Do you pay for news?
-
That's one of my points (which you apparently chose not to read): They get busted -- but it's hardly a daily occurrence; kindly check your facts before sending unverified information to print. Oh, I'm sorry. You're a believer that just because someone who doesn't have journalistic ethics says something it's true -- or truer than the word of someone who's hasn't slept for three days because he's been confirming the veracity of every word he wants to send to press, and still has had to scratch half his words because irrefutable proof of their veracity can't be identified. So go ahead, read every word your free-news people say, secure in the knowledge that a third of it is assumption, another third is guesswork, and that not a single fact has been checked. But that's OK, because they'll never get busted, and you'll never know if they've lied.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
When it comes to honesty I'm not advocating one source over the other; however, I did make the claim that since the common tongue of both is lies that I'll take my lies for free.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. You're a believer that just because someone who doesn't have journalistic ethics says something it's true -- or truer than the word of someone who's hasn't slept for three days because he's been confirming the veracity of every word he wants to send to press, and still has had to scratch half his words because irrefutable proof of their veracity can't be identified.
I'm not sure at what point you began to hallucinate but I'm not going to be joining you there. By the way you mischaracterize what I've said I'm going to assume you work as an anchor for NBC, or perhaps a writer for the New York Times. Tell your constituency that I eat babies - they love that stuff.
-
When it comes to honesty I'm not advocating one source over the other; however, I did make the claim that since the common tongue of both is lies that I'll take my lies for free.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. You're a believer that just because someone who doesn't have journalistic ethics says something it's true -- or truer than the word of someone who's hasn't slept for three days because he's been confirming the veracity of every word he wants to send to press, and still has had to scratch half his words because irrefutable proof of their veracity can't be identified.
I'm not sure at what point you began to hallucinate but I'm not going to be joining you there. By the way you mischaracterize what I've said I'm going to assume you work as an anchor for NBC, or perhaps a writer for the New York Times. Tell your constituency that I eat babies - they love that stuff.
I'm tempted to forward this discussion to a journalists' board. Take a wild guess at how they would react, and what they would say about developers. You don't have to guess how much verified, fact-checked material they would find to back up any statements they could make about developers -- and you could bet your sweet life that they'd insist that you fact-check the things you've been saying about journalism. Being clever and having opinions is great, but make sure that it is clear when you are talking non-fact-checked personal opinion, and don't insult people who do check and verify their facts.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I'm tempted to forward this discussion to a journalists' board. Take a wild guess at how they would react, and what they would say about developers. You don't have to guess how much verified, fact-checked material they would find to back up any statements they could make about developers -- and you could bet your sweet life that they'd insist that you fact-check the things you've been saying about journalism. Being clever and having opinions is great, but make sure that it is clear when you are talking non-fact-checked personal opinion, and don't insult people who do check and verify their facts.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
I'm tempted to forward this discussion to a journalists' board.
I'm sure they'd find evidence of racism, homophobia, or 'terrorism' in my posts. They'd then paint me as a red state buffoon that slumps around my log cabin, living off a diet of whiskey and raw squirrel. They would then thank God, if only the ole boy existed, that they weren't born stupid.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
You don't have to guess how much verified, fact-checked material they would find to back up any statements they could make about developers -- and you could bet your sweet life that they'd insist that you fact-check the things you've been saying about journalism.
Cataloging the intentional lies of the media is pretty easy to do - in fact, journalists help with that task. (There is no better way to take out the competition.) Of course, not all journalists lie, after all, there is no point in telling a lie if the truth will do more damage.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Being clever and having opinions is great, but make sure that it is clear when you are talking non-fact-checked personal opinion, and don't insult people who do check and verify their facts.
You keep taking this as a blanket dismissal of all paid journalists. I'm sure good journalists exist - most of them are probably decent - it's just that I've seen enough crap in there that I'm no longer willing to pay for it. My only claim is I can get the facts (or lies) just as easily for free. This is a problem for journalists - I don't see where paying for information has any relationship to it being true. If you'd like to somehow establish that journalists are more honest when paid by thousands then be my guest.
-
Every once and awhile I run across a link where the site insists that I sign in with a paid subscription account in order to view the article. If I cannot get around the block (turn off JavaScript, etc) then I simply leave the site. I'm not paying to read some idiot's analysis of the news. It would make sense to pay for the news if there was one site out there but the fact is I can get access to hundreds or thousands of opinions on a particular news item. Why would I pay to read an article in the Financial Times about ISIS when I could read about it in a Syrian newspaper? I really think the paid news sites just haven't quite caught onto how the internet works yet. For example, I've two books on my shelf that I'm studying and I've contacted the authors of each book with additional questions and I've received responses. They want me as a fan so I buy their next book and I want answers. It is next level access for free that works great. I get the feeling the old paper mags, in trying to go to the web, still don't get it. Do you pay for your news?
I've had an Economist[^] subscription for the last 4 or 5 years because I'm yet to find anywhere that does an equally good job of aggregating global news.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Every once and awhile I run across a link where the site insists that I sign in with a paid subscription account in order to view the article. If I cannot get around the block (turn off JavaScript, etc) then I simply leave the site. I'm not paying to read some idiot's analysis of the news. It would make sense to pay for the news if there was one site out there but the fact is I can get access to hundreds or thousands of opinions on a particular news item. Why would I pay to read an article in the Financial Times about ISIS when I could read about it in a Syrian newspaper? I really think the paid news sites just haven't quite caught onto how the internet works yet. For example, I've two books on my shelf that I'm studying and I've contacted the authors of each book with additional questions and I've received responses. They want me as a fan so I buy their next book and I want answers. It is next level access for free that works great. I get the feeling the old paper mags, in trying to go to the web, still don't get it. Do you pay for your news?
Nope, but I do take great pleasure in picking their feeble attempts to lock you out apart... I mean come-on, like a CSS overlay with a login box on, followed by a transparent full page overlay then the article is any challenge for the Chrome debugger!! :-)
-
Nope, but I do take great pleasure in picking their feeble attempts to lock you out apart... I mean come-on, like a CSS overlay with a login box on, followed by a transparent full page overlay then the article is any challenge for the Chrome debugger!! :-)
-
True, but the former way appeals more as fun to my programmers brain .... :cool: