Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mainstream Media To Start "Crowdsourcing"

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the god-i-hate-buzzwords dept.

158

guanxi writes "Gannett, one of the largest newspaper publishers in the U.S., plans to change its newsrooms to utilize Crowdsourcing, a new term for something Slashdot readers have been familiar with for years: \From the article, they will 'use crowdsourcing methods to put readers to work as watchdogs, whistle-blowers and researchers in large, investigative features.' Last summer, the The News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida asked readers to help investigate a local scandal. The response was overwhelming: 'Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets, and an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of bid-rigging.' Public service isn't their only concern, of course: 'We've learned that no one wants to read a 400-column-inch investigative feature online. But when you make them a part of the process they get incredibly engaged.' Is this the beginning of a revolution at major media organizations? Can they successfully duplicate what online communities have been doing for years?"

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726151)

... Glad that's cleared that up then ...

Next article please.

 

Re:Yes. (1)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726479)

I wanted to say the exact same thing. What's wrong /. editors, it isn't as if news dissappeared off the face of earth.

Re:Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727373)

Well, it's disappeared from quite a many places including USA, so if they start doing actual reporting with actual news, an idea as crazy as that may even have a chance of taking off!

The worst features of MSM and the worst... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728199)

features of blogs. What are these people thinking?

Oh boy (2, Funny)

Durrok (912509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726201)

I can't wait to see the newspapers quoting things like "Our top contributer 'I3tospooge' reports..." and "Breaking news from ObiwanMcCartney..."

New masthead slogan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726205)

"You do the work, we get the ad revenue."

your fee (2)

zogger (617870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726383)

You also get the freely shared collaborative effort of other "investigators" who are interested in the same subject or subjects. That's your "pay", the information, access to data, the reason you even go to the newspaper website. That the aggregator-the paper-provides the structure and bandwith and pays for the full time employees is fair enough for them to get the ad revenue, doncha think? Certainly better than having to open a paypal account for every news website out there, IMO.

People have been tryng to figure out how to do this online thing for a long time, there just *aren't* that many options to pay for all of it. You have ads, or direct pay in some form, that's it. Everytime you can share, whether it is code or news or just learned expertise to answer a question on some help forum, it cuts costs for all of the above, including you, because we all can't be experts at everything, nor can we be all places at the same time to see what is happening. We have to rely on others, and no matter what, there is some expense to an online presence, especially if you are a host of some sort.

Tags (beta) (1)

wik (10258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726225)

I tried to add "crowdsourcing" to the tags and the "handy" pop-down spellchecker replaced it with "crap" when I hit enter. What gives?

Re:Tags (beta) (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726325)

Seems appropriate to me.

So (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726229)

They're not doing any work anymore and have convinced people to not only do their work for them, but pay the paper to read the final results. Is that what's going on here?

Re:So (3, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726401)

It's old media trying to make themselves relevant in today's jargon-filled world. The term "crowdsourcing" is another excuse for the corporate owners to avoid putting money into investigation teams that take a hard look at society to knock over some apple carts, make readers want to buy their product, and win prizes for good old fashion journalism.

Re:So (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727169)

Sounds like the wonderful spiral of economy to me, with it requiring an ever increasing profit.

Cutting journalist costs sounds like the logical next step to me...

I guess it's the newspaper variant of reality shows. Have regular people star in your TV shows for minimal payment (often just the winner get anything to speak of) in comparison to the income from very frequent advertising. The next step from having celebrities star in various TV entertainment -- just let regular people do who're often more than pleased with the attention alone. And if e.g TV series are costly, we're nowadays seeing TV companies more and more eager to do quick aborts of them, sometimes barely even letting a large audience form around them. The hunt for profit is pretty sad in how it affects us and I fear it'll only go downhill from here...

Re:So (1)

Keaster (796594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727409)

Go back and actually read the article. Look up some more about Gannett. Gannett is not screwing over any of their writers. They are not getting rid of any newspapers over this, they are not making the laymen perform journalist jobs to take away from their existing employees or news coverage; they are enhancing their product and tailoring it to those who 1) want to get involved and 2) prefer more local, in depth and factual, news coverage. Many media companys will try to duplicate this, watch and see.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727915)

There's a chance the work might get done, though. More so than with the traditional consumer model of publishing using hired journalists and editors. Until a way is figured out to rig "crowd-sourcing" too. Or sell something else as it.

Mainline publishers make their bread and butter shilling for the status quo, even when ostensibly muck-raking, since the business model gives an overwhelming incentive to engage in politics rather than journalism. They answer to directors and shareholders, not the readers. You can rationalize anything as long as profit is made. You can't rationalize good, objective journalism if is pisses off advertisers, etc. SO I don't see them doing true "crowd-sourcing" except for one-shot karma deals, unless they can find a way to co-opt it. Rename the Vox Pop or something. Put up a phpBB site. Woo-hoo.

Readers should get together and form news co-ops online or something. Set up an actual corp. Oh, and you're gonna pay regardless. The only question is what you get for it.

jbdigriz

Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726231)

And if enough Citizen Researchers say so, by golly, we'll have a witch burning! I mean, if the crowd says so, it's got to be true! Also, the crowd can just edit the related entries on Wikipedia and make it true, with footnotes.

Um... or are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do?

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (2)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726315)

Exactly right. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726521)

"Exactly right. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism."

How can exercise of First Amendment rights (in the form of amateur journalism) be equated with amateur police?

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (0, Troll)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726885)

Who says it will be amateur journalism? Journalism is "the style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation." http://www.answers.com/journalism&r=67 [answers.com]

Anyone who reads /. knows that the direct presentation of facts is rarely the goal. I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that. Until recently, lack of journalistic integrity was a risk to one's career. This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727063)

"I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that"

Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is.

"This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process."

Hard to do a worse job of that than Dan Rather. And he was one of those with journalistic experience and training: probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727403)

"Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is."

Of course there is. There are laws specifically prohibiting certain kinds of speech. Free speech does not entitle you to say anything you like.

"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.

Don't know where you get that idea nor where you get the idea that I consider free speech a "privilege". I'm not here to defend Dan Rather nor Bill O'Reilly nor Ann Coulter nor any other pseudo-journalistic lying assholes. Nevertheless, there is no first amendment right to knowingly lie in order to damage another person. When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, kind of like what we have here on /. regarding anyone who posts comments against the feelings of the majority. Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727449)

"Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post"

The knee-jerk use of the term "lie" for something someone disagrees with is a perfect example of why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not.

"When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, "

"No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce? Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728303)

"The knee-jerk use of the term "lie"..."

It was no knee-jerk response. You put words in my mouth:

"...probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights."

I never characterized first amendment rights as privileges. You made up that lie in order to cast me as a fool. It wasn't simply that you disagreed with me, you had to lie about me in order to argue with me.

"...why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not. "

There is no such standard and I never said there was. Once again you make up things. Free speech protects opinions but opinions aren't everything.

""No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce?"

"No accountability" meaning people don't get penalized for knowingly making false or insufficiently researched statements. Journalists might lose their jobs and have their careers ruined for doing so but the public can't be held accountable for doing the same. I think it's clear to anyone who isn't hear just to argue or has a limited grasp of the obvious.

"Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech."

Vigilantism is the taking of law into one's own hands. It does not involve law enforcement, it bypasses it. It does not require violence either, and free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. It's clear you don't understand these concepts.

Once again, free speech does not grant the right to say anything you wish. That's well understood except apparently by you. Encouraging the public to contribute to a "majority rule" concept of facts does not produce real "facts" while the lack of accountability in the process encourages slander. I'm sorry you fail to understand the basic concept and I'm sure you'll make up some more false statements attributed to me so that you can argue your incorrect position further.

An example that's in current events: Mark Foley is commonly believed to be a pedophile even though he is not. The pages who he's supposedly hit on where physically adults and were of the age of consent. His offense was abuse of power, not sexual conduct with children. The public, IMO, could not possibly be trusted in such a matter. People can only be objective when they don't take personal offense or interest in the outcome. Professionals are required to maintain objectivity; the public will not feel any such obligation.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726975)

How can exercise of First Amendment rights (in the form of amateur journalism) be equated with amateur police


The analogy actually isn't too far off the mark. One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government. Without the press, we wouldn't have known about things about Mark Foley hitting on his male interns via IM and we wouldn't know about the scandals involving many others in power, such as Tom Delay.

Knowledge of these scandals has direct impacts on elections -- our process for punishing those who abuse the power that we entrust to them and rewarding those who use that trust to do good things for our country, our citizenry and the world.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727485)

"One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government."

Really? Yet, nothing about that is mentioned in the defense of the "free press". Thus, press/speech that criticizes the government is treated no better and no worse than free speech that praises the government. No difference. I actually have seen many people demand censorship of news organizations that they perceive to be pro-government, on the idea that such speech should not be allowed at all. I've also seen demands go the other way. I see no difference between them.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

crmartin (98227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727103)

Feh. First off, were you under the impression that the First Amendment only applies to officially-approved reporters? Or that newspapers have some collection of special powers not among those reserved to the regular population?

But more to the point, it's not "vigilanism" for "amateur police" to report a crime.

Assuming you're old enough to vote, kindly don't until you get a clue.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727113)

Except most newspapers already do this, albeit with the words "allegedly", "supposedly", and "probably" intermixed as at least one-third of the column inches in an article and every questionable line is in quotation marks from an "anonymous source" or an "officer close with the investigation" (etc). Some papers are bigger offenders than others.

And all of the Gannett newspapers (and broadcast stations) already do this "crowdsourcing", although not so explicitly or as openly as the article details. Many article ideas and content come from readers/viewers. People have been contributing to the news outlets for decades, usually asking for nothing in return. Lately some do request money as a "freelancer", and sometimes they do get paid if they have a stunning photo or exclusive video.

I doubt you will see larger Gannett newspapers like USA Today employing this method anytime soon. Gannett owns over one hundred newspapers (if I recall the last newsletter that I saw), many of which are in tiny markets where they hold near monopolies (as most local newspapers are). They just don't have the staff to do larger investigations and oftentimes aren't near enough to other Gannett-owned properties to collaborate.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727143)

"many of which are in tiny markets where they hold near monopolies (as most local newspapers are)."

Can you identify such markets? Most all that I have checked out have several newspapers, and there is thus no monopoly.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727751)

Go look at some of the papers Gannett owns in Wisconsin and Ohio. I guess "many" was too strong, though, I thought there were more than a handful.

Looking more closely at Gannett properties, I'm surprised there aren't more duopolies. I know the other big media groups are buying up competing companies in the dense markets (e.g., one newspaper and one television station). The biggest duopoly that I think Gannett has is the KUSA and KTVD, two competing television stations, both in Denver.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727805)

"The biggest duopoly that I think Gannett has is the KUSA and KTVD, two competing television stations, both in Denver."

I counted the newspapers in Denver and stopped counting at 6. There's 6 or so stations, and unless Gannett owns all or most of them, how can there be anything "-opoly" in this less-than-majority media share they have?

I checked out Wisconsin. Picked at random Wisconsin Rapids as the first small market to check. Yes, they do have the only locally made paper there. However, I bet if you go there, you will likely find 5 or so daily newspapers routinely available, from places as close as Appleton (a guess) or Milwaukee and as far away as Chicago.

Proper Professional Journalism? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726393)

"And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources.... and all of that old stodgy professional behavior?"

The old style media was so >good [cbsnews.com] at that, right?

Re:Proper Professional Journalism? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727515)

The old style media was so good at that, right?

Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional. Um, other than being professional political operatives, in that case.

Re:Proper Professional Journalism? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727545)

"Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional"

Dan Rather, however, is a major representative of the old-school journalism, with all of its rock-solid research, that is being defended here. You know what? I have a mini-DVD that someone taped live with a camcorder during some of Dan Rather's early studio appearances in the mid-1970s that will prove it.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726511)

a better example of this kind of thing is Groklaw (Note please don't visit Lindon Utah while wearing a groklaw shirt or hat or button or...)
PJ always holds folks to having sources (links mostly) and she has a stable full of folks that will stop by the courthouse to pickup a filing or watch a hearing or...

So SlashFolks what is worse for a company to be on slashdot or on groklaw?

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726833)

So SlashFolks what is worse for a company to be on slashdot or on groklaw?

That would depend on whether the company in question is Apple or Microsoft.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

DerangedAlchemist (995856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727495)

> are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? Yes. RTFA >And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? Yes. RTFA > So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do? That's right, because it is faster and cheaper to sift through the community knowledge first so you know what to research in detail. A journalist is rarely an expert on what they report on.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

Keaster (796594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727559)

I actually feel dumb after reading your post. Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved. Ohhh thats right, the hidden message in the article where they throw out journalistic integrity. I have an idea, have another warm cup of "I'm so smart and biter". Tell me more about the company since you appear to know so much about it and how its run ... you dumbass.

the idiotic "vigilantism" comparison (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727609)

"Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved"

This is in line with those who have commented in this item that having more people participate in "freedom of the press" is the same as having vigilantes going around enforcing the law. They feel that First Amendment free speech/free press rights should only belong to a special authorized few, and that letting the average person exercise these rights is just like having the average citizen enforce the law on their own (be they vigilante fake-cops or a witch-burning mob).

Seeing as how this idea is really angering those who think that freedom of the press should be for the authorized/approved few, I'm liking this idea more and more.

Re:Bah. The Salem Times did this YEARS ago. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727663)

Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved ... Tell me more about the company since you appear to know so much about it and how its run ... you dumbass.

Good thing I'm not talking about the company, per se. I'm talking about the general way in which things tend to happen when (no matter how much of the "community" you ask to get involved) people with a lot of time on their hands - and frequently with an axe to grind - become central to the research behind reporting.

It's the problem behind groupthink here, behind wikipedia flame orgies, etc. Just because you've got an on-sabbatical CPA pouring over the financial records of someone that a journalist in investigating doesn't mean that some other key perspecitve or fact-exposing insight is being properly taken into account or seen in the proper context.

Haven't they read anything on the 'web? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726239)

Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it.

And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, government cover-ups, etc) will be spewing their own brand of "information".

It isn't that the mass of humanity is better equipped to provide this information. It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher.

Re:Haven't they read anything on the 'web? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726453)

"Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."

There was never a time that Sturgeon's Law did not apply.

"It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher."

Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!

"And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, government cover-ups, etc) will be spewing their own brand of "information".

So? Welcome to freedom of the press!

Thanks for making my point. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726609)

Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!

I never said that they were perfect. But for every story like that you can find, I can link to 1,000 nut cases on the 'web.

So? Welcome to freedom of the press!

Again, that's for making my point. Freedom of the Press means that the government cannot stop you from printing your fantasies about space aliens. But Democracy requires an informed public. And when newspapers stop funding their own research and turn to those space alien conspiracy nut cases for their material, the public is no longer informed.

Fortunately, there's still The Daily Show.

Re:Thanks for making my point. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726701)

"And when newspapers stop funding their own research and turn to those space alien conspiracy nut cases for their material, the public is no longer informed."

