Comments on: How Much is that Pulitzer in the Window? http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/ any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:25:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Rob Hyndman http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25902 Rob Hyndman Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:55:56 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25902 There was some talk about that last year or the year before, but I haven't heard anything more about it in months - an ethical code, as it were. I think the project ran out of gas ... There was some talk about that last year or the year before, but I haven’t heard anything more about it in months - an ethical code, as it were. I think the project ran out of gas …

]]> By: Ben Lucier http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25874 Ben Lucier Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:42:43 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25874 Miller talks about bloggers not holding themselves to the same "standards" as journalists. For the most part, bloggers (Evans and Ingram exempted for obvious reasons) don't have the training on what those standards are. In your travels, have you come across the standards Miller speaks of? As a beginning blogger myself, I've already made mistakes of my own that were not evident until pointed out to me. That's to say that I would love to hold myself to the "standards" that Miller speaks of (except the part about going to jail for 85 days). :) What would a document of this type be called? Is there a standard doc, or would places like the Post, The NY Times and the Globe define their own? Miller talks about bloggers not holding themselves to the same “standards” as journalists. For the most part, bloggers (Evans and Ingram exempted for obvious reasons) don’t have the training on what those standards are. In your travels, have you come across the standards Miller speaks of? As a beginning blogger myself, I’ve already made mistakes of my own that were not evident until pointed out to me. That’s to say that I would love to hold myself to the “standards” that Miller speaks of (except the part about going to jail for 85 days). :)

What would a document of this type be called? Is there a standard doc, or would places like the Post, The NY Times and the Globe define their own?

]]> By: Michael Webster http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25681 Michael Webster Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:23:06 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25681 I am hardly ever that accurate to be "precisely" not on point. There is no doubt that there will a vast amount of information posted with a casual attitude with respect to the factual truth. Our inaccurate, and soon to be ex, dinner guests may not appreciate having their words handed to them: but Google cache makes it possible for their words to haunt them, far past the normal due date. Thus, my observation that popular bloggers may find themselves tripped up, or hoisted on their previous posts. I think that this is a serious possibility whether or not the individual blogger holds truth in an special affinity -but, I should have been less cryptic in comment. The self correcting nature of the blogosphere may work faster than the editorial reviewers for the New York Times. May work faster- we shall see. I am hardly ever that accurate to be “precisely” not on point.

There is no doubt that there will a vast amount of information posted with a casual attitude with respect to the factual truth.

Our inaccurate, and soon to be ex, dinner guests may not appreciate having their words handed to them: but Google cache makes it possible for their words to haunt them, far past the normal due date. Thus, my observation that popular bloggers may find themselves tripped up, or hoisted on their previous posts.

I think that this is a serious possibility whether or not the individual blogger holds truth in an special affinity -but, I should have been less cryptic in comment. The self correcting nature of the blogosphere may work faster than the editorial reviewers for the New York Times. May work faster- we shall see.

]]> By: Rob Hyndman http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25678 Rob Hyndman Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:06:04 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25678 Actually, Michael, I think that's very precisely not the point. Holding blogs accountable for factual inaccuracy is a little like asking your dinner guests to swear out an affidavit as they're heading to the door. The NYT has taken hits precisely because it sells accuracy. Some blogs might purport to, and they have trouble coming if they can't live up to the reputation they're trying to create for themselves. But virtually all of them are there to express a point of view, and to live in the turbulent waters of our collective stream of consciousness. Beating them up for inaccuracy is little like whacking that (by now, harassed) dinner guest with an encyclopedia because of a factual error made somewhere between the pork roast and the coffee. I remain convinced that the vast majority of people can or soon will be able to tell the difference between what reliably purports to be factual, and what does not. For those who can't, there's always Fox. Actually, Michael, I think that’s very precisely not the point. Holding blogs accountable for factual inaccuracy is a little like asking your dinner guests to swear out an affidavit as they’re heading to the door. The NYT has taken hits precisely because it sells accuracy. Some blogs might purport to, and they have trouble coming if they can’t live up to the reputation they’re trying to create for themselves. But virtually all of them are there to express a point of view, and to live in the turbulent waters of our collective stream of consciousness. Beating them up for inaccuracy is little like whacking that (by now, harassed) dinner guest with an encyclopedia because of a factual error made somewhere between the pork roast and the coffee.

I remain convinced that the vast majority of people can or soon will be able to tell the difference between what reliably purports to be factual, and what does not. For those who can’t, there’s always Fox.

]]> By: Michael Webster http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25666 Michael Webster Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:10:42 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/11/14/how-much-is-that-pulitzer-in-the-window/#comment-25666 But that is the point. Eventually accountability caught up to the New York Times; will it catch up or trip up popular blogs? But that is the point. Eventually accountability caught up to the New York Times; will it catch up or trip up popular blogs?

]]>