This is a solid example of a lame 'newsfilter' post. April 2, 2005 7:02 PM   Subscribe

Submitted for discussion: This is a solid example of a lame 'newsfilter' post. A link to a very brief local news story with zero attempt at intelligent context.
posted by mediareport to Etiquette/Policy at 7:02 PM (41 comments total)

Didn't we go over this last week?
posted by underer at 7:06 PM on April 2, 2005


We've run out of things to talk about.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:07 PM on April 2, 2005


Pope's dead.
posted by underer at 7:08 PM on April 2, 2005


The one thing that seemed clear from recent threads is that people differ in defining 'newsfilter.' Since this seemed a particularly clear example, I posted to see if other members felt the same way. I'm not stupid enough to expect a consensus, but I'm interested to see if we can clarify the definition a bit, since I think that'll help the site.

If you don't want to participate, please, feel free to do something else.
posted by mediareport at 7:13 PM on April 2, 2005


Yes, but it's amusing.

And if you don't see the "intelligent context", that's your problem. There are any number of directions you could take that post if you weren't so busy whining in Meta.
  • People's gullibility in general
  • Gullibility in particular when they think it may get them on the air or a few bucks
  • Whether it's just to convict somebody for persuading someone else to do something stupid under false pretenses
  • Whether it's just to convict somebody for what's not very different than an April Fool's prank
  • Whether it's just to convict somebody for what's not very different than an April Fool's prank, when he probably gained sexual satisfaction from doing it
  • Whether it would be ok if the guy convicted had really been a radio DJ
  • Whether it would be ok if the guy convicted had really been a blogger, trying to get a story for his blog
  • Whether it would be ok if the guy convicted had really been a radio DJ who wasn't holding contest, just showing how stupid people are
  • Whether it would be ok if the guy convicted had really been an actor working for "Candid Camera", or MTv's "Boiling Point" or "Jackass"
Rather than explore any of this, rather even than (apparently) think about it, your first reaction is -- I'll exaggerate slightly -- is to rub your hands together like a comic-book villain and say, "Ah-a, I can go and complain in Meta! Oh, oh, joy! It'll be like stealing Christmas from Who-ville!"

Come on, lighten up. Or join your neighborhood watch, or get a job as a Hall Monitor, if MetaFilter is too "loose" for it to be fun for you.
posted by orthogonality at 7:16 PM on April 2, 2005


Pope's dead.

Still? This being dead schtick of his is sooo twenty minutes ago...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:18 PM on April 2, 2005


Generalissimo Francisco Franco, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:19 PM on April 2, 2005


This is not a good example of the way many people use the term "newsfilter." I had understood a newsfilter post to be about a subject that everyone was going to hear about anyway. "Newsfilter" is a local term, so I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to use it; I just don't believe there's anything close to a consensus.
posted by anapestic at 7:23 PM on April 2, 2005


Rather than explore any of this, rather even than (apparently) think about it...

Um, for the record, I posted two supporting links in the thread that added to the small amount of information given, and raised the issue of sentencing fairness, which opened up an avenue for discussion. Did you even read the thread before posting your stupid and insulting assessment of my internal state, ortho? Sure doesn't look like it.

I'm not angry or gleeful here; I just saw an opportunity to help deal with an issue that's obviously been causing confusion. Anyone who's been reading the 'newsfilter' threads closely can see that folks are often talking past one another. As gently as possible - and after doing exactly what you accuse me of *not* doing - I opened the topic again.

On preview, thanks anapestic, for taking the post in the spirit in which it was offered.

This is not a good example of the way many people use the term "newsfilter."