But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.

Thank you but I don't need more examples. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726881)

But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.

And you are the perfect example of the flaw in your approach.

This has EVERYTHING to do with Democracy. It isn't whether any person or group of people considers him/themselves to be "more informed". It matters whether they ARE more informed.

Democracy depends upon the participation of informed citizens. When you take away that "informed", Democracy fails. That is why every totalitarian government first cracks down on the media. It is not a coincidence.

But feel free to keep arguing that uninformed people make better decisions than informed people.

Absolutely nothing to do with democracy. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727037)

Democracy is about how the people influence government by voting, running for office, or participating in referendums. It is not about whether people argue about space aliens or not.

Totalitarians crack down on the media because totalitarians are very vain: they don't want anyone to say anything bad about them (whether or not anyone is "informed"). In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone is informed or not.

Also, there is a huge degree of subjectivity over whether someone is "informed" vs "uninformed". For one huge example, liberals think conservatives are uninformed and vice-versa. So much that we shouldn't make any government policy to censor media or decisions from one particular subjective view.

Informed people make better decisions than the uninformed. I never argued that they did, despite your uninformed straw-man attack. However, arguing about space aliens, and how the Titanic ( the big ol' newspapers) re=arranging their deck chairs has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Re:Haven't they read anything on the 'web? (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727267)

"Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."

This is slash dot, you're stating the obvious.

Sure they can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726291)

Like Slashdot successfully duplicated their FUD and even added a hated Politics section to generate more interest.

Code of the playground (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726395)

When I was a kid, we called this being a snitch, and it was the easiest and surest way to make people hate you.

Re:Code of the playground (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726693)

When I was a kid, we called this being a snitch,

      Why citizen, how unpatriotic. Don't you understand that criminals are really hurting the children and helping the terrorists win? It is your duty to turn in your fellow citizen to the party for re-education. You're not a terrorist, are you?

Re:Code of the playground (1)

NoseBag (243097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726743)

...but we adults call this "public service" and praise it. I think it's called something like "moral integrity'.

Fuck you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726905)

Which is why the playground was a hell for many kids. The bullies and gangs could do whatever they wanted, and appealing to a higher power (teacher, etc) was considered wrong for some reason. Probably because of lackwit cocksuckers like you, who were either buullies, one of their lickspittle toadies, or just delusional.

Re:Fuck you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727027)

"The bullies and gangs could do whatever they wanted...."

Umm, isn't that exactly what this model encourages?

So... (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726425)

...the newspapers tried to get away with half-assed research and now they're trying to get away with none at all? Really, will they pay this 'crowd' anything?

Re:So... (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726667)

Really, will they pay this 'crowd' anything?
If they will do it for free why pay them? If that mean the news gets worse, don't buy that paper. Newspapers these days rely on wire services like AP. However, there are some news papers like the Christian Science Monitor that do their own reporting. People that appreciate that use their services. Is anyone forcing you to read these papers or work for them for free? Whats your problem?

Motivations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726439)

It's weird to me that people will jump on the bandwagon when they want to become part of some group investigation, but can't get off their lazy asses to vote or make decisions about their country. What's the motivation there? Not that voting *works*, but still...

crowdsourcing=infotainment (1)

4d3fect (1023141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726473)

'nuff said.

Crowdsourcing? (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726487)

'Cause if they all say it's true, it has to be.

*snerk*

Newspapers will win (2, Interesting)

symes (835608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726489)

When it comes to crowd-sourcing the main stream media *should* win hands down. Established media, in particular some newspapers, have a better reputation when it comes to protecting sources compared to ISPs, for example.

One more way to cut costs. (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726497)

So, with the masses doing your leg work... who needs to pay a smart reporter with contacts and experience?

And to think, they want to SELL subscriptions to Crowdsourcing publications? Yeah, right...

Re:One more way to cut costs. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726845)

How stupid can you get. That'd be like selling "subscriptions" to Slashdot. It'll never happen.

Re:One more way to cut costs. (1)

Virgil Tibbs (999791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727275)

oh wait, that never happens...

http://slashdot.org/subscribe.pl [slashdot.org]

Woosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727909)

Stupidity at the speed of light

Heres an cool example (1)

Oxen (879661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726541)

Recently, an organization with the goal of creating a discourse on changing election day has offered to pay people to do their dirty work.

http://www.getoutthewhy.com/weblog/

The will pay you $300 to ask a house representative why we vote on Tuesday, and $500 for a senate member or a governor. To get the reward, you must post a video of the transaction on youtube. Its a pretty cool idea.

People Powered Military Journalism (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726681)

Gannett is also the owner/publisher of the various Military Times [wikipedia.org] newspapers.

Tomorrow, the day before the US Congressional election, all the Military Times individual papers will publish a rare joint editorial calling for the immediate resignation of Donald Rumsfeld [sfgate.com] , the US Defense Secretary. I don't know that those military papers have ever called for a Defense Sect'y to resign before, and surely not the day before an election. That editorial is aligned with its military readers, rather than its Pentagon and military contractor "suppliers" who both support Rumsfeld, and often report to him.

It looks like Gannett is choosing to plug in directly to its consumers to survive the ongoing shakeout of plummeting newspaper circulation [latimes.com] . The real question about the "revolution" at major newspapers is not whether these Gannett moves are the beginning, but rather whether they're an exit strategy, and whether to victory.

Re:People Powered Military Journalism (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727785)

I don't know that those military papers have ever called for a Defense Sect'y to resign before, and surely not the day before an election.

Actually, they have [cnn.com] . More to the point, they have called for Rumsfeld to resign before (at the height of Abu Gharab). The military times denies the timing of this had anything to do with the election, however, given that they have already asked from Rumsfelds resignation - I find that argument rather weak.

Crowdsourcing for Writers Urbis.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726691)

http://urbis.com/ [urbis.com] is a great example of crowdsourcing. Lets authors post work and get peer reviews. Good works get the eye of publishers.

This is rediculous (1)

runlevel 5 (977409) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726761)

This is probably one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard of for the mainstream media. I can handle bias and even the occasional factual errors and omissions, but having laypeople conduct your investigatory journalism for you? The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards, dealing with too much or just plain unbalanced information, corporate red-herrings, conflicts of interest, fanboyism, private agendas... these are just a few of the reasons news corporations have private, [ideally] independent, eduated staffs of researchers, writers, and editors. And, not coincidentally, this is why blogging does not count as news.

Re:This is rediculous (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727223)

"I can handle bias and even the occasional factual errors and omissions, but having laypeople conduct your investigatory journalism for you? The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards"

Actually, it is more likely that if "the average Joe" had been presented with the fake Bush AWOL story they dealt with, they probably would have done enough fact-checking to see that the evidence was forged. And only the worst idiot would actually have done with Dan Rather did: insist that the evidence and story were real for TWO WEEKS after someone pointed out that it was a forgery. I would not have done that. Would you?

"And, not coincidentally, this is why blogging does not count as news."

If it's news, it's news. Whether or not it on CNN or in a blog.

Re:This is rediculous (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727379)

this is why blogging does not count as news.


Thanks for generalizing an entire medium. It's much more mentally taxing to look at it as a case by case basis, having to seperate the excellent 1% from the mediocre and the bad 99%.

The evening news, as shown on TV, is mostly not news either. Either there are trivial local stories about Aunt Betty's cat stuck in a tree with a nice fireman coming to rescue it, or "stories" originating from a press conference in the whitehouse or some corporate press conference where they make sure to feed/treat the reporters nicely too. Oh my, the investigative journalism goes on is awe-inspiring.

Then there are shows on CNN/Fox that just have "experts"/industry_insiders/journalists bicker back and forth to grab ratings in a vein similiar to Jerry Springer.

There was a report a while back that The Daily Show had as much news content as the typical evening broadcast. That says something.

Just don't get it (1)

DerangedAlchemist (995856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727783)

How does having many retired civil engineers looking over sewer plans lower standards? A journalist would have to consult experts anyway. By having many look at it, its less likely to get fooled by some small group. A corrupt city engineer could probably fool most journalists in an interview. Maybe they consult another couple of engineers, and it sounds like a difference of opinions. Now if 90% of the volunteer civil engineers said it should cost half as much? It's not that hard to pick out most of the idiots and crackpots from the informed from a large pool of responses. See slashdot. In cases where it is hard to tell, real reporting comes involved.

Re:This is rediculous (2, Funny)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727803)

This is probably one of the craziest ideas I've ever heard of for the mainstream media.

Bah! I think it is a great idea! And after we "crowdsource" journalism... I think we should move on to "crowdsourcing" NASA, the FAA, maybe even law enforcement! What about the FDA and CDC? I am sure there are lots of amatuers out there who would love to have a say in important food quality and disease information...

Re:This is rediculous (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727817)

"And after we "crowdsource" journalism... I think we should move on to "crowdsourcing" NASA, the FAA, maybe even law enforcement! What about the FDA and CDC? "

The Bill of Rights actually contains "crowdsourcing" (freedom of the press and free speech for the people) already. That's not the case for the government agencies you name. You also seem to be confusing freedom to provide information with freedom to enforce the law. As such, there already are amateurs who have a say in "important food quality and disease information..." (a lot of private sector writers writing about both subjects).

Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16726765)

Gannett already gave up doing its own news for the most part. We have a Gannett paper here and its full of recycled stuff. I read about things online and a week latter it shows up in Gannett as "news".

The "local" section is called "Your World" and it hardly has much local about it. I recently read about workers in Chile in that section. I gave up on it for the most part and never buy it. Most people who get it do so for the high school sports and obits. The rest is agit-prop with boo-hoo sob stories about illegals "suffering" every other day.

One kid working a deli got killed by an illegal after he raped her. Parents then protested the daily gathering of 200 plus men a couple blocks from their elementary school. Of course Gannett ran one weepy sob story after another story trying to guilt trip everyone into loving their illegals.

Another great story was about the new urban fashion "statement" of wearing 'grills" - the awful metal plates and fishooks kids wear on their front teeth. I think its pretty racist Gannett promotes such buffoonish style as legit. But this is how low they have sunk.

That's why Gannett is doing so poorly. Its McPapper doing McAgitProp with the only "fresh" news about dead people. This latest move is desperate. They gave up journalism a long time ago but pretended to have it with streams of agit-prop.

Re:Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727121)

"One kid working a deli got killed by an illegal after he raped her. Parents then protested the daily gathering of 200 plus men a couple blocks from their elementary school. Of course Gannett ran one weepy sob story after another story trying to guilt trip everyone into loving their illegals."

Why not? The vast majority of them are law-abiding, and are here only to do productive work. If you are really SO concerned about crime, why not demand to deport native-born Americans? Most of the crime is committed by this group, after all. Even more than that committed by illegal aliens.

Re:Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728329)

The vast majority of them broke in so that/s a moot point right there concerning their law abiding status. Then many of them drive with NO license and NO insurance. They run businesses using their newly arrived relatives and pay NO Taxes and have NO health or disability insurance. This is why the local property taxes have gone sky high and still the teaching hospital is on the verge of bankruptcy. Senior citizens have a hard time keeping houses while school taxes mount to have special ed and bi lingual classes and services.

Fair to say your apparently longer on meandering rhetoric than facts.

Re:Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727399)

I'm confused. Are you actually criticising the paper for supporting a woman who was raped and defended herself?

Re:Gannett Gave Up On "Journalism" Awhile Ago (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728257)

No. They didn't support her or condemn her. She became an artifact as far as story went. Another woman near-by was also raped and murdered by a painter from Guatamala during the same weeks and it all faded to gray as far as McPaper was concerned. Instead Gannett went "rah rah" illegals. Six guys got arrested for trespassing near school and were at risk for deportation since they had records. Gannett started running stories about emo kids being set up by their parents to run "bake sales" for the illegals lawyer costs. Oddly the lawyers actually went ballistic saying they made the clients plight all the worse and they refused the money.

Quack Amplification, Sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16726825)

Looking at digg, what we can expect is the truth 80% of the time (without knowledge as to which 80% is the truth). Good stories 60% of the time. Old stories rehashed as new 25% of the time.

In other words, some sort of mob rule where the most entertaining and eloquent vocal opinionates dominate and influence. Let me paraphrase Socrates argument here: "Would you like your physician to be selected via their qualifications and learnedness of the art or would you like the physician to be chosen by election via their ability to influence people?"

Wired already did this - laid off all reporters (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727159)

There was the famous layoff at Wired News [com.com] , where they laid off all the reporters and kept some of the editors.

Of course, what happened is that press releases took over. Wired Magazine is now a version of the Sharper Image catalog. Who needs reporters? Content is what fills in the space between the ads. And if you just use press releases for that, nobody notices.

Not a Good Thing (tm) (1, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727249)

Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have, I can't see this being a good thing in popular media. The right have their fingers in all the pies right now and you can't move an inch without being blasted with right wing lies and propaganda. The left is being incredibly squelched and this mainly has to do with one thing: right wingers are cunning. Note smart, but cunning. They know how to game the system to their advantage regardless of how small their numbers may truly be. The left, on the other hand tend to be people who are more cerebral. They don't game the system to their advantage, they make the mistake of trying to use the system honestly and as it was intended to be. So applying the same kind of approach to big media news is going to result in the very vocal minority of right wingers having even more control and shaping the news to their fantasies, rather than the reality that we actually have to live in. After all... some of us lefties live in the fact based world which is apparently a bad thing.

Add to this the fact that most right wingers don't like to think or persue more in-depth analysis of a topic. They instead prefer a digest that feeds them more "facts" to support their flimsy beliefs. Lefties, on the other hand like to analyze things to death, possibly to the point where their conclusions no longer apply when they're done with the analysis. By the time the left has the real facts and answers, the issue is no longer an issue and it's likely that the "stupids" of America have bought into the fast food "news" that tells them what they want to hear. So again, from this perspective, I expect to see lots of "in-depth" coverage of a story that involves EXTREMELY biased "investigation" by the amateur pundits with an axe to grind. (ie, not much reality based news)

Let's face it everyone. America is lost and severly damaged and it's all thanks to the citizens who don't want to think for themselves and prefer sound bites to dissertations. It's all thanks to the populace getting dumber each year and just THINKING that they're smarter. It's all due to this huge push to keep the average person stupid and happy. After all, what's a few thousand American lives lost in Iraq for a war based on lies, when you're fat stinking American asshole has a big cushiony SUV to sit in and drive anywhere? Who cares if the elections in this country are being rigged to satisfy the needs of the people who REALLY have control (people with lots of money and they really don't care about Democrats or Republicans as long as they can keep making more money) when you can go home after sticking an icepick in your brain, err... pulling the levers for the wrong (ie. Republican) candidates and watch it all in video game fashion with slick graphics as Fox news tells you what's REALLY going on and it jibes with what you think reality is? Who cares if you aren't going to be able to leave or return to the U.S. without the appropriate clearance this coming January and likely for good, when you can watch that stock ticker on you PC and feel like you're some kind of financial maverick which somehow makes you untouchable? Yeah... who cares about anything that matters as long as "number 1" is looking OK?

