn’t do much journalism on sharesleuth…
Sharesleuth is still around? Wow.
Sadly, pointing fingers or bickering about who’s better or who’s right or wrong is very old-school. However, it will never change. Both platforms have their merits and of course, demerits.
[...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » One rotten apple? Kill Johnny Appleseed! [...]
There is a big difference between a Blair or a Miller knowing how to manipulate a system of checks and balances (newspapers) and there being no checks and balances (blogs).
Was Witt right about Sharesleuth not covering Cuban? No. But does pointing out that newspapers have faults too somehow prove blogs reliable? Hell, no. Where’s the logic?
Prove to me that blogs — which can be set up anonymously, are accountable to no one, and do not require any internal system of vetting, fact-checking or proofing — are reliable on their own. Don’t just pick on your stupidest critics and call it a win for your side.