Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion
Yeah! That is slashdot's job!!
Reply to This
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want solid information I head over to a site like PhysOrg. If I want to see what others are thinking I head to Slashdot.
News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.
I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field. I know the public opinion on just about anything is 10 times worse. We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on. Do we really need another?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm with you there. I don't know if this applies across the board, since I have neither the time nor inclination to read all the on-line newspapers (I only buy dead-tree papers when I need something to light a fire with), but I am getting a bit tired of endless screen-space devoted to the inarticulate musings of bored housewives and outraged rednecks. And newspapers aren't the only culprits. New Scientist [newscientist.com] used to be quite a useful aggregation for scientific journal content, but it's steadily turning into a soap-box.
In the days of the print media, there was something of a class barrier where contributors were expected to know at least something about a subject before pontificating. This survived for a few years with the on-line versions, but now we are seeing a situation where on slow news days we also seem to be getting lumbered with the above-mentioned kind of rubbish presented in a more fleshed-out form as "real" articles under the masthead of formerly reputable newspapers. The Age [theage.com.au] is a good example of this. I think the editor changed a while ago, and for all the content is now worth, I often feel I might as well be reading Twitter.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah! Leave those discussion to those of us who have PhDs in Universal Engineering!
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting rid of downmods on Slashdot sounds great in theory but it would just result in GNAA posts lingering at 1 (or 2 if the guy doing it has good karma). Which means I'd have to set my threshhold even higher to avoid seeing them, which would bury comments that are actually useful.
The Slashdot moderation system has its flaws, but it seems to work better than most of the alternatives out there.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
but that will take away the righteousness I feel when down-modding things i don't agree with^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err... when down-modding useless goatse.cx comments. that's it. yeah.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliminate the weapon, and you make it a choice: either mod 500 posts in a 1000-message thread up, or all 500 posters' signals are lost in 500 posts of GNAA noise.
Because it takes less effort to downmod a post to -1 than it does to post at 0 or +1, Slashdot's actually readable, even at 0 or -1.
Taking away downmoderation would require work on the part of every legitimate reader. Most legitimate readers aren't willing to work if they have to click/mod to make everything readable (on a large thread, you'd wind up with carpal tunnel syndrome after the first hour), but the trolls are more than willing to put the time in to make everything unreadable.
If you want a system where only the "blessed" are heard and the moderation system goes out of its way to emphasize the article and de-emphasize the comments (even to the point of requiring Javascript and multiple mouseclicks to read anything, and putting the comments in the wrong chronological order so that only the most recent few are ever visible), there's Gawker. It makes Digg look useful. Me? I come to Slashdot (albeit in classic mode :) to get away from that sort of thing.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I took your advice and now I can't see your post.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Informative)
EXACTLY!
Which is why I don't throw chairs at people that just want a phone that makes calls. It can't be an iPhone, because they suck and I don't own a TV anymore...and I'm glad of it. Nothing to watch since Farscape is gone.
Reply to This
Parent
Don't know about the old Karma Powered Trolls? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone who has good karma isn't going to post GNAA posts.
You may notice that your karma maxes out at "excellent." In ancient times, slashdot used to have a points system with no ceiling, so you could accumulate karma levels OVER NINE THOUSAND!!! Trolls would karma whore until they achieved insane karma levels, then skydive from karma heaven with an epic trolling spree. That's why the new system has a ceiling - if you tried something like that now, your karma would run out quickly.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with removing down modding is that there is then no way of filtering out the actual spam, aside from setting your reading level above the default which then means that you miss the ACs with good comments that don't get modded up.
I still think that the slashdot system is the best I have seen, I just wish there was some more stringent way of knocking people out of the moderating system, and that up mods counted for a lot more than down mods.
One of the interesting effects of down modding a good comment is that they CAN'T down mod all of the replies that it garners, and there are enough people that read at -1 that there will be comments.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have one other question - in a debate a while back, I posted a link to two Youtube videos about why you should never agree to be "interviewed" by the cops. For the discussion it was on-topic, relevant, and a serious point to be made. Because I'm willing to actually speak my mind on occasion and say the occasional uncomfortable truth in the face of the various bury-brigaders here, I saw at least one downmod of "troll" and two "overrateds"; it was briefly sitting at -1 before someone with half a brain saw it and the trend reversed.
The surest sign for me that there are bury-brigaders at work on Slashdot, however, is the number of times I've seen old posts (as in 2+ weeks) suddenly drop from 5 down to 4, 3, or in a few cases all the way to -1. What made them 5's two weeks ago and -1's today? Nothing save for the the fact that organized bury-brigaders were launching an attack on my karma because something else I said was antithetical to their warped worldview. They can't downmod you more than once per comment on a given account, but they can find older posts to dishonestly downmod just to get at your karma.
