Posted on 02/27/2005 8:21:05 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
I surfed a political information board when the Dan Rather National Guard document forgery scandal broke.
The suggestion that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian produced a document, 30 years earlier, that exactly resembled a Microsoft Word creation - on Word default settings no less - ignited an explosion.
Bloggers and message board posters almost in unison said the equivalent of, "Hey! Let me see that!" - and on the Internet, they could! A couple of mouse clicks and the document appeared on screens nationwide.
Discussion of fonts, old typewriters and software made an online investigation by ordinary people more curious than normal scandal-mongering. How often can you reminisce about your old IBM Selectric while exposing a forgery?
Swiftly exposed
More recently, CNN's Eason Jordan resigned after stating that U.S. troops targeted journalists in Iraq. His remarks were swiftly exposed and challenged.
Any "pajama-clad" Web-surfer can now immediately discover false statements half a world away that would have, in older times, been safely brushed aside by media bigwigs in charge of "filtering."
(Excerpt) Read more at aberdeennews.com ...
---
Good Morning, Donna!
I like it !
HEHEHE...
SPUE (Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Excerpting; check the list) to the rescue once again:
I surfed a political information board when the Dan Rather National Guard document forgery scandal broke.The suggestion that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian produced a document, 30 years earlier, that exactly resembled a Microsoft Word creation - on Word default settings no less - ignited an explosion.
Bloggers and message board posters almost in unison said the equivalent of, "Hey! Let me see that!" - and on the Internet, they could! A couple of mouse clicks and the document appeared on screens nationwide.
Discussion of fonts, old typewriters and software made an online investigation by ordinary people more curious than normal scandal-mongering. How often can you reminisce about your old IBM Selectric while exposing a forgery?
Swiftly exposed
More recently, CNN's Eason Jordan resigned after stating that U.S. troops targeted journalists in Iraq. His remarks were swiftly exposed and challenged.
Any "pajama-clad" Web-surfer can now immediately discover false statements half a world away that would have, in older times, been safely brushed aside by media bigwigs in charge of "filtering."
Jordan's comments might have brought to boil anti-American sentiment in Switzerland without any notice from military supporters in the States.
But how things have changed! Though the story didn't even simmer on the old media stove, it boiled over on the Internet, and Jordan resigned.
New media's mistakes and distortions don't gain the notoriety of those from CBS or the New York Times. Scrutiny is limited. For now, the thrill of scooping old media, providing information faster or in more detail overshadows errors. It won't always work that way. Eventually, scrutiny will intensify.
Nearly impossible
New media will find it nearly impossible to replace old media. After all, someone must do the legwork of gathering news. Blogs don't use many paid, dedicated reporters with notepads for the gruntwork that undergirds reliable news. The blogs themselves rely on old media for that.
Still, old media will struggle to keep its position as king of the hill, especially if blatant bias and shoddy journalism undercut claims of reliability and neutrality.
For news consumers, the best way to distinguish news from hype and rumor is to devour news from a great many sources.
Especially in the Midwest, nothing beats your local paper for local news. There, paid reporters closest to the action hunt down local, relevant stories.
But for national and international stories, the greater the variety, the better off you are.
To visit my favorite sources easily, I set up a Web page with links to sources as diverse as the South China Morning Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe and Herald, the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and many other papers and magazines, as well as blogs and streaming radio programs.
Radio shows
I can listen to radio stations from New York to San Diego (and enjoy hearing about traffic snarls I don't have to deal with). I can listen to talk shows I can't get here, and I discover new hosts each week.
Using wireless headphones, I can jog on a treadmill or do housework while listening to the "Armstrong and Getty" show in California or Mark Levin in New York.
I can later check out the British Economist magazine or see what's buzzing on Free Republic or Democratic Underground, political sites that let readers post stories, excerpts, links and comments.
Average people are no longer spoon-fed news. Someone else in a Washington AP bureau isn't deciding what the top stories are.
Never before has the average Joe been able to access so much news so instantly. And never before has he enjoyed so much choice or so much voice.
A danger is that consumers will read only news they agree with, getting a skewed idea of the world.
In a sense, though, that's what readers of once-respected sources find now in old media. (The last Republican presidential candidate either the New York Times or The Washington Post endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower. That's not exactly a picture of neutrality.)
Consumers who expand their diet to include a variety of views, from a smorgasbord of places, can enjoy a healthier taste of the world than ever.
I'm really tired of that one. It says people are too stupid to read what they want to.
I predict that within another year, half the people employed by old media will be seeking another career and old media will be unrecognizable.
Wrong. As convergence takes place, merging TV and computer technology, and better information gathering, synthisis, and analysis tools are developed, the new media will replace the old media. May take 10-30 years.
I have my Pajama Patrol Coffee Mug, and Yes she did.
It is not a He, it is a She!
Upchuck..No need to get snippy ---See Post 2, but a repeat of Donna's words are marvelous!
What, was this written before that whole Gannon thing?
One more Note to Donna if you are out there Scanning, scan these Freeper threads would ya?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351839/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350713/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350501/posts
I like the mention of DU. Every time 10 undecided voters go to DU, we get 7 or 8 of the votes, DU gets 2 or 3. Four letter words are used at a price, and while FR has it's inane comments, DU thrives on idiocy and four letter words, most of which begin with F or S.
Ping!
I'm really tired of that one. It says people are too stupid to read what they want to.
I agree. Or, equally, that we can't tell the difference between the pap spewed by the leftist press and real news. Besides, once you read something by the lefties in the "news," you've read everything they will ever say (ad nauseam) about the subject, which will then be driven into the ground with a 12-pound maul.
I'm really tired of that one. It says people are too stupid to read what they want to.
What an odd concept: "news" that one agrees with. How does that work? I read a report of a car crash during AM rush hour on I-5 southbound, no serious injuries, traffic tied up for hours, and I decide whether I agree with it or not?
Talk about blurring the line between news and opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.