Metafilter gets UPI ink re Laurie Garrett March 3, 2003 9:13 PM Subscribe
Whoa. Metafilter makes a pretty impressive showing in this article (ala The Laurie Garrett Escapade). (Totally found via Condour75's site.)
Look, "this person cannot spell" is simply not a valid reason to believe someone is not a journalist. The repeated misspelling of "Institute for Pyschohistory" is a pretty valid case in point.
I must say though, her email was probably the best thing I read about Davos. I want to read more of her personal mail.
Interesting points about the different ethos of weblog writers and journalists.
posted by raaka at 11:00 PM on March 3, 2003
I must say though, her email was probably the best thing I read about Davos. I want to read more of her personal mail.
Interesting points about the different ethos of weblog writers and journalists.
posted by raaka at 11:00 PM on March 3, 2003
Metafilter: for all the world to see and dissect and snark on
posted by Space Coyote at 11:14 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 11:14 PM on March 3, 2003
So what's the count for number of news articles making mention of MeFi that use the word 'snark'?
posted by Space Coyote at 11:25 PM on March 3, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 11:25 PM on March 3, 2003
BigBrotherFilter.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:34 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:34 AM on March 4, 2003
I want to read more of her personal mail.
raaka I wouldn't be surprised if you get the opportunity to do just that.
As previously posted by xiffix, during the 9/11 tragedy, Laurie Garrett sent her friends a single generic email, which they spread far and wide, without any effort or intent on her part.
As poor Laurie didn't mean for strangers to read her mail then either, I can only think that her memory isn't very good. So just keep watching raaka, she might well do it again .
posted by Tarrama at 1:00 AM on March 4, 2003
raaka I wouldn't be surprised if you get the opportunity to do just that.
As previously posted by xiffix, during the 9/11 tragedy, Laurie Garrett sent her friends a single generic email, which they spread far and wide, without any effort or intent on her part.
As poor Laurie didn't mean for strangers to read her mail then either, I can only think that her memory isn't very good. So just keep watching raaka, she might well do it again .
posted by Tarrama at 1:00 AM on March 4, 2003
"The permeable barrier of friendship simply can't survive that kind of osmotic pressure."
who talks like this?
posted by boltman at 2:42 AM on March 4, 2003
who talks like this?
posted by boltman at 2:42 AM on March 4, 2003
Taking what he calls the MetaFilter's "classically techno-libertarian viewpoint" to its logical conclusion, Grimmelman argues, means a world basically without privacy of any sort.
I entirely disagree. Honesty is the best policy. Online privacy is what you make of it. You are only as exposed as you are. And as involved as you are in order to keep your privacy.
If it happened and it was thus reported ("private" email or no) and was then promptly disseminated across the planet via the world wide web, this candidness is what is necessary for the world wide web to be a tool of democracy.
Real, personal emails by Laurie Garrett would have never been forwarded about the world. Such as: Menstrual flow, Hottt diggity doggin' with rich fellas, Swiss Exquisiteness. None of that shit matters. Your personal life remains intact. No love lost. Nobody would have noticed a thing.
who talks like this?
dicknoses?
posted by crasspastor at 2:51 AM on March 4, 2003
I entirely disagree. Honesty is the best policy. Online privacy is what you make of it. You are only as exposed as you are. And as involved as you are in order to keep your privacy.
If it happened and it was thus reported ("private" email or no) and was then promptly disseminated across the planet via the world wide web, this candidness is what is necessary for the world wide web to be a tool of democracy.
Real, personal emails by Laurie Garrett would have never been forwarded about the world. Such as: Menstrual flow, Hottt diggity doggin' with rich fellas, Swiss Exquisiteness. None of that shit matters. Your personal life remains intact. No love lost. Nobody would have noticed a thing.
who talks like this?
dicknoses?
posted by crasspastor at 2:51 AM on March 4, 2003
I do. Color me dicknosed?
I have sensed something odd lately, in which (lazy?) mainstream journalists have used "the meFi reaction" - as if there is only one - as the hook to hang their story on, or at least the lede. I'm not the only one to have noticed this.
It's almost as if the journo scum now hover over their RSS aggregators, each narrowed down to a single feed - this one - awaiting the communal swing for or agin' the day's chosen goat.
How long until they quote someone posting on MeTa as a knowledgeable source on the MeFi reaction to the event?
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:50 AM on March 4, 2003
I have sensed something odd lately, in which (lazy?) mainstream journalists have used "the meFi reaction" - as if there is only one - as the hook to hang their story on, or at least the lede. I'm not the only one to have noticed this.
It's almost as if the journo scum now hover over their RSS aggregators, each narrowed down to a single feed - this one - awaiting the communal swing for or agin' the day's chosen goat.
How long until they quote someone posting on MeTa as a knowledgeable source on the MeFi reaction to the event?
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:50 AM on March 4, 2003
Surely not. Not now that they know we know they know. You know?
posted by taz at 4:00 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by taz at 4:00 AM on March 4, 2003
Oh, and eddydamascene? No comment about the UPI and the Unification Church is *ever* irrelevant. Godnose I've made enough of 'em meself.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:07 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:07 AM on March 4, 2003
From the article: "She felt that her personal boundaries were violated," her friend told UPI, "it was embarrassing to have her words picked apart (when) she believed she was sharing her personal observations with close friends."
Now one of her friends is repeating things she says to the press, and those sentiments are being forwarded and analyzed around the world. I guess Garrett should give up talking entirely.
posted by rcade at 5:00 AM on March 4, 2003
Now one of her friends is repeating things she says to the press, and those sentiments are being forwarded and analyzed around the world. I guess Garrett should give up talking entirely.
posted by rcade at 5:00 AM on March 4, 2003
The article keeps jabbing MeFi for waiting 3 days to contact Garrett this is simply not true. The post went up at 10:42 (EST) on Feb. 11th then:
I left Laurie Garrett a post in her guest book, alerting her to the post. If she wants to take credit (and if she reads her guestbook) , I suppose she can either email me or put something on her site.
posted by condour75 at 11:20 PM EST on February 11
We waited less than 38 minutes to contact Garrett, the accusation is simply not true!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:07 AM on March 4, 2003
I left Laurie Garrett a post in her guest book, alerting her to the post. If she wants to take credit (and if she reads her guestbook) , I suppose she can either email me or put something on her site.
posted by condour75 at 11:20 PM EST on February 11
We waited less than 38 minutes to contact Garrett, the accusation is simply not true!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:07 AM on March 4, 2003
Sorry make that 12 hours and 38 minutes, but its still far less than 3 days!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2003
mainstream journalists have used "the meFi reaction" - as if there is only one - as the hook to hang their story on, or at least the lede.
Does this mean -- heaven forfend -- that the endless political threads aren't just self-absorbed wanking? We've somehow transmogrified into a quotable (albeit disreputable) demographic?
posted by ook at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2003
Does this mean -- heaven forfend -- that the endless political threads aren't just self-absorbed wanking? We've somehow transmogrified into a quotable (albeit disreputable) demographic?
posted by ook at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2003
Condour did write that Garrett had been contacted only 9 minutes after Matt wrote in to confirm that a Laurie Garrett does in fact write for Newsday and could be the author, so I'd say that 12 hours or 9 minutes, it doesn't matter, it sure as hell wasn't 3 days, I, by the way have e-mailed the UPI to point out the discrepancy just to let you all know.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:38 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 7:38 AM on March 4, 2003
MetaFilter, a Web site described by the Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism Review as a "community weblog."
Maybe they hired a team of tweedy PhD's to load the website and read the header.
posted by planetkyoto at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2003
Maybe they hired a team of tweedy PhD's to load the website and read the header.
posted by planetkyoto at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2003
I was wondering about that gloriously pompous reference too. Where would we be without the Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism Review?
posted by rcade at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by rcade at 8:18 AM on March 4, 2003
LOL. I was wondering about that myself. Rather redefines "stating the obvious," don't it?
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:19 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:19 AM on March 4, 2003
Maybe they hired a team of tweedy PhD's to load the website and read the header.
Well, they're sort of doing what the whole article is about -- checking their facts with an outside source. Which is ironic, because seemingly the OJR's "amateur reporters" description is what sends the UPI writer off on that whole, completely uninsightful MetaFilter-members-aren't-good-journalists path. You don't say! (Not anyone here's job to be, though, is it.)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:39 AM on March 4, 2003
Well, they're sort of doing what the whole article is about -- checking their facts with an outside source. Which is ironic, because seemingly the OJR's "amateur reporters" description is what sends the UPI writer off on that whole, completely uninsightful MetaFilter-members-aren't-good-journalists path. You don't say! (Not anyone here's job to be, though, is it.)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:39 AM on March 4, 2003
Not anyone here's job to be, though, is it
Yeah but it is the UPI reporter's job, and you'd think he'd bother to check his facts before writing a published article.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2003
Yeah but it is the UPI reporter's job, and you'd think he'd bother to check his facts before writing a published article.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2003
I like this part:
Not every netizen was so angry. "Oh for pete's sake, cut her some slack. She had a private email posted for all the world to see and dissect and snark on... Show some goddamn compassion," wrote one MetaFilter contributor using the name Cunninglinguist.
posted by Marquis at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2003
Not every netizen was so angry. "Oh for pete's sake, cut her some slack. She had a private email posted for all the world to see and dissect and snark on... Show some goddamn compassion," wrote one MetaFilter contributor using the name Cunninglinguist.
posted by Marquis at 9:18 AM on March 4, 2003
Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism Review?
i was gonna comment but figured one day, i'd turn on my computer and my mouse would blow up.
posted by clavdivs at 9:19 AM on March 4, 2003
i was gonna comment but figured one day, i'd turn on my computer and my mouse would blow up.
posted by clavdivs at 9:19 AM on March 4, 2003
"The MetaFilter, a Web site described by the Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism ..." When you go from Metafilter to The Metafilter everything has changed. I din't know why, but it seems obvious.
posted by Mack Twain at 9:26 AM on March 4, 2003
posted by Mack Twain at 9:26 AM on March 4, 2003
"son, are you on the pot again?"
"no, ma, honest. i'm on the metafilter."
posted by danOstuporStar at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2003
"no, ma, honest. i'm on the metafilter."
posted by danOstuporStar at 10:14 AM on March 4, 2003
As poor Laurie didn't mean for strangers to read her mail then either, I can only think that her memory isn't very good. So just keep watching raaka, she might well do it again .
I suppose the question in Laurie's mind now is, "Will I be trusted to attend another major summit or event."
Will she get the chance to goof up again?
posted by Shane at 10:33 AM on March 4, 2003
I suppose the question in Laurie's mind now is, "Will I be trusted to attend another major summit or event."
Will she get the chance to goof up again?
posted by Shane at 10:33 AM on March 4, 2003
Oh, and eddydamascene? No comment about the UPI and the Unification Church is *ever* irrelevant.
UPI is owned by the Moonies!
posted by eddydamascene at 11:22 AM on March 4, 2003
UPI is owned by the Moonies!
posted by eddydamascene at 11:22 AM on March 4, 2003
mattpfeff, you hit the nail on the head. This article is a great living example of mainstream journalism still struggling to grasp what this "blogging" thing is. Now journalists have been told they have to pay attention to the medium because there's more and more crossover - but in doing so they're unable to look at a weblog for what it is - they ask someone "what is this?" and then when some "expert" gives them a pat answer, they look at it through those glasses. (I'm generalizing, of course, but that's definitely what happened here, and I've seen it happen elsewhere.) The concept that the FPP shouldn't have been posted because the poster couldn't verify its authenticity is laughably off-base. Laurie's the one who needed to hold herself to journalistic standards, not us.
