Comments on: Draft of Chapter 2

By: Tłum prawdę ci powie? « Wojtek Walczak: anty-blog

Tłum prawdę ci powie? « Wojtek Walczak: anty-blog — Sat, 08 May 2010 11:21:27 +0000

[...] Skoro zrobiło się medialnie, to jeszcze jedno: co lubię w Prima Aprilis? To jedyny dzień w roku, kiedy zastanawiamy się, czy wiadomości w mediach są prawdziwe. (znalazłem u Dana Gillmora) [...]

By: blueherring

blueherring — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:58:13 +0000

I’m loving this. A basic overview… a primer based on experience. Meant for those already in the know and for the next generation, a solved rubik’s cube left with instructions on the final 12 moves.

Been informed by you since the “Living” column in the Merc, we all know it would take time and be ginormous, thanks for blazing the trails. I’m printing out the drafts and looking forward to the release.

What an important time to be a journalist!

John
reading Dan’s columns ever since I could read…

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:57:19 +0000

The failure to link liberally and post documents is amazing to me, and I don’t buy the idea that there’s no time. You can always go back and put it in later.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:21:14 +0000

Julian, both are good points. Thanks.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:20:35 +0000

Jon, the time issue is indeed critical. I’ve been looking for a study of this sort but haven’t seen one yet….

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:29:16 +0000

Dan — thanks for quoting me, though I wasn’t adding much on top of the academic study. I think my point at the time was simply that not all media institutions have the same lofty goals of truth and fairness.

What you probably should insert here is some study checking the degree of “diverse media readership” against various populations segments (political leaning / educational level / income). My theory is that most voters simply don’t have enough time to read everything.

Jon

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:28:38 +0000

Agree on the NYT’s convervatives, disagree on the Post’s, but you’re right that it’s more than the Fox axis…

By: Jon Garfunkel

Jon Garfunkel — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:37:43 +0000

Dan — thanks for quoting me, though I guess I was really just pasting in some other quote there.

I agree it’s good to read “the other side” — but remember that other side is more than just a few AM talk radio clowns. A liberal can track down some sensible, intelligent conservatives (esp. those that write for the NYT and the WP).

Jon

By: julian

julian — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:34:15 +0000

Thanks for the interesting read – here is some feedback from me

“the celebrity-driven tabloid that exists not to help us make good decisions but rather to be entertained.”
–> should be ‘… but rather to entertain us’?

“What is it about breaking news that causes us to turn off our logical brains? ”
–> I heard someone on a podcast – supernovahub I think – talking about the evolutionary ‘interruption reflex’ (something like that). Basically, we’ve evolved to be hyper-aware of disruptions in the normal flow of our environment, because they may signal danger to us. With the realtime flow of media, this is constant, indeed tailored to jolt us into attention, thus we have to learn to be a bit less inclined to pay attention to everything.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:14:47 +0000

So great that you’re posting your chapter drafts, Dan.

I’m sure your editor will point out this kind of stuff as well, but watch out for setting the reader up for a good example without in fact providing the good example. Such as:

The Washington press corps and financial journalists, in particular, have shown again and again that they crave access to the rich and powerful more than they care about the quality of their journalism.

That begs for at least two kickass examples–or at the very least, citations.

Also, your point #5 is so ridiculously key. In fact, I’d add a related paragraph that emphasizes understanding media professionals’ shortcuts. We all tend to take pride in our work. But we also habitually employ shortcuts to save time and effort, and for media professionals, shortcuts can lead to mistakes such as failing to fully question a trusted source or misapplying an old frame to a new situation.