Chilly Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 that the media was broken, here's another example. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/technolo...gin&oref=slogin Short version: Yahoo! and Reuters are going to be accepting submission from users for news. Cellphones, professional, it doesn't matter as people don't care. People who submit the content won't be compensated, unless it goes wide in the Reuters network, for which there will be a minimal compensation. I know reporters are vilified on here, but they serve some decent purposes. The quality of news will continue its sad slide, and this only helps it. Reuters gets to receive lots of free content without having to pay a reporter, which seems like a win for them. Yahoo! gets content that allows them to show more advertisements as well as compete with Google Video/Google's Youtube. Even more pictures/video clips are going to start showing up which are way out of context and don't present a good picture of the situation at hand. Its a win for both Yahoo! and Reuters, and it sucks for everyone else. I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but I do know one thing - a media which is funded by and slaves to its shareholders causes news quality to decline rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nixon Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 that the media was broken, here's another example. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/technolo...gin&oref=slogin Short version: Yahoo! and Reuters are going to be accepting submission from users for news. Cellphones, professional, it doesn't matter as people don't care. People who submit the content won't be compensated, unless it goes wide in the Reuters network, for which there will be a minimal compensation. I know reporters are vilified on here, but they serve some decent purposes. The quality of news will continue its sad slide, and this only helps it. Reuters gets to receive lots of free content without having to pay a reporter, which seems like a win for them. Yahoo! gets content that allows them to show more advertisements as well as compete with Google Video/Google's Youtube. Even more pictures/video clips are going to start showing up which are way out of context and don't present a good picture of the situation at hand. Its a win for both Yahoo! and Reuters, and it sucks for everyone else. I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but I do know one thing - a media which is funded by and slaves to its shareholders causes news quality to decline rapidly. 857354[/snapback] Blog you? Oh, Yeah? Well Blog you too!!! BTW, I have that on a reliable source...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 In a related story: Everything on Wikipedia is 100% true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 In a related story: Everything on Wikipedia is 100% true 857374[/snapback] But if it is wrong, Just go ahead and change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 People who submit the content won't be compensated, unless it goes wide in the Reuters network, for which there will be a minimal compensation. 857354[/snapback] Not good news if you went to J-school (not like you go into it for $ anyway, but...). And if you thought the quality of news had hit rock bottom, it will now start to dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Not good news if you went to J-school (not like you go into it for $ anyway, but...). And if you thought the quality of news had hit rock bottom, it will now start to dig. 857443[/snapback] OtoH, I think it's a remarkable phenomenon. It should give us pause and make us wonder: how 'real' or trusted is the news most people get anyway? What if there could be an open source-type movement in news? What is the nature of the truth? The answers might not all be accurate or academically certifiable -- certainly not subject to the kind of peer-review process or journalistic standards we believe we're getting. But it's quite an interesting rupture. Even more interesting is that the only response companies seem to take to this phenomenon is to keep swallowing one another up and consolidating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Reuters has already been using faked photos and videos from Lebanon and AP is using non-existent sources in Iraq, so it won't be anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Reuters has already been using faked photos and videos from Lebanon and AP is using non-existent sources in Iraq, so it won't be anything new. 857593[/snapback] Not so different than the CIA and the Pentagon in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Not so different than the CIA and the Pentagon in 2003. 857735[/snapback] ?????????? Reuters was using that doctored pictures of the fire in a town in Lebanon and the woman who's "house " got "bombed" twice in a week. Also the video of the green helmet guy carrying the dead kids. The supposed Iraqi policeman that reported people were burned alive doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Soprano is finally getting published Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 On the bright side this may give crayonz the outlet he needs to blow the lid off the vast conspiracy perpetuated by Capri Sun® Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts