In regards to the NYT story slamming DU

[Kelvin Mace]

I happen to know the reporter (John Schwartz) of this story and sent him a note asking about it.

While I can't go into specific details, the gist was that pieces were trimmed from it, which resulted in the current story appearing "lopsided".

The main thrust of the article, which seems to me now blunted, was that while you can find goofy/offensive people on both sides of the political spectrum, the blogsphere is, unlike MSM, self-correcting in real time. This was pointed out as the medium's strength.

I would like to add that certain "other" sites of a conservative slant
were also discussed and had their "less than laudible" comments quoted,
but alas...

That's all I can say about it publicly, except for the fact that the omission of the link to DU was an error and is being corrected.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org


edited for typos

[Celeborn Skywalker]

1. I actually did think

it was a fairly balanced article, overall.

[wtmusic]

5. I agree

I don't see any problem with that article. The earth is not "organic". It was an ignorant comment to make.

[Strelnikov_]

28. I Do Not Agree That It Was An 'Ignorant' Comment To Make

Within the context of a General Discussion posting. The poster was just expressing a New Age/Earth Religion view.

Are the views of New Age and Native American religious practitioners to be considered ignorant? Is the belief in an omnipotent deity ignorant?

While I do not agree with these beliefs, I will defend their right to express their views in the proper forum (both figuratively and literally), because as a liberal I believe every person has a right to be heard.

Isn't the race to conformity we are seeing here regarding this article the kind of thing progressives and liberals rail against?

[wtmusic]

30. It was ignorant

The earth is not 'organic'. Look it up.

Anyone who holds those beliefs is certainly entitled to them, as are people who believe the earth is flat. Both are ignorant.

[Strelnikov_]

31. Fairly Intolerant, Aren't We

[Kelvin Mace]

32. ig·no·rant (adj)

1) Lacking education or knowledge.
2) Unaware or uninformed.


Earth (n)

1) The third planet from the sun, having a sidereal period of revolution about the sun of 365.26 days at a mean distance of approximately 149 million kilometers (92.96 million miles), an axial rotation period of 23 hours 56.07 minutes, an average radius of 6,378 kilometers (3,963 miles), and a mass of approximately 5.974 × 1024 kilograms (1.317 × 1025 pounds).

To claim that the Earth is a living entity is to demonstrate ignorance of the laws of science and proven fact. How is this intolerant?

Now, as someone has brought up divine, omnipotent beings, I would postulate that anyone produced and represented as "God" may be divine to someone, but will not be omnipotent.

The burden of proof for folks making extraordinary claims, is on them, not me. A metaphorical argument can be made about the planet be "living", but I stick to physical laws, not metaphysical.

I am not trying to be a wiseass, but I really wish people would use words correctly and not emotionally.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Strelnikov_]

33. So By Your Definition Any Statement Of Faith Is Ignorant

when not grounded in science.

Since when does a statement of faith have to be scientific fact?

Again, I myself have no such beliefs. But I do have a problem with someone labeling someone else's 'faith' as 'ignorant'.

And I certainly hope I have used the above words 'correctly' and not 'emotionally'.

Oh, and I stated 'omnipotent deity' as shorthand for God, Allah, Budha, whatever.

om·nip·o·tent
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

de·i·ty
A god or goddess.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. The statement

"The Earth is organic" is not an "statement of faith", it is an erroneous statement.

"I believe the Earth is organic" is a statement of faith.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[wtmusic]

37. Don't know about you

but yes, I am fairly intolerant of ignorance. It's one of my lesser shortcomings. ;-)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. So, David, in other words...

Mr. Schwartz's piece was edited with an agenda and a certain amount of malice aforethought? Any idea by whom? Care to reveal something about the editor and their politics? Is said editor an active and doctrinaire Fweepie? I ask that because it sure does seem, from the tone of the story and what you have revealed here, that the dirty tricks button was pushed.

This are fair questions. I think they could use some answers. Then again, you may not have those answers and that's fair enough.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. All I can tell you

is that it was not edited by the usual desk, as it was considered a "foreign" story (since it dealt with the tsunami). I don't know the politics of the editor, but it strikes me as a "hurried" job.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[KoKo]

8. Here's what Bob Sommersby of Daily Howlers says about the article

which might explain what David says...NYT's possibly had an "agenda" in cutting parts of the article. It's harsh on Schwartz but I suspect that it was his Editor because policy of MSM is to hit blogs taking their regular newspaper readership away.
-----------------------------

ttp://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010305.html

Yes, this is the latest battle in the Times’ newest war—a war the paper has declared on the Net. If we may now engage in a bit of speculation, it has become fairly clear that some in Times Nation have just about had it with this rude medium, a medium in which wildly ill-informed people dare to challenge great orgs like the Times. Result? The paper began to publish silly attacks on the “blogosphere” late last year, and Schwartz continues the onslaught this morning. The Times is eager to let readers know how stupid those folks on the Net really are. They used to rant in their corner bars! But now, they’ve been given computers!