Hell, I've been downmodded "troll" for correcting someone's bad math before thanks to the bury-brigaders.
So tell me - how does your "pass the guns and shoot to kill" solution fix these problems?
Reply to This
Parent
Ironic Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere. If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.
Reply to This
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals
Yes, but unfortunately that's not what you are getting most of the time. CNN is better than most IMO, but what we tend to see is entertainment, not news. How many times do we see these channels making news rather than reporting the news? I'm so sick of seeing this kind of behavior.
A great example was on Fox recently where they were asking people on the street what they thought of Sharon Osbourne's comments on Susan Boyle. Most people hadn't heard it, as it happened on an Sirius radio show, but Fox was constantly reporting on it. Then Fox tracked down Susan Boyle at the airport (at the same time as Entertainment Tonight and a few other programs) and asked her how she felt. This isn't reporting the news, this is making the news.
News organizations should be held to reporting the news, being fair about what they are reporting, and being held to a standard. They are worried about ratings, and unfortunately that affects content.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just saw this on NBC this morning, where they received a lot of comments about a girl who had a repetitive sneezing problem. The comments went like this:
- wash out her nose with salt water
- tell her to see a chiropractor to get rebalanced
- make her jump rope and she'll stop
- feed her lots of vitamin A, just short of an overdose!
And so on. I came to the conclusion that most people are incredibly stupid, and I think NBC should have ignored these opinions, and covered something else instead, like why Obama
Re:Comments (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just the masses commenting on articles that are incredibly stupid, their (CNN) reporters and correspondents aren't much better (and their talking heads are nearly as bad).
During the coverage of the Fort Hood shooting, they had a reporter saying:
"He had two pistols, one a semi-automatic of a type favored by the narco gangs, so you know how deadly it is." No, I don't know how deadly it is. Other than being a semi-auto pistol I have no clue what brand let alone model he was talking about. He never mentioned the actual weapons.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
>Watch the coverage of any "demonstration" shown on any news show.
Bullshit. FOX didnt even cover the big gay rights event in DC a couple of weeks ago. I dont know why some people just cant accept FOX as the partisan outlet they are. Incredible.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing infusing the news with twitter comments and real time viewer feedback does for me on television is anger me by having the typical mouth-breathing idiot's opinion spewed from their trailer to the rest of the world on a massive broadcast when I'd rather just be getting news. I just want to know what events are right now. I don't need to hear @bootycakes (a real twitter name I saw on CNN once) have their uninformed opinion in 65 characters parroted by Don Lemon over live TV.
CNN was the last news I bothered to watch on TV and I haven't even really watched that since just after the election. I'm a bit of a news-hound and a political junkie, but too much of this "ireport" and "udecide" and "twitter" and "facebook" and "call in and share your opinion" and "youtube the news" crap has kind of driven me away entirely. I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Go watch The Daily Shows [thedailyshow.com] with Jon Stewart. You'd be surprised just how well they actually cover the news in 20 minutes.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Watch Fox News, the real Fox News and not their commentators, and then watch The Daily Show. Report back with which one gave you more information.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Totally agree. The Daily Show makes news entertaining. Fox makes entertaining news.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Insightful? How soon we forget. There's an academic organization that rates the quality of news shows. The Daily Show ranks quite high.
How do I know about it? This obscure little news aggregation website. You may have heard of it. It's called Slashdot.org.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/2320219 [slashdot.org]
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm familiar with Stewart's own impression of his show. He got interviewed by some of the news commentators on one of the major networks during the campaign season, where they tried to accuse him of being a poor reporter. His come-back was to point out that his show follows another show about muppets making prank phone calls.
The point is that even though he's on the Comedy Central network, and has had such luminary lead-in pieces as the Crank Yankers, he STILL has nearly as much actual news on his segment as an alleged news segment on an actual news network. They too fill up their time with meaningless interviews from know-nothings, social commentary, and irrelevancies. The fact that the Daily Show actually does come close stands as its own very sad commentary on the state of television news. It is lowest common denominator info-tainment, not news, and calling any of them news is like calling Fox News fair and balanced. Just because it's repeated a lot doesn't make it true.
Another poster pointed out a 1985 book decrying television news, making the case that the medium by its very nature isn't capable of thoughtful analysis, and I have to agree with it. TV is a game of telephone played among people sitting around a campfire, blown up to global proportions and broadcast 24 hours a day. It's ephemeral, ghostly, unaccountable. Even in this day of wide-spread recording devices, it's still difficult to challenge statements made on TV in any sort of seriousness. The medium and its audience don't want analysis like that, and actively object to it. On the rare occasions that a news network tries it, they get shouted down by the people they are questioning, with statements like, "Why are we going over old ground? We need to progress forward!" The questioner never seems to have an answer for that, and they're left looking dim and obstructionist, when really the only way to get at the truth is precisely that back and forth process.