Yeah, I agree, but wonder if the term is being used in the, er, most useful way. Is it even worth trying to define a "proper" reference for the 'newsfilter' label?
posted by mediareport at 7:30 PM on April 2, 2005


i propose one criterion for lame newsfilter post is to look at the lame discussion thread it provokes. "man who got others to strip convicted" definitely fits.
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:32 PM on April 2, 2005


Well, on the one hand there's NYT newsfilter, and on the other there's National Enquirer newsfilter, I suppose. Choose other periodicals as appropriate.
posted by anapestic at 7:43 PM on April 2, 2005


Is it even worth trying to define a "proper" reference for the 'newsfilter' label?
Yes, if one's going to try and explain to people why not to do it. Newsfilter refers to things that everyone knows about because they're on major news sites - e.g. the pope is dead. IMO, not a fantastic post, but newsfilter isn't one of its faults.
posted by swell at 7:46 PM on April 2, 2005


What does "." stand for?
posted by Krrrlson at 8:22 PM on April 2, 2005


Newsfilter refers to things that everyone knows about because they're on major news sites

Don't posts like this deleted link to a *local* daily news story also count? Isn't the key concept lazy posts pegged solely to shallow daily news coverage?
posted by mediareport at 8:25 PM on April 2, 2005


Don't take orthogonality too seriously, media. Now that he's made such a point about not making negative posts in the blue, he has to be twice as much of a dick in the grey.
posted by anapestic at 8:39 PM on April 2, 2005


Wasn't there a big blowup about some woman in Florida on life-support and the big battle over money between her husband and her parents, who were trying to force a divorce? That was local news for fifteen years until someone posted it to Metafilter. Then they got all these religious groups involved and tried to make their family squabble look like a moral crusade.

I swear, some people have no sense of proportion.
posted by Eideteker at 9:15 PM on April 2, 2005


I've always interpreted Newsfilter as having two meanings, really:

1) Something that everyone already knows about if they even glance at the front page of a newspaper, news site, etc.
2) Less well-known local news that isn't interesting or amusing unless you are affected, especially when the news is just a simple, shallow blurb.

So, for example:
"Well-known News" newsfilter
- George Bush punches foreign dignitary.
- Verdict of Michael Jackson case.
"Local News" newsfilter
- A blurb about Philadelphia serial vandalist being caught when spraypainting fifth local building
- Tom's Hardware store survives hurricane with minimal damage

Not newsfilter
- In depth report of serial vandalism search, involving different varieties of forensic evidence used and advanced computer analysis of particle dispersion angle to determine height, weight, and hobbies of vandalist.
- Tom's Hardware store survives hurricane with minimal damage by covering entire building in silly putty

Of course, the last one can slide into "NewsOfTheWeirdFilter" (often referred to as Farkfilter), but from what I gather is not generally called "newsfilter".
posted by Bugbread at 9:25 PM on April 2, 2005


mediareport : " Submitted for discussion: This is a solid example of a lame 'newsfilter' post. A link to a very brief local news story with zero attempt at intelligent context."

Mediareport: You're the OB, I'm the newbie, so just take this as a suggestion, nothing more. You might have gotten a better reaction from the start if you had phrased it:

"This seems to me a solid example of a lame "newsfilter" post. A link to a very brief local news story with zero attempt at intelligent context. Is my definition of newsfilter right?"

Or

"What is 'newsfilter'? Is this post, a link to a very brief local news story with zero attempt at intelligent context, newsfilter?"

As it is, when I first read the post, I didn't take it as an actual invitation to discussion (despite starting with "Submitted for discussion"), but a straightforward callout. It wasn't until your followup that I realized it was about discussion, not calling-out-ness-itude.
posted by Bugbread at 9:32 PM on April 2, 2005


bugbread writes "As it is, when I first read the post, I didn't take it as an actual invitation to discussion (despite starting with 'Submitted for discussion'), but a straightforward callout. "

Seconded. Knowing mediareport's, er, general propensity to Net Cop and tattle, I figured he was scalp-hunting.