Yes, people like Schwartz are very brave when it comes to targeting folks on the Net. They search for silly statements by anonymous shlubs, then rush the odd statements into print, letting readers understand how idiotic the Net really is. But how brave and bold are fellows like Schwartz when it comes to influential crackpots? As we read Schwartz’s piece this morning, our thoughts drifted back to the Times’ brave conduct when it came to those cranks called the Swift Boat Vets—the cranks who transformed a White House election while fellows like Schwartz sat and stared.

Ah yes, the Swift Boat Vets—a group of crackpots with powerful interests behind them, a group which actually changed an election! When John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi published Unfit for Command, it was clear—to anyone who read it—that the pair were deeply kooky themselves. The book self-contradicts on page after page, and its gonzo chapter on Kerry-the-commie was straight from a mid-50s fever swamp. Any sensible person who read it would have known that its authors had emerged from those corner bars and were now engaging in “crackpot theorizing” and “ill-informed rumor-mongering” right out in public! And this, of course, is the very problem which Schwartz bravely types on today.

So what did Schwartz and his brave colleagues do when Unfit for Command appeared? Of course! As their type has done through the annals of time, they ran and hid themselves deep in the bushes! O’Neill and Corsi were visible crackpots, but they were also powerful crackpots, with powerful interests arrayed behind them, and the Schwartzes knew that they should hide and pretend not to see the pair’s crankery. And it’s not as if the Times didn’t know. On October 10—months after Unfit for Command first appeared—Susannah Meadows wrote a short review of the book in the Times Sunday section, noting the kookiness of the tome. Repeatedly, she cited the book’s gonzo content.

[KoKo]

9. Here's a link to DU Post in LBN: "Blog Reading Explodes in America."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1119933

[KoKo]

12. I edited it after you saw it. I think it's NYT's management not

Schwartz. I was agreeing with you...but you might have read before edit.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Yeah, I saw that

Again, my own opinion, this is a case of editing without re-reading for context. I have seen this many times. Folks are just looking to clip grafs for space and not paying attention as to how story balance changes as a result.

I don't think someone sat down and tried to shape the story.

That said, perhaps the editors where exhausted from all the fact checking they did on Judith Miller stories.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Straight Shooter]

25. ... exhausted from all the fact checking they did on Judith Miller stories

Bwahahahaha! Good one!

[kaitykaity]

3. Link to article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/worldspecial4/03bloggers.html?pagewanted=print&position=

I hadn't seen it yet.

[Z_I_Peevey]

6. Thanks for the link.

Without even addressing the bias, wow, was that article badly edited. What a place to chop it off. I was looking for the link to page 2, but there was none.

[proud patriot]

7. Good to know , thanks for posting

Liberal Media my ass .

[KoKo]

11. Another article: "Small Gains for Big Media Stocks" (a good short read.)

(Traditional Media is having problems. Revenues under Chimp are not as good as we would have thought given their "Rightward" turn. (Even "De-Regulation" hasn't helped them much. Meaning folks are not tuning in like they used to. :shrug:


Small gains for big media stocks
By William Spain, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 4:40 PM ET Dec. 31, 2004


CHICAGO (CBS.MW) -- Most shares of major media companies trended flat Friday in one of the slowest trading sessions of the year.

Walt Disney Co. (DIS: news, chart, profile) was down 8 cents to $27.80 as the broadcast and entertainment giant gets ready to kick off 2005 with a new ad campaign to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its Disneyland theme park in Southern California.

Meanwhile, Time Warner (TWX: news, chart, profile) added 4 cents to $19.45 and News Corp. (NWS.A: news, chart, profile) (NWS: news, chart, profile) picked up 6 cents at $19.20. Viacom (VIA.B: news, chart, profile) (VIA: news, chart, profile), a significant shareholder in the publisher of this report, gave up 15 cents to $37.08.

Publishers fared less well, with shares mainly edging into the red. Dow Jones (DJ: news, chart, profile) lost 21 cents to $43.06, while Knight-Ridder (KRI: news, chart, profile) dropped 15 cents to $66.94 and Tribune Co. (TRB: news, chart, profile) slipped 4 cents to $42.14.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=b ...

