When a major non-partisan US political news source that is run by the former National Politics Editor of the Washington Post, has sponsored multiple presidential debates for both parties, and has broken numerous stories claims to have multiple sources supporting a major American political story, which is then replied to by the Vice President's staff, who doesn't deny the story -- an inherently newsworthy event -- why does this appear "not fully baked enough"? Keep in mind that stories such as Piggate, Watergate, the Lewinsky Affair, and this post from today, and, well... many MeFi posts in general, are based on a single person's opinion or slanted recollection, and not multiple confirmed sources from a reputable news organization, as is the gold standard in journalism. What are the community's thoughts on the standards that should be used by MetaFilter in order for a story to be considered shareable? Are other journalists expected to do the hard work of finding anonymous sources to confirm or deny the story first, before it can be shared with the rest of us?
"I was a daily reader of Slashdot from about 1997 onwards, and it was a key inspiration for me starting MetaFilter." Matt Haughey interviewed Rob “CmdrTaco” Malda, Slashdot founder.
Tom Vanderbilt reuses Ask MetaFilter question and answers in his book Traffic [more inside]
MetaFilter Journalists. [Opinion Content: Moderate. Sentiment: Mostly Neutral]
Does the LA Times lose credibility when they change their entire site for a new movie?
"This entire genre of editorials are so embarassing: the guy who won't stand for it anymore and finally tells it like it is, which inevitably means high-fiving his readers and foaming with vitriolic bigotry.... I propose the name 'Fratboy Journalism.' "
So, I think that MeFi was the first to break the bit about racist looting captions. So why then do Wonkette and Flickr users get to pretend they broke the story? There are others, it's now quite the little hot Internet topic. But where's the MeFi love?
Did Rumsfeld ban cameraphones in Iraq?(Follow up to this thread) Seems sloppy journalists fell for fake news from the web. Again.
When the Audience is the Producer: The Art of the Collaborative Weblog (pdf), a presentation at the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism by UT journalism grad student Lou Rutigliano has things to say about Metafilter. [more inside]
Salon's feature on the porn chat-room vigilante site Perverted Justice includes the lazy journalist's best friend: non-attributed man on the street quotes from MetaFilter.
So, Newsmax before Newsweek? I tend to find Newsmax, CommonDreams, YellowTimes, BushWatch all sub quality journalistic demagogues. A question of policy.
John Hiler has written a good piece discussing blogging and journalism. At the conclusion he outlines a ' Blogging Code of Ethics' which I think is meant to be a work in progress. Whilst I understand his point, surely there are only a very few weblog that actually have the level of impact and/or respect, for such a thing to be relevent? I don't know, is a 'Blogging Code of Ethics' really necessary? If you think it is, is there anything you would add/subtract from his list?
Lets discuss a typo sent to someone as an email attachment. Post 11138
I don't know where else to put this: If you work for a major media company that is repurposing analog content into the digital media, then please pass a note to your people that a) when a caption says "Left, Joe Blow" in analog form, it might need editing in digital form, particularly as considering how Joe may now be to the right, top or bottom of the caption, or Joe's picture may not be there at all, leading to b) Please, if you feel the need to print stories like "Calvin Klein was hit with a pie, as shown in the picture above" please show the picture above. Very frustrating. I know you old media people are too cheap to pay photographers that little bit extra to use their pictures online, too, but it makes no sense to then go ahead and pay the writer for a story that is near useless without the photo.