Especially given that in the very comment in which mediareport "posted two supporting links", he also added an ever so offhanded "Oh, and Meta," with all the smugness of a disguised process-server handing a subpoena to an unsuspecting victim, or a "Heather" disinviting a less popular girl to her party.

y2karl's comment implies ("Jesus Christ, for a brief shining moment today, you were comment #1 in both kmtharakan's post and mediareport's MetaTalk post about it!") that mediareport also made the first comment in the FPP in question, but I don't see it. Was there a deletion?
posted by orthogonality at 9:46 PM on April 2, 2005


Mediareport's "propensity to Net Cop and tattle"? What on earth are you talking about?
posted by taz at 10:15 PM on April 2, 2005


I think orthogona- has mixed up his "Net cop and tattle" link with something else. Or, perhaps there's something in the whitespaces when mediareport writes something that kicks it off.
posted by gsb at 10:51 PM on April 2, 2005


I think this one is more FarkFilter than NewsFilter. My interpretation of NewsFilter is links to the main stories of the day - Schiavo, Pope, Iraq war - whatever is the story of the moment that could be covered just as well with a link to www.cnn.com.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:56 PM on April 2, 2005


gsb writes "I think orthogona- has mixed up his 'Net cop and tattle' link with something else."

Yeah, a call out of dhoyt. I got them confused. Thanks for pointing it out.
posted by orthogonality at 10:56 PM on April 2, 2005


It wasn't until your followup that I realized it was about discussion, not calling-out-ness-itude.

...not, like, calling-out-ness-itude, man.
posted by squirrel at 11:19 PM on April 2, 2005


Ortho, you're being a careless nutcase.

"Oh, and MeTa" means just that. Any smugness was your own, very telling, projection.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 PM on April 2, 2005


The spanking was indeed meant for me, not mediareport. y2karl knows how to make it hurt so good.

FWIW, I agree with mediareport that it's a pretty odd excuse for a post, but encouraging folks to limit trite Newsfiltery stuff has failed to make a dent since the backlash began back in ought-ought ('00). Better just to skip over it at this point...
Did I just say that?
posted by dhoyt at 12:00 AM on April 3, 2005


I dunno, dhoyt, the effort to cut back on Trite Newsfilter may not be successful, but there wasn't all that much to start with. The effort to cut back on Big Newsfilter has done pretty darn well, though. The front page is now much more readable than it was pre-election.
posted by Bugbread at 12:31 AM on April 3, 2005


Pepsi Blue! Oh, wait, wrong thread, sorry.
posted by fixedgear at 4:07 AM on April 3, 2005


Why not just say lame post and forget what kind of *filter it is?

Not a commentary on the post in discussion, just kind of a general gripe.
posted by spaghetti at 7:57 AM on April 3, 2005


You say newsfilter like it's a bad thing.
I still say newsfilter is any single-link post to a news site, whether good or bad.

The problem here, mediareport, is getting everyone to agree that a link that lacks 'intelligent context' makes for a bad FPP. Hell, we get plenty of ordinary FPPs so cryptic that they have no context whatsoever, intelligent or otherwise, that are deemed acceptable.

In fact, just what is 'intelligent context'?
posted by mischief at 8:29 AM on April 3, 2005


mediareport writes "Ortho, you're being a careless nutcase. 'Oh, and MeTa' means just that. Any smugness was your own, very telling, projection."

Yeah, you're right mediareport. I mean, how could I possibly have gotten the impression you're a rude and confrontation flame warrior looking for excuses to attack from behind the safety of your keyboard, when you come up with such conciliatory, consensus seeking phrases as "careless nutcase". My bad.

bugbread writes "The effort to cut back on Big Newsfilter has done pretty darn well, though. The front page is now much more readable than it was pre-election."

True enough, but there's also no upcoming election to generate newsfilter.
posted by orthogonality at 8:46 AM on April 3, 2005


New Pope Otho. Now heres an election that last happened 26 years ago. Is the world going to experiance an earth shattering catholic schism covered 24/7 by Fox news etc. Africa and Latinlandia vs. Euroamerica. I am sure we can make a go of it.
posted by adamvasco at 11:21 AM on April 3, 2005


when you come up with such conciliatory, consensus seeking phrases as "careless nutcase".

Coming from someone who's posted obnoxiously wrong info about me *twice* in this thread already without apologizing, that's quite a laugh.
posted by mediareport at 11:25 AM on April 3, 2005


I mean, how could I possibly have gotten the impression you're a rude and confrontation flame warrior looking for excuses to attack from behind the safety of your keyboard, when you come up with such conciliatory, consensus seeking phrases as "careless nutcase".

Dude. You totally started the fight. Read your first comment again.
posted by anapestic at 12:21 PM on April 3, 2005


In fact, just what is 'intelligent context'?

That's easily answered: Any link that serves to deepen what would otherwise be an overly shallow post that's simply a link to a brief news story. It's not a particularly tough thing to define, although I can understand why calling it "intelligent context" might have seemed a bit vague.

The point is that simple posts to shallow news stories are lazy, and lazy posting is a disservice to other members. Taking the time to post non-trivial links that add context to the story is the least you can do. And if there isn't much else to be found about the story - as was the case with the thread I posted about - then I'd suggest there's a good chance it wasn't worth posting to the front page.

By the way, I should point out that calls for additional context in brief news posts has nothing to do with the "all single-link posting is bad" nonsense that berek insists on spouting (even after folks pointed out that the history of the site proves him dead wrong). Positions like his add to the confusion about 'newsfilter' as well.
posted by mediareport at 1:43 PM on April 3, 2005


Why can't we all just get along? Jesus H. Christ on a sidecar.

Yknow, I think the "meta" in MetaFilter is misleading. I think there is so much metadiscourse about MetaFilter itself -- what it should be, what is acceptable and what isn't -- that it gets in the way of simple posting of interesting links and the discussion of them. Having once been a Usenet junkie, I'm aware that the urge is great for users themselves to moderate a discussion forum with (comparatively) minimal, fairly invisible moderations from actual moderators.

But if everyone would PLEASE keep in mind the [!] as well as whatever you consider a browser's equivalent of the "n"ext message key, it would make a lot of threads a LOT easier to read. We all remember Usenet, don't we? DON'T WE?!?!
posted by sninky-chan at 1:56 PM on April 3, 2005


simple posts to shallow news stories

Oh well, there's your problem.; the linked news story wasn't shallow.
posted by mischief at 3:06 PM on April 3, 2005


Shallow *coverage*, mischief. I mean simple posts to shallow coverage of (usually daily) news stories. Sorry for not being clear there.
posted by mediareport at 3:33 PM on April 3, 2005


We all remember Usenet, don't we? DON'T WE?!?!

Why, yes. Yes, we do.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:48 PM on April 3, 2005


I agree with all the people who keep trying to convey to mediareport that "newsfilter" specifically refers not just to lazy one-link FPPs, but to lazy one-link FPPs of stuff that people want to discuss just because it's news - stuff we're likely to see elsewhere but know someone will probably post it here. "Oddball," "wacky" stories like this - which most people may not have seen elsewhere and which often have to do with nudity, sex, or funny animals - are often subpar, and qualify as "farkfilter," but not "newsfilter."
posted by soyjoy at 11:42 AM on April 4, 2005


We all remember Usenet, don't we? DON'T WE?!?!

Why, yes. Yes, we do.

from the second of the links thereat:

Matt's always been very trusting towards his membership, and in general, receives the respect that's deserved by such trust. I can't help thinking that it doesn't accommodate 13,000-odd members: partly because the times don't lend themselves to seminar-style discussion; partly because you're dealing with the friction between oldbies and newbies, and their different conceptions of what the place is, was, and should be. 'Member memory' is a vital aspect of community sites, even ones which profess to deal with the transient meme-feed, and I think it's much stronger at MeFi than Plastic: so that when you have members who take perhaps two years' worth of discussion into the day's discussion up against new arrivals, it's bound to create the same kind of frustrations as a USENET September.

And that was in 2002.

Ah, holgate.. I'm with iconomy--and the agreement of the equally missed rodii, too--when she wrote:

I told him I wished he would return to MetaFilter.

So do I still.
posted by y2karl at 9:40 PM on April 4, 2005


« Older we get it, you don't like the pope.   |   Lo-Fi MeFi for me? Newer »

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