I don't know if the Moonie takeover of UPI is causally tied to misguided nature of this article, but it sure does correlate like hell.
posted by soyjoy at 12:04 PM on March 4, 2003
I don't know if the Moonie takeover of UPI is causally tied to misguided nature of this article, but it sure does correlate like hell.
posted by soyjoy at 12:04 PM on March 4, 2003
UPI is owned by the Mooninites! Get it right! We're supposed be a disreputable source of quotable journalistic disingenuity. Or something like that.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:53 PM on March 4, 2003
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:53 PM on March 4, 2003
still struggling to grasp what this "blogging" thing is
Two hacks in a pub ... one is still trying to get over it.
"So there are these geeks, an they write on the internet about stuff and don't get paid for it and other geeks read wot they write."
"What do they write about."
"Haven' a f**kin clue..."
posted by feelinglistless at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2003
Two hacks in a pub ... one is still trying to get over it.
"So there are these geeks, an they write on the internet about stuff and don't get paid for it and other geeks read wot they write."
"What do they write about."
"Haven' a f**kin clue..."
posted by feelinglistless at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2003
One thing I noticed if you didn't read the whole article. Your comment could open yourself to having it labeled, snark.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:09 PM on March 4, 2003
posted by thomcatspike at 4:09 PM on March 4, 2003
Will she get the chance to goof up again?
Probably Shane, if the goof ups of people in power worldwide are anything to go by.
But even without the full-on,unfettered, class A hobnobbing invitations, I think Laurie Garrett is clever enough to make this work for her.
She will probably end up with her own show on television (you know, that box shaped thing some people watch) interviewing Matt Haughey.
posted by Tarrama at 5:40 PM on March 4, 2003
Probably Shane, if the goof ups of people in power worldwide are anything to go by.
But even without the full-on,unfettered, class A hobnobbing invitations, I think Laurie Garrett is clever enough to make this work for her.
She will probably end up with her own show on television (you know, that box shaped thing some people watch) interviewing Matt Haughey.
posted by Tarrama at 5:40 PM on March 4, 2003
Annenberg School for Communication's Online Journalism Review?
i was gonna comment but figured one day, i'd turn on my computer and my mouse would blow up.
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus = chicken emperor
A little background is in order:
Walter Annenberg: Nixon crony, Iran's Shah buddy, corporate bully. A realistic obituary in Slate
posted by matteo at 6:35 PM on March 4, 2003
i was gonna comment but figured one day, i'd turn on my computer and my mouse would blow up.
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus = chicken emperor
A little background is in order:
Walter Annenberg: Nixon crony, Iran's Shah buddy, corporate bully. A realistic obituary in Slate
posted by matteo at 6:35 PM on March 4, 2003
Thanks for the links matteo, they were really interesting.
Also I am fairly sure that clav is actually a vampire.
posted by Tarrama at 7:38 PM on March 4, 2003
Also I am fairly sure that clav is actually a vampire.
posted by Tarrama at 7:38 PM on March 4, 2003
I suppose the question in Laurie's mind now is, "Will I be trusted to attend another major summit or event."
Will she get the chance to goof up again?
Shane: that's my big question.
I finished reading Laurie's candid assesment of the summit, and thought it was a wonderful perspective I'd like to see repeat performances of.
Would that candidness threaten her access? If so, why? Do the world's leaders see its population as a large number of children who can't be dealt with candidly?
posted by namespan at 11:06 PM on March 4, 2003
In an interesting side note, I just received the Garrett letter as an e-mail forward from a friend who had just gotten it and is not a MeFite.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:54 AM on March 5, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 7:54 AM on March 5, 2003
I got it from my dad a day or two ago. Clare Swire redux?
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:46 PM on March 6, 2003
Howard: Never in doubt on Iraq - Margo Kingston
More of the undying memo
posted by y2karl at 10:10 PM on March 11, 2003
More of the undying memo
posted by y2karl at 10:10 PM on March 11, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Metafilter is now synonymous with Total Information Awareness.
Two hours later, another contributor declared the discussion "officially the Best MetaFilter Thread Ever."
Hey! They forgot the periods!
[some irrelevant comment about UPI and the Unification Church]
posted by eddydamascene at 9:58 PM on March 3, 2003