Comments on: CNN's Small Mistake, Apple Shareholders' Big One http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2724 Delia Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:56:47 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2724 sorry I'm late... re: Dan: "I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift." ... "consumers will have do a little more intellectual lifting, which they should have been doing all along." You can't realistically expect average people to spend a lot of time gathering and analyzing information from a large number of sources that may or may not be reliable and do a good job at it (most people don't have the time and/or the expertise) -- it is the job of the media to provide the equivalent of executive summaries that people can use (journalism is failing when it does not fulfill this function) Delia sorry I’m late…

re: Dan: “I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift.” … “consumers will have do a little more intellectual lifting, which they should have been doing all along.”

You can’t realistically expect average people to spend a lot of time gathering and analyzing information from a large number of sources that may or may not be reliable and do a good job at it (most people don’t have the time and/or the expertise) — it is the job of the media to provide the equivalent of executive summaries that people can use (journalism is failing when it does not fulfill this function)

Delia

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2723 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:36:22 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2723 Why do I discredit myself when many, many, evangelists have said far worse and benefitted? What I said was not polite, but it was heartfelt, and that does not make it untrue. I stand by it. But I am aware it makes me no friends in A-list places, and for that reason I shouldn't do it :-(. Why do I discredit myself when many, many, evangelists have said far worse and benefitted?

What I said was not polite, but it was heartfelt, and that does not make it untrue. I stand by it.

But I am aware it makes me no friends in A-list places, and for that reason I shouldn’t do it :-( .

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2722 Dan Gillmor Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:33:43 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2722 Seth, this is so far over the top that I'll just say nothing more. You discredit yourself with such bilge. Seth, this is so far over the top that I’ll just say nothing more. You discredit yourself with such bilge.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2721 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:14:38 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2721 </strong> </strong> [Ouch, forgot to close the tag- feel free to fix above/delete this] [Ouch, forgot to close the tag- feel free to fix above/delete this]

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2720 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:13:19 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2720 <em>I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift.</em> So, we are agreed on the terms of the dispute itself. I believe the above view is DEEPLY, DEEPLY, wrong-headed. What's wrong is, in a sound-bite, what I said above: "away from relatively strong social institutions and onto relatively powerless individuals". And when things go wrong, the political demagogues and the sleazy marketers attack the weak - IT'S *YOUR* FAULT, they pontificate, *YOU* have to take *RESPONSIBILITY* for your own actions - in effect excusing the powers they serve. It is, in a word, and I use this directly, <strong><em>EVIL</em><strong>. [Sigh, tedious anti-strawman : I didn't say you are evil, or there's no such thing as responsibility, blah, blah, blah] "The institutions we trust have to earn it. The ones we've trusted in the past have not lived up, in many cases, to their part of the bargain." Much of this (anti-strawman: not "all") is a propaganda line pushed by the political demagogues and sleazy marketers who seek to tear down civic institutions and replace them with propaganda and advertising. I mean, blog evangelism is absolutely marinated in those types of people, taking its cue from right-wing pseudo-populism (anti-strawman: not "every person"). To be metaphorical about it all, the situation is a bit like a military junta which wants to overthrow a troubled social-democratic government. There's bureaucracy, and corruption, and this problem, and that problem, and discontent, yadda yadda yadda - but it also could be much, much worse. And forces which worship The Law Of The Jungle (and anyone who dissents gets stomped-on) tend to be much, much worse. The fact that "trust" in new institutions is even more highly correlated with "telling people what they want to hear" than before, should be very frightening to journalistic values. I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift.

So, we are agreed on the terms of the dispute itself. I believe the above view is DEEPLY, DEEPLY, wrong-headed. What’s wrong is, in a sound-bite, what I said above: “away from relatively strong social institutions and onto relatively powerless individuals”. And when things go wrong, the political demagogues and the sleazy marketers attack the weak – IT’S *YOUR* FAULT, they pontificate, *YOU* have to take *RESPONSIBILITY* for your own actions – in effect excusing the powers they serve. It is, in a word, and I use this directly, EVIL.

[Sigh, tedious anti-strawman : I didn't say you are evil, or there's no such thing as responsibility, blah, blah, blah]

“The institutions we trust have to earn it. The ones we’ve trusted in the past have not lived up, in many cases, to their part of the bargain.”

Much of this (anti-strawman: not “all”) is a propaganda line pushed by the political demagogues and sleazy marketers who seek to tear down civic institutions and replace them with propaganda and advertising. I mean, blog evangelism is absolutely marinated in those types of people, taking its cue from right-wing pseudo-populism (anti-strawman: not “every person”).

To be metaphorical about it all, the situation is a bit like a military junta which wants to overthrow a troubled social-democratic government. There’s bureaucracy, and corruption, and this problem, and that problem, and discontent, yadda yadda yadda – but it also could be much, much worse. And forces which worship The Law Of The Jungle (and anyone who dissents gets stomped-on) tend to be much, much worse.

The fact that “trust” in new institutions is even more highly correlated with “telling people what they want to hear” than before, should be very frightening to journalistic values.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2719 Dan Gillmor Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:54:46 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2719 Of course it's not a new issue. And while you are making a strawman out of a strawman (in your eyes), I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift. The institutions we trust have to earn it. The ones we've trusted in the past have not lived up, in many cases, to their part of the bargain. We're in a transition where the old organizations will have to earn it again, and new ones for the first time -- and where consumers will have do a little more intellectual lifting, which they should have been doing all along. Of course it’s not a new issue. And while you are making a strawman out of a strawman (in your eyes), I still see nothing wrong with shifting **more** responsibility onto the consumer of media. In fact, that strikes me as a healthy shift.

The institutions we trust have to earn it. The ones we’ve trusted in the past have not lived up, in many cases, to their part of the bargain. We’re in a transition where the old organizations will have to earn it again, and new ones for the first time — and where consumers will have do a little more intellectual lifting, which they should have been doing all along.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2718 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:21:46 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2718 Dan, it's a strawman to refute (my emphasis) "we should shift *ALL* responsibility to the reader.". You certainly, avowedly, repeatedly, suggest shifting *MORE* responsibility to the reader. On another strawman, I've said above this is not a NEW issue. It's an old issue being made WORSE. I get these two strawmen over and over. I claim "more" and "worse", and the strawmen "all" and "new" are knocked-down. Regarding the "big stuff", I have <em>zero</em> power to affect any of it. Look, someone like you or Lessig just <em>might</em> listen to me - maybe. That's it. That's my level. That's the limits of my ability to change anything. It's hardly a worthwhile recommendation that I should increase my exercise in futility. Dan, it’s a strawman to refute (my emphasis) “we should shift *ALL* responsibility to the reader.”. You certainly, avowedly, repeatedly, suggest shifting *MORE* responsibility to the reader. On another strawman, I’ve said above this is not a NEW issue. It’s an old issue being made WORSE. I get these two strawmen over and over. I claim “more” and “worse”, and the strawmen “all” and “new” are knocked-down.

Regarding the “big stuff”, I have zero power to affect any of it. Look, someone like you or Lessig just might listen to me – maybe. That’s it. That’s my level. That’s the limits of my ability to change anything. It’s hardly a worthwhile recommendation that I should increase my exercise in futility.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2717 Dan Gillmor Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:09:46 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2717 Seth, I'm not suggesting we should shift all responsibility to the reader. Whoever pulled this scam, if it was more than a (stupid) prank, should be prosecuted. And CNN should be ashamed of its lack of stark labeling on the site -- it should be warning people not to assume the verity of anything they see (a warning they should add to the garbage spewed by people such as Nancy Grace on their "real journalism" TV channel). But this is not a new issue. If you make a meaningful financial decision based on something you hear at the corner bar, from someone you don't know, you're an idiot. And you're responsible, in significant part, for what you've done. If we're going to get exercised about shifting responsibility in this society, let's go after the big stuff -- things like the promises followed by abdication by companies promising pensions, the health-insurance industry's systematic exclusion of anyone who might get sick, and, the big one, government at various levels making promises that it not only can't keep but which are going to impoverish our children and their children. Seth, I’m not suggesting we should shift all responsibility to the reader. Whoever pulled this scam, if it was more than a (stupid) prank, should be prosecuted. And CNN should be ashamed of its lack of stark labeling on the site — it should be warning people not to assume the verity of anything they see (a warning they should add to the garbage spewed by people such as Nancy Grace on their “real journalism” TV channel).

But this is not a new issue. If you make a meaningful financial decision based on something you hear at the corner bar, from someone you don’t know, you’re an idiot. And you’re responsible, in significant part, for what you’ve done.

If we’re going to get exercised about shifting responsibility in this society, let’s go after the big stuff — things like the promises followed by abdication by companies promising pensions, the health-insurance industry’s systematic exclusion of anyone who might get sick, and, the big one, government at various levels making promises that it not only can’t keep but which are going to impoverish our children and their children.

]]> By: LSDI : Bufera sul citizen journalism per una falsa notizia sulla salute di Steve Jobs http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2716 LSDI : Bufera sul citizen journalism per una falsa notizia sulla salute di Steve Jobs Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:27:30 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2716 [...] L’ opinione di Dan Gillmor sul caso del finto attacco di cuore di Steve Jobs – prosegue Mantellini - è che CNN sia stata "usata". Che qualcuno abbia abusato di iReport per ovvie ragioni di speculazione borsistica anche se - secondo il noto giornalista californiano - appare piuttosto evidente che nel sito di iReport non è sufficientemente segnalata la natura non giornalistica di quelle pagine e quindi la necessità di non considerarle maggiormente attendibili rispetto ad un qualsiasi altro ambito di rete. [...] [...] L’ opinione di Dan Gillmor sul caso del finto attacco di cuore di Steve Jobs – prosegue Mantellini – è che CNN sia stata "usata". Che qualcuno abbia abusato di iReport per ovvie ragioni di speculazione borsistica anche se – secondo il noto giornalista californiano – appare piuttosto evidente che nel sito di iReport non è sufficientemente segnalata la natura non giornalistica di quelle pagine e quindi la necessità di non considerarle maggiormente attendibili rispetto ad un qualsiasi altro ambito di rete. [...]

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/03/cnns-small-mistake-apple-shareholders-big-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2715 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:33:40 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1472#comment-2715 By the way, that "individual responsibility" touches on something I think is terribly, terribly, wrong with net-evangelism - namely, the way it feeds into an advocacy of <em>risk-shifting</em> away from relatively strong social institutions and onto relatively powerless individuals. The people in favor of this risk-shifting very often (not always, but frequently) have extremely exploitative motives, because it makes the audience then easier prey for marketers and demagogues. I've been trying to get intellectual-type A-listers like e.g. you or Lessig to think about this, but I admit I've been pretty unsuccessful at it (or worse). By the way, that “individual responsibility” touches on something I think is terribly, terribly, wrong with net-evangelism – namely, the way it feeds into an advocacy of risk-shifting away from relatively strong social institutions and onto relatively powerless individuals. The people in favor of this risk-shifting very often (not always, but frequently) have extremely exploitative motives, because it makes the audience then easier prey for marketers and demagogues.

I’ve been trying to get intellectual-type A-listers like e.g. you or Lessig to think about this, but I admit I’ve been pretty unsuccessful at it (or worse).

]]>