3 ms·

Which brings the Haggler to his latest million-dollar idea: a review site that reviews the review sites. It’s genius! Grade them all on trustworthiness, c

Which brings the Haggler to his latest million-dollar idea: a review site that reviews the review sites. It’s genius! Grade them all on trustworthiness, candor and so on. That's a great idea. Let's start with the New York Times. How did the NYT's Judith Miller do during Iraq? How about Jayson Blair for that matter? And let's not forget Walter Duranty. http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty Duranty, one of the most famous correspondents of his day, won the prize for 13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Times correspondents and others have since largely discredited his coverage. Describing the Communist plan to "liquidate" the five million kulaks, relatively well-off farmers opposed to the Soviet collectivization of agriculture, Duranty wrote in 1931, for example: "Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not - they must be 'liquidated' or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass." Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time....Some of Duranty's editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Point: all reviewers are biased. We cannot count on the New York Times to remind us in every story that it's a corporation with its own conflicts of interests. But it is.

logjam 15y ago
What? Please explain how your "point" is something other than tu qoque[1], i.e., exactly how Judith Miller's bullshit on Iraq and someone who wrote for the Times 80 years ago possibly relate to this consumer piece. In your focus on "the Times", rather than on the writing expressed in this specific consumer affairs piece, what factors exactly are you imagining that supposedly swayed the writer of this consumer affairs piece and what evidence do you have for it? "All reviewers are biased." Maybe you could quantify the level of bias for us, for the following: 1) married couple who had a horrible experience with a moving company, and reviewed it online. 2) the horrible moving company in reviewing that feedback from the married couple. 3) web site who took money from the horrible moving company and subsequently minimized the married couple's review of the horrible moving company. Are you really trying to suggest that there are equivalent "biases" at work here? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- ramanujan 15y ago
  Well, it's not just tu quoque. Relatively few people know that the NYT charges you for reprints when your company appears in a story: http://www.nytreprints.com/services/reprints/ Professional custom article reprints feature high-quality replications of original editorial coverage featuring your company, product, service or industry. They may also be a topical or feature support for your promotion. PARS’ expert graphics team consults with you on design and customization that best meets your marketing goals as well as the guidelines set forth by the publishers. This starts to look a lot like the practice David Segal is criticizing. I couldn't find breakouts of this line item in their financials, but wouldn't be surprised if this is a nice slice. Basically, if you're familiar with the news business, there are a host of things that are done that would shock your average news reader. For example, I await the first website that does a proper social networking analysis of each article to determine the relationship of all people in the piece to the reporter. Reporters know enough to (usually) avoid direct financial relationships, but it is amazing how many have a cozy backscratching relationship with their subjects. A friend, a fellow alum, a friend-of-a-friend, a leaker who wants to advance their own career by taking down an internal rival, a go-to quote machine who will say whatever the reporter wants them to say...these are the staples of the news biz. Unfortunately, it's not exactly about disinterested probity.

logjam 15y ago

What? Please explain how your "point" is something other than tu qoque[1], i.e., exactly how Judith Miller's bullshit on Iraq and someone who wrote for the Times 80 years ago possibly relate to this consumer piece. In your focus on "the Times", rather than on the writing expressed in this specific consumer affairs piece, what factors exactly are you imagining that supposedly swayed the writer of this consumer affairs piece and what evidence do you have for it? "All reviewers are biased." Maybe you could quantify the level of bias for us, for the following: 1) married couple who had a horrible experience with a moving company, and reviewed it online. 2) the horrible moving company in reviewing that feedback from the married couple. 3) web site who took money from the horrible moving company and subsequently minimized the married couple's review of the horrible moving company. Are you really trying to suggest that there are equivalent "biases" at work here? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

ramanujan 15y ago
Well, it's not just tu quoque. Relatively few people know that the NYT charges you for reprints when your company appears in a story: http://www.nytreprints.com/services/reprints/ Professional custom article reprints feature high-quality replications of original editorial coverage featuring your company, product, service or industry. They may also be a topical or feature support for your promotion. PARS’ expert graphics team consults with you on design and customization that best meets your marketing goals as well as the guidelines set forth by the publishers. This starts to look a lot like the practice David Segal is criticizing. I couldn't find breakouts of this line item in their financials, but wouldn't be surprised if this is a nice slice. Basically, if you're familiar with the news business, there are a host of things that are done that would shock your average news reader. For example, I await the first website that does a proper social networking analysis of each article to determine the relationship of all people in the piece to the reporter. Reporters know enough to (usually) avoid direct financial relationships, but it is amazing how many have a cozy backscratching relationship with their subjects. A friend, a fellow alum, a friend-of-a-friend, a leaker who wants to advance their own career by taking down an internal rival, a go-to quote machine who will say whatever the reporter wants them to say...these are the staples of the news biz. Unfortunately, it's not exactly about disinterested probity.