So it's left to a comedy show to point out the absurdities posing as statistics that our sober-sided politicians spout on a daily basis. And, incidentally, to other mediums, like say, the Internet, which to this day is largely made up of the written word. It's here, on the Internet, that we can have the necessary back and forth discussion to actually get at the truth.
You say the Daily Show is crap, I say it's not, you quote detailed samples, I use your own samples to point out the equivalent dearth of fact on other shows, and the people reading this thread will probably be left with an impression that more closely approximates reality than they possibly could have by watching a TV show about it.
And they can read the whole thread without commercial interruption.
Sometimes I think broadband is the last thing we need. It kept video out for decades, which was all to the good.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much. I always thought that the idiocy I saw on gaming forums in the 90s was harmless because it was contained in videogame forums. I mean, things as stupid as platform wars would go away once people would discuss serious things like the federal budget, right? The yahoos going "Nintendo 4eva!" would disappear, right?
I'm pretty convinced now that I was wrong on that. The political discourse I'm seeing now uses the same terminology and rhetorical constructs as those used in the platform wars. It's all hot air, partisanship and arguing by putting others down. Using twitter comments on the air is worsening the discourse because it merely gives an official outlet to a lot of people who really have no clue, don't know they have no clue, and don't even care they have no clue. But they are now convinced that because they either got on the air or someone they agree with got on the air means that this is the same as Kissinger agreeing with them.
I'm not saying that Twitter can't be used to send interesting comments. I'm saying, however, that Twitter is used by the media in the worst possible way right now: to further turn news into entertainment of the worst kind: reality TV.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense. Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom." Web forums have been politicized by partisans. Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.
Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system. A general news site with any sort of moderation? Madness. I can tolerate slashdot, metafilter, and most of reddit. Everything else is so terrible it makes you realize that crap like "OMG Ghost hunters is the REALZ" or "Vaccines cause autism!!!" is how a lot of people think and critical thinking and a little literacy are the exception, not the norm.
Dahl is right. While the media needs a check agaisnt bias and poor reporting, I doubt these twitter comments are helping. Looks like they are just lowing the signal to noise ratio even more. I guess anything to help make Wolf Blitzer look smart. I guess Neil Postman has finally been proved right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death [wikipedia.org]
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Funny)
What a typical left-wing liberal comment. The government lets people like you post freely to the internet, so how can we trust them to run our healthcare system? I guess that's what you get when you vote a socialist Muslim Kenyan national into the White House.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. When you find any, let me know, will you?
Reply to This
Parent
Who's Steve Dahl (Score:4, Insightful)
and why should I care...?
Reply to This
Re:Who's Steve Dahl (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who's Steve Dahl (Score:4, Informative)
Close. Steve Dahl is a former #1 rated daytime talk radio host turned weekly columnist for the Chicago Tribune when his the balance of his contract was bought out and a non-compete in place during a radio format change. His contribution to history was the 1979 riot at Cominsky Park during a double header intermission. The riot occurred during the Disco Demolition entertainment event when a large pile of records (discounted admission if you brought a record) was exploded in center field.
I think Steve Dahl would agree that your statement is only 2/3rds correct.
a better statement
A professional idiot with a Mac and a DSL
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He failed. Disco never died-out. It was replaced with freestyle, then dance-rap in the 90s, and now we have Rhianna and Lady Gaga creating songs that sound very similar to the old 70s stuff, just with better synthesizers.
No it should not matter. (Score:5, Informative)
I would say that Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave, but he was cremated.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
picking a station that validate one's political views
This is pretty much the crux of it. People actively seek out the information sources (radio, TV, internet) that support the opinions they already hold. Accuracy of information and facts run a distant second, and meaningful analysis runs an even more distant third.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Agreed. I tell my 12 year old to question all news, and more importantly, to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is]. I turned my TV off after the Nov election. I watch movies and foxnews.com. The only reason I choose Fox is because I don't like the lock CNN has in the airports. I travel every week and it isn't fair that I am forced to watch CNN. Hey slashdot, someone write a map app showing "quiet" spots in airports. Thats where I sit.
Up to 30k [wikispeedia.org]
Three words (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Three words (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of folks consider NPR to be a tool of the liberals.
A lot of folks are ignorant paranoids who think ALL media is a "tool of the liberals" save Fox News and insurgent independent voices like Glenn Beck.
I doubt you'd won't find many Liberals who are content with NPR's efforts to provide liberal perspectives.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Three words (Score:4, Insightful)
You're conflating two separate issues. NPR has a measurable liberal bias, but it's still generally quality, educated news. They don't tend to make shit up, or have a "youtube comments" equivalent section.
Publications like NPR or Reason are intentionally biased - but they're at least generally well-informed and factual, it's the base premise the authors are using and the conclusions they draw from the facts that is biased. It'd be awesome to have a source that is both quality and unbiased.. but I haven't found one.
CNN's twitter segments aren't usually particularly biased... but that doesn't make them any higher quality.
Reply to This
Parent
A simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:A simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
CNN, not CNN.com. They put these comments on the air all the time. When they should be, you know, reporting the news. Or better yet, investigating the news.
Reply to This
Parent
The ironing is delicious (Score:5, Insightful)
How funny is that: A guy airing his opinion on a public medium about how other people's opinions shouldn't be aired on public media...
We need a CNN story on this (complete with tweets) to bring things full circle.
-b
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
whoops (Score:5, Insightful)
I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news [...]
Yeah, that's definitely where you went wrong.
Reply to This
Irony or hypocracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it amusing that there's an opinion piece that's against opinion pieces. What's Dahl's claim to lipping off "you aren't allowed to lip off?"
This was a gem (emphasis mine): "I was held accountable by management, listeners and, most important, advertisers."
That's the ugly of a Dahl editorial and the beauty of a slashdot comment -- you can voice your opinion here without anybody threatening to fire you because you spoke out against the status quo.
"When did public opinion merit the same amount of airtime as the actual story?"
When we got the internet. It used to be that only the rich could use the freedom of the press, because you had to actually own a press to have freedom of it. Now we, the people, have freedom of the press, too. The rich and the corporatti don't like us unwashed masses having a voice one bit.
Reply to This
pot kettle black (Score:3, Interesting)
The way I see it, Steve Dahl is nothing more than a bonehead with a DS-3 connection. What's the difference other than the number of readers and the username? Isn't Steve Dahl voicing his opinion? Isn't he just a person, and doesn't that mean you or I could post our opinions? What makes him so special?
Sure, there are some brain-dead yokels on both sides of the spectrum. There are the idiots who worship trees and think that trees feel and believe the "global warming" er "global climate change" chant without asking for the evidence and the raw data (okay, I admit I'm a skeptic given the revelation of how temperature sensors are installed now vs. 40 years ago and what the guidelines dictate. Too many are installed over or next to heat sinks). Then, there are those on the right who pick and choose what to believe in Christianity, you know, pick the part about man having dominion over the earth but ignore the part about being good stewards, etc.
Both extremes of the spectrum should be totally ignored. Use your brain people, moonbats and neo-cons alike! We each have the biological equivalent of a cluster of supercomputers in our head for a reason: to use it! THINK! However, that still doesn't mean every moron doesn't have the right to voice an opinion.
That is just the reality of it when you open your news site up to comments. You're going to invite the whole spectrum, and the sad thing is both moonbats and neocons are equally stupid in equally loud ways, so their posts stand out.
Including this post. ;)
Reply to This
People like yelling at the news. (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember my Dad Yelling at the TV for whenever those Darn Democrats did A n y t h i n g . And if the news covered too much positive that those darn Democrats did he would change the channel. Hence why like only watches Fox news now... However with CNN just posting the comments from other people it allows think their views have meaning and they may get 2 seconds of fame if they actually read them on the air. They will probably still stick to the station and watch it.
Just like in the old Roman Days right before the collapse lets hide all the problems of the world and give them a good show. As long as they are kept entertained they wont revolt.
Reply to This
Twitter is not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Jon Steward has something to say about the problem [thedailyshow.com]
Reply to This
Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:It's the economy stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, the BBC are prime offenders at this vox populi crap too. Quite apart from the prime idiocy on display on their "Have Your Say" comments pages, they practically plead for viewers to text or email their views which they then proceed to display and read out live on air. Obivously this is driven by their need for content, any content to fill airtime on their 24-hour news channel, but it is ridiculous that they stoop to parroting some randomly selected half-wit's opinion on complex issues.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Who again, is watching CNN? (Score:5, Interesting)
CNN siding with democrats?
"I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest."
A protest engineered and promoted by an ultra-right propaganda network for half a year.
"The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets."
Those ratings are less indicative of the popularity of their viewpoint and more indicative of just how horrible the alternatives are. If I had a choice between a yugo and walking, i'd choose the yugo too!
please go back to your bunker, the rest of us in the real world want the government to step in to put a long overdue stop to the insurance industry's "death panels". According to the dingbat right, apparently corporations can never, ever do harm!
Reply to This
Parent