Finally, as much as many of you assholes will brand me as some liberal or commie "nutjob", let me make something completely clear to you numbnuts on both major sides of the fence (and you whackjobs in the libertarian camp too even though you're stubborn idiots). There are currently two major parties: Republicans and Democrats. The alternate parties will NEVER win anything other than some small seats here and there so they aren't worth discussing unless the voting system changes drastically. But the REAL key here is that there are also voters (that's most of you who are in reality completely powerless as long as you aren't working together) and there are also politicians (that's the jerkoffs who want to control you) of each stripe. So just taking the two major parties (Repugnicans and Lameocrats) and the two groups (voters and politicians) you really have four distinct groups:

1. Republican voters (a good number of you)
2. Democrat voters (a larger number of you)
3. Republican politicians (a small percentage of the population)
4. Democrat politicians (an even smaller percentage of the population)

There are major imbalances between all groups on many levels. And the politicians of the same political stripe as you (who are very good at this sort of thing) have convinced you that they are on your side and support your views. If you're smart, you've NEVER been satisfied with who you've voted for. If you're a numbnut, you think your candidate may as well be Jesus Christ, Mohammed, the Buddah or Ayn Rand reincarnate and can do no wrong. I HATE all the candidate that I've ever voted for because they aren't 100% in line with me. About the best candidate I've ever seen in terms of supporting my views is Dennis Kucinich and the only thing that bothers me about him is that I believe he only pays lip service to what I believe in, he won't actually follow through and MAKE America a better place. But I digress... The main point here is that between the right and left voting population there is, in reality, a good deal of crossover in terms of what we want. We may certainly differ in our approaches to getting there, but I don't think most voters are evil idiot bastards who want to make the U.S. suck balls.

The politicians, however, are a completely different story. I would say that nearly every politician is an intelligent and power hungry jackass with some serious psychological issues. These guys will say and do anything to WIN. That's ALL they care about: their career. At the end of the day, whether you live or die doesn't matter one bit to them. They don't care if your child is going to get a leg blown off or die fighting an unwinnable and avoidable war. And when your kid comes back in a cardboard tube on a mail carrier, they'll make sure to give you an upgraded Happy Meal surprise (oh sorry medal of honor or whatever the fuck it's called) in return for his or her service in order to make you feel like something good actually happened. If you live to 75 and have to make a decision between buying Alpo for dinner or your brain meds and you really can't rely on your retirement investments since they all went belly up in yet another economic bubble, well that really doesn't matter either. Because it's likely the the Democrat who said he'd try to get socialized medicine in reneged on his promise and well he's older than you so he's dead anyway. Or the Republican who promised he'd cut those taxes on the businesses you invested in as well as taxes on you... yeah he did some of that but it didn't help your investments that tanked repeatedly and the last peak you had was five years BEFORE you retired. You'd have actually been better off going to Vegas every year with half of your salary and playing the one armed bandits and probably had a little more fun since investing is basically organized gambling anyway but far more boring.

So when you go to the polls this coming Tuesday, keep some perspective: If you're using a Diebold machine, your vote can and probably will be tampered with. (Diebold is a bunch of cocksmokers who should all be lined up against a wall as soon as the post-election mayhem starts even if only for a little stress relief) Even if it isn't tampered with, the electoral college is such a fucked up system that no matter what YOU want, you only have a slim chance of actually getting it. The voters who are staying at home on Tuesday aren't really going to have the much impact on the results so quit bitching about getting people to the polls. It doesn't work whether they come or not. America has lost. Our elections are a mirror image of the old single party elections in the U.S.S.R. now. I can predict who is going to win in nearly every race: the person who will make sure that the rich stay rich, the middle stays stupid and happy, and the poor... well they don't matter do they? This cuts across political parties, so don't take this as a total leftie post. I might be on the left, but I don't like many of the candidates any more than the right wing options. I HATE the libertarians as I think they're a bunch of idealist survivalists without a clue about what people are REALLY like (ie. most people are idiots by choice). The greens are closer to my views, but they stand as much chance of winning an election in the U.S. of any kind as satan does of becoming an Easter icon. So I don't plan on wasting my vote ever again. (I did in 2000 because I didn't like Gore and voted for Nader) So chomp on this you moronic chimps. I hate every fucking one of you and hope you get what you fucking deserve.

Are you serious? (2, Insightful)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727293)

"Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have"

Are you really serious? I've seen those on the left whine about right-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot...and I've seen those on the right whine about left-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot. I've also observed much of the modding behavior applied to overtly political comments: it goes equally both ways. Only a "nutjob" could see such bias in Slashdot. I did not brand you as one: your own conspiracy-theory comments did.

Re:Are you serious? (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727535)

Actually no. I wasn't being completely serious with that statement. Too bad you're not smart enough to read between the lines. I was being hyperbolic. Even though there are just as many people on the left who might do moderation or post commentary in response to a story or other commentary, it's never even within a particular article. It all comes down to how much one side or the other cares to react. Sadly, when there SHOULD be a reaction there may not be. As far as "conspiracy theories" go, why don't you take your tin-foil hat detector in for analysis, it's apparently malfunctioning. I'm also guessing you're either a libertarian (yuck) or a right winger, or WORSE... an "independent" who votes for Republicans and Libertarians. Anyway, thanks for the quick response. Slashdot is pretty boring these days and you're no exception.

Re:Are you serious? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727583)

There's nothing "yuck" about libertarian. Unless you happen to be one of those who sees the phrase "We're from the government and we're here to help you" and gets a happy warm and fuzzy feeling inside. There's also just as much left-wing moderation inside the "same article" as there is right-wing moderation.

Re:Not a Good Thing (tm) (1)

cyberscan (676092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727795)

"So chomp on this you moronic chimps. I hate every fucking one of you and hope you get what you fucking deserve."

I was finding myself agreeing until I came to the quote above. Now you have shown yourself to be just another American-hating bigot.

Revolution? (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727261)

Free labor so newspaper corporations don't have to actually pay for investigative journalism? If I was a CEO of a news corporation, I'd think this was a brillant idea too. It's the equivalent of reality TV for newspapers.

It's one thing to contribute to a project with an free license that everyone can benefit from. This kind of cooperation might one day save the world.

I don't see any harm in being in a corpoation run community such as Slashdot and making some off the cuff remarks. It's a kind of social exchange.

It is something else entirely to spend time working for a corporation, sharing your expertise and time, that is then claimed as intellectual property of that corporation. It is the height of stupidty and shows you don't value your time.

It's a variation on the old formula used in academic publishing. Researchers employed by universities publish in corporate journals (a priviledge) and those same universities have to pay enormous fees to subscribe to those journals. Sometimes they pay the salaries of editors for these publications and for the time of people involved in peer-review. It's great for the middle man, but it is a rip off for the universities and their faculty - not to mention it actually stifles access to important research.

So, yeah. Let's all run right out and do this shall we?

All I can say is.... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727317)

Ba Ba Booeey

Why in *my* day... (1)

edunbar93 (141167) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727377)

They used to call these guys "reporters". They would do this thing called "research", to find a "story" and "blow the whistle" on people who were trying to "screw the public".

These days though, all the "reporters" are just going after stories that are fed to them by government or corporate press releases, and are totally uninterested in what we used to call "sticking it to the man". So maybe, this is a *good* thing.

An early example perhaps (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727639)

www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

I crowdsourced once.... (2, Funny)

edmicman (830206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727681)

at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again....

That was YOU??!?!?! (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727759)

"at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again"

Oh. that was YOU??? I found the shoe and the wallet. I opened it and found your name and phone number alright, but I looked at the single shoe and considered that its likely came from a peg-legged man, like a pirate. And I was going to be damned if I was going to make the acquaintance of a pirate just to give the wallet back.

I quite enjoyed the remaining Seinfeld DVD boxed sets I bought with the cash.

I think they have already had these for years (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727707)

They are called "freelance writers" and "tipsters."

you found me (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727887)

"Is there ANYBODY working in Lite-On's warranty department?"

You found me. I'm sorry, I've not been in the office. I went on lunch break at 11:30 on May 18th 2002 and have not returned yet. That explains while your phone call has not been answered.

I am quite happy to help you with your problem, however. Most problems with our DVD burners happen when you place DVDs inside them and/or connect them to an electrical source. In fact, both activites violate the warranty.

You did not know this? It was printed right there. In fact, it was etched on one of the white styrofoam packing inserts that your DVD burner came packed in....You actually THREW THESE OUT without reading the etching? We'll I'm sorry, but you are going to have to solve your own problem. Good day.

Two words explain this type of investigative work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16727873)

"Lynch" and "Mobs"

CNN has been doing this for a while now... (1)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16727967)

They have regular segments where they check in on the "blogosphere" and iFilm/iReport.

Why do I have a strange feeling that Faux News won't be doing this...

Re:CNN has been doing this for a while now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728033)

Is the only reason you call them "faux" is because they are more centrist and have less bias than the left-wing media you prefer?

Its an attempt to get back online viewers (1)

VGfort (963346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728035)

Newspapers are trying to get back some of their lost audience by allowing "citizen journalism" as corporations call it. They know the future of the newspaper is online, so they need to get people back to visit their website. Fact is unless they really start to tell the news and not censor it, it will never work.

They lost a lot of people and will never get them back, simply because we cannot trust them anymore.

In the meantime I'll stick to indy and underground news sources such as Guerrilla News Network [guerrillanews.com] . They tell the stories the corporate media wont tell and wont let "citizen journalists" report.

Hmmm... (1)

CPNABEND (742114) | more than 7 years ago | (#16728109)

Can you say "GROKLAW"???

Is Gannett a Christian outlet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16728325)

The writer Jeff Howe said:
Starting Friday, Gannett newsrooms were rechristened "information centers,"

So are Gannett's newsrooms actually Christian? Or should that really say renamed?

It's remarkable how much Christian mythology is used in common language. Stop and think before you keep promoting Faith over Reason.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>