[BeFree]

13. What do we expect?

That the NYTimes would comment on the election discussions? That they'd cover the discussions on the occupation of Iraq?

What good came of it was that the lazy people at Faux News pasted a copy of the article on yeterday's broadcast. There, worldwide, between pictures of the last two elected, and the one selected Presidents, was the name: "DemocraticUnderground.com"

At least they spelled the name right. What else did you expect?

[Catchawave]

14. Were there copyright violations?

Just wondering, since this is a privately owned website, that quoting from it without permission by a "for profit" organization may be illegal?

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Ah, no

While it is a privately owned site, it is a public forum. Even so, the quotes constitute "fair use".

Now, if the quotes from the other side hadn't been excised, the article would have been more balanced.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[bpilgrim]

20. they originally had quotes from 'the other side', interesting

so the 'grey lady' has folks on the 'inside' looking out for the freeps interest, eh... whoda thunk it :evilgrin:

i still say as long as they add our link for FREE, i'm PSYCHED :bounce:

and welcome to the SHOW all yall EVIL DU'ers :evilgrin:

thanks for sharing plan9_pub :toast:

peace

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Again...

my take on the matter is the article was just poorly edited, rather than edited with an agenda.

That's just me. I like to give folks the benefit of a doubt until they prove evil intent. <s>

And yes, I am aware of the irony of that view given how poorly the press does its job at times.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[bpilgrim]

23. well they've certainly been pretty sloppy lately thats fer sure...

but i hear ya, they're always rushing :evilgrin:

peace

[mattclearing]

15. This is common. Anyone who follows the "liberal media" recognizes it.

The vast majority of reporters are liberal. However, the editors are not, and they are the final arbiters of what is seen. They also are the ones responsible for holding reporters to journalistic standards.

Yesterday I commented that the description of DU as a gathering place for those who "hate the Bush Administration" was unattributed speculation of emotion and would never have made it to press with a decent editor.

I stand by that comment.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. That I agree with

I felt it was a mischaracterization.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Here's an article on blogs by the same guy from the 28th

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/technology/28blogs.html?oref=login&ex=1129

For vivid reporting from the enormous zone of tsunami disaster, it was hard to beat the blogs.

The so-called blogosphere, with its personal journals published on the Web, has become best known as a forum for bruising political discussion and media criticism. But the technology proved a ready medium for instant news of the tsunami disaster and for collaboration over ways to help.



David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[CatWoman]

19. a kick for David

:kick:

thanks!! :hi:

[yowzayowzayowza]

22. ...and another...

:kick:

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

24. I didn't see the

article so I couldn't read it, but having said that, I am reminded of the cartoons where the giant would try to swat the fly that had landed on his forehead............. guess who DU is and who the Times is?
The fact DU and any other forum has drawn their ire speaks more about the Times than it does all of us here. Good Job Everyone! Blog away!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Selwynn]

26. I don't consider it a "slam" at all - in fact its pretty dead on

The article points out, truthfully, some of the absurdity that gets posted here. But then it continues to go on and point out how even its examples of absurd discussion gradually evolved towardsm more serious and informative conversation. It quoted more quotes in a positive light than it did in a negative one. It made the point that even in the internet world - conversation can slowly evolve towards truth.

What exactly is the problem with the article?

OE KNOES SOMEONE SED SUMTHING CRITICUL BOUT DEE YEW!!!1!!!!1111 :eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

27. My problem with the article

was the comment about DU being a place where people who "hate" the Bush admin gather, which is a bit harsh and also misleading.

Section of the article edited out would have looked at some of the venomous posts from the right and would have been a better balance.

I posted the clarification because some folks got very upset at what they saw as slam at DU.

As I have said before, context is everything.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. Is DU a place where people who "hate" the Bush admin gather?

I'd say a poll will settle the matter!

[Karenina]

36. Why yes, actually!

They find their way here from the four corners of the earth, bringing with them different frames of reference, ways of thinking, perspectives and SERIOUS RESERVATIONS about *dauphin and crew. :evilgrin:

[booley]

35. well we ceretainly can't claim to like him!

it is misleading since the context implies that we all just sit here and say how much we hate Shrub and that's it. As if our dislike for him and the rest of he Cons was some isolated abberation, without cause or reason.

But I agree that over all this is a good thing to get the URL out. Those who are predisosed to beleive everything they are told will beleive it and never check. But we don't want those people anyway.

Others will come and see for themselves and they will see what we really stand for.