Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Some deep and meaningful thoughts on news filtering

    Some deep and meaningful thoughts on news filtering

    In times of important breaking news (see, Newtown and Boston Bombing), I find myself devoting substantial and increasing amounts of time towards filtering mainstream news media reports trying to figure out what is sufficiently reliable as to be worthy of passing on to my blog readership.

    I find myself modifying mainstream news reports with terms such as “reportedly” and “according to reports.”  Or cautions to the readership to be “cautious.”

    Wasn’t it supposed to be reverse, with the news media being the one doing the filtering so that the end result was something we could rely on?

    I don’t get paid enough to do their job for them.

    Sincerely,

    Some guy in pajamas in the basement eating Cheetos

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    SoCA Conservative Mom | May 1, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    Orange stained fingers… can’t get it out of my mind.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Estragon | May 2, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Of course, those qualifications to unverified and unofficial information are exactly the sort of professional treatment journalists used to put in their own pieces when they cared about accuracy. Similarly, editors once made sure of it, for legal reasons if not for accuracy.

    But all those “layers of editors and fact-checkers” have long since been laid off in the news business. The muck-raking reporters will get their own pink slips soon enough.


     
     0 
     
     0
    myiq2xu | May 2, 2013 at 2:12 am

    I don’t have a problem with unvetted breaking news, so long as they present it as such.

    The night (and following day) the Tsarnaev Brothers got in the shootout with the cops there was a lot of stuff coming too fast to check. I was listening to the BPD scanner online and even the cops weren’t sure what was happening some of the time.

    But if the reporters are relaying rumors or anonymous tips, they should say so.

    OTOH – When they do the regular news the information should have been vetted.


       
       0 
       
       0
      myiq2xu in reply to myiq2xu. | May 2, 2013 at 2:17 am

      The night of the Boston shootout/manhunt the amateurs on Twitter were doing a more professional job than any network, and their information was more accurate and up-to-date too.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Paul | May 2, 2013 at 8:02 am

    If the news is always “breaking” does that mean it’s broken?


     
     0 
     
     0
    Oldflyer | May 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    In response to myqid2xu, my opinion is that if the news is breaking so fast that the media does not know what is happening, they should keep quiet until they do know. Then tell us.

    We have apparently become a nation of voyeurs, fed by the insatiable appetite of the 24/7 networks to fill air time with videos and sound.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend