Reuters covers it but it isn't covered. What July 30, 2002 5:13 AM   Subscribe


When will folks tire of making such statements without having first done some actual web searching first, or maybe reading a few newspapers? Daypop, Google, Blogdex, headline collators, something. Get with it: if you're not reading lots of news online all the time, then you're not qualified to make such statements.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's published on a big-time news site in another country, it's as good as published in the US. I'm told that more Americans and US residents read the London Times online every day than read such newspapers as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the Philadelphia Inquirer in hard copy. Foreign news isn't stopped at the trans-Atlantic cable. Also, stories don't have to appear in hard-copy newspapers to be considered reported. Many online sites, for example, now publish virtually the entire Reuters and AP feeds, which are too voluminous to appear in complete form any newspaper, anywhere. If it's on the Internet, it's been reported and people know about it. You're not the only person with Internet access on your block anymore.

There's no big conspiracy, you know. You can stop saying such things. If you know about it, then it's not a very well kept secret, is it? Are you privy to some secret wellspring of suppressed stories the rest of us are not?
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:24 AM on July 30, 2002


I suspect that a strategic addition of the word 'yet' might have made all the difference.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:37 AM on July 30, 2002


Mo, newspapers aren't supposed to go out and research whatever they want and let Reuters fill in the gaps later. If the NYT, WP, WSJ or even USAT devotes their own resources and provides background, analysis, etc., that's just as good as an editorial from that newspaper saying "this issue is important." An online link to the AP feed is their way of saying "this issue is not important to us." People take their cues from the media sources they trust.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:58 AM on July 30, 2002


Mo: I do not have any statistics onhand, but I believe that the vast majority of Americans still get their news from TV, print mags and newspapers. Clearly an increasing number of people are getting it from the internet, but how many people actually know how to / take the time to do a thorough search of the web for a topic? Most Americans check one or two of the mainstream news sources if they do get their info from the net.

My interpretation of "it's not getting much coverage in US media" is not that there is some sort of coverup, but simply that this story has not gotten much coverage on media sources that most Americans use, therefore most Americans don't know about the story.
posted by rbellon at 6:07 AM on July 30, 2002


Anybody know of a study detailing how people get their news? That is, how many people cite the Internet as their primary news source vs. newspapers, radio, or tv? I don't generally think of something as getting coverage to speak of in the media unless it gets at least 1:45 on each of the five o'clock, six o'clock, and seven o'clock news with Jim Vance and Doreen Gentzler.

Which is to say that the media generally covers political scandals and train wrecks. If you want news, you always have to seek it out.

On preview: "jinx."
posted by sudama at 6:33 AM on July 30, 2002


As far as I'm concerned, if it's published on a big-time news site in another country, it's as good as published in the US.

I agree with you that the "not reported here" statement is probably overused, but I would be surprised if even 1 percent of Americans visit any international news media sites regularly for news.
posted by rcade at 6:36 AM on July 30, 2002


If the UN report, when actually released, contains damning hard evidence, it will get play. Basing a front-page story on a leaked rumor of an opinion is specious journalism. This will probably appear today or tomorrow (the report is a mere one day old!) in major metro newspapers' international sections, most of whom will take a wait-and-see attitude toward the report's eventual concrete charges.

Right now, the leak is just red-flagging it; it's marketing. Spinning the report before it's out as "US committed war crimes", which doesn't even seem like the UN is quite prepared to charge. So front stories on spin are OK, as long as it's the right spin?
posted by dhartung at 7:07 AM on July 30, 2002


Mo Nickels, how about some evidence to back up your rather sweeping statement? What percentage of US citizens have access to the internet as opposed to T.V or newspapers, of those , how many of them regularly read international news sites? Just interested to know.
posted by Fat Buddha at 7:55 AM on July 30, 2002


Internet Grows as Primary Source of News and Information This admittedly 9 month old Harris poll shows the use on 9/11 and subsequent growth of the net as the primary source of news. This report shows the general lack of interest in international news and where people get their news. There seems to be a lot of opinion out there about where on the net people are getting their news. With the zillions of news sources out there it's hard to believe folks are spending their time at CNN.com or MSNBC.com and when I see a link to those kind of places I sometimes wonder if it was first seen on television.
posted by Mack Twain at 8:22 AM on July 30, 2002


Fat Buddha: What percentage of US citizens have access to the internet

About half. And:
After e-mail, the most popular online activity is looking for news. While people want news they can trust - and they believe that they can find that news online - they also want more control over how that news is presented to them.
My mother in law has forwarded me stories from the BBC.
posted by hob at 8:26 AM on July 30, 2002


Mo: Non UK citizen's will find it hard to read The Times online. They're now being ask to pay £39 if they don't come from a UK IP address. Local proxies ahoy!

Of course that doesn't mean that they're not reading the BBC, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.
posted by nedrichards at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2002


Ned: The online Times can (still?) be read free in Portugal too. Perhaps it's a EU thing. Yar boo sucks and all that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:53 AM on July 30, 2002


Thanks for that link hob, very intriguing.
posted by Fat Buddha at 8:57 AM on July 30, 2002


PrinceValium: An online link to the AP feed is their way of saying "this issue is not important to us." Sorry, but you're wrong. There's a *huge* flood of news that travels across the AP wire every day. Picking one story out *is* a way of saying "this is important." In addition, foreign news desks are understaffed and underbudgeted. You may only ever get the wire story, because that's all they can afford. If an editor feels a wire story is of sufficient quality, he will run it as-is, without additions or changes. There's an endless supply of news out there; a wise news chief will put her people on other, uncovered stories.

Rbellon: I believe that the vast majority of Americans still get their news from TV, print mags and newspapers. Clearly an increasing number of people are getting it from the internet... Umm, but *we* are on the Internet, are we not? Anyone reading a post on Metafilter saying, "Why isn't this being reported?" is, mostly likely, getting some of their news on the web, are they not? And so not included in your imaginary "vast majority"? So what's the use of such a post? Now, if folks were to write, "Here's a story I think deserves more play" you'd never hear a peep out of me. On this subject, anyway.

Also Rebellon: My interpretation.. is not that there is some sort of coverup, but simply that... most Americans don't know about the story. (Please excuse the editing; I think the sense remains.) That's the gambit, isn't it? "I know something other people don't." It's almost never, practically never ever, true. It all filters down, given time. Those of us who habitually read papers from more than one country are very used to seeing a story in, say, Le Monde, appear weeks later in the New York Times, and vice versa. Time, time, time.

Sudama: If you want news, you always have to seek it out. Amen, brother. People who think like that are what keeps this place interesting.

NedRichards: My information tidbit about the Times readership came out of a conversation with a private individual who is in the know. We were discussing the pay-for-content approach for news sites, such as the Times'. The numbers he threw at me came from internal research done at the Times as part of deciding how to increase revenues and decrease costs; not something I'd ordinarily find out. It sucks that they charge, and I'm not willing to pay it, not given the wealth of free content out there.
posted by Mo Nickels at 9:06 AM on July 30, 2002


Just a reminder to people (especially Americans, in my limited experience) who see the name "The Times" and think it's a quality broadsheet - it was sold way back and is now pretty tabloid in it's coverage. The Telegraph (right), Guardian/Observer (left), Independent (confused) and Financial Times (surprisingly good) are the "serious" papers in the UK (all imho, etc).
posted by andrew cooke at 9:09 AM on July 30, 2002


"its" dammit. normally wouldn't correct typos, but how can someone who uses "it's" incorrectly have a valid opinion about quality journalism? :o)
posted by andrew cooke at 9:10 AM on July 30, 2002


If we had reliable Internet-wide traffic stats (Jupiter Media something something?) - we could build a daypop like extension that says "this story was seen by xx percentage of Internet eyes" by adding up the traffic rankings of the articles that ran the story. Stage 2 would be to identify overlap between those sites (ESPECIALLY blogs) and then to figure out - what percentage of "eyes" clicked on the story, what percentage of people read *every* headline on nytimes front page, city page, etc. etc.
posted by djacobs at 9:22 AM on July 30, 2002


I'm guessing, from what I read online, that the BBC is the main non-US port of call for US readers..?
posted by i_cola at 9:25 AM on July 30, 2002


andrew cooke, your point about the Times, is interesting, but helps validate the article, not detract from it. Rupert Murdoch is a hands on proprietor and a U.S citizen, there would be no mileage in The Times printing something that is simply anti U.S, which suggests to me that the editor is fairly sure of the veracity of the claims. We shall see. Maybe.
So, internal research at the Times, presumably designed to increase advertising revenue, suggests that more U.S citizens get their news from the Times than more localised newspapers. Hmm, smacks of credulity to me; lies, lies and damn statistics and all that.
posted by Fat Buddha at 9:56 AM on July 30, 2002


Now, if folks were to write, "Here's a story I think deserves more play" you'd never hear a peep out of me. On this subject, anyway.

i thought that could be inferred from the fact that i made it a post.

and yes, i did look at daypop [it was pretty low on the list] google [not on front page, search showed mostly non-us news] cnn and msnbc to see if it was covered on the front page or world sections.

i didn't say, nor did i mean to imply, that this was some vast conspiracy. it was only a statement of my observations.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's published on a big-time news site in another country, it's as good as published in the US.

that may be functionally true, (although from what most of the polls show americans are more comfortable with online news run by cable/network tv or national newspapers) but it is clearly not literally true. My intent with that statement was just to offer an observation that it wasn't being covered in american news, not suggest a conspiracy, or even to give a central idea to the post. The observation that it wasn't being covered was very secondary to the content of the post.

Umm, but *we* are on the Internet, are we not? Anyone reading a post on Metafilter saying, "Why isn't this being reported?" is, mostly likely, getting some of their news on the web, are they not?

Clearly yes, again there is no implication that mefi readers are not getting a lot of news from all sorts of web sites in many countries. I personally don't get much of my news from cnn.com, and thought that maybe many other mefi people didn't either, so i thought it may be peripherally interesting to know that it wasn't being covered there.

Next time i post (ha!) i'll be extra careful not to include anything other than the main story.
posted by rhyax at 10:59 AM on July 30, 2002


Mo Nickels - this October 2001 post of yours had a lot of information on news sources. Do you all still hold? Any updates? Thanks.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:09 AM on July 30, 2002


See this post, also, for a number of great news sites.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:07 PM on July 30, 2002


rhyax: I thought your post and it's intentions were clear, and I agree, it's not being reported by mainstream sites.

I don't think you have to be "careful" about anything. It's a huge story, thanks for bringing it to my attention!
posted by djacobs at 12:13 PM on July 30, 2002


Rhyax is right. I hadn't seen any mention of this story before I found it on MetaFilter.

Thanks, rhyax. Keep on postin'.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:04 PM on July 30, 2002


. Rupert Murdoch is a hands on proprietor and a U.S citizen, there would be no mileage in The Times printing something that is simply anti U.S, which suggests to me that the editor is fairly sure of the veracity of the claims.

...unless there were sales in criticising the US at the moment. In which case Rupe's would sell y'all out in the blink of an eye.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:16 PM on July 30, 2002


Do you all still hold? Any updates? Thanks.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you mean to ask if I have anything to add, I would only include these two obvious choices:

Google News and Yahoo News. Also, I'd recommend going to VersionTracker, picking your favorite platform, searching for "headline" and downloading yourself a good headline collator. I switch back and forth betwen MacReporter and Slashdock for Mac OS X and go away satiated. (Headline collators also save a great deal of time otherwise spent loading bloated web pages just to see if anything new is posted. It cuts my morning reading time by about half of what it was.)
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:04 PM on July 30, 2002


Thanks!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:40 PM on July 30, 2002


« Older Mozilla 1.1b crashing after spellcheck is...   |   Global meetup day! Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments