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!

It's Not News, It's Fark

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the all-spin-zone dept.

Book Reviews 229

"In It's Not News, It's Fark, Drew Curtis takes a critical look at the mass media. He promises to examine why the news is often not news at all, to look at the fear mongering, the cyclical nature of the news and the fluff that is passed off as important. Drew breaks down these not-news stories into 8 separate categories and gives examples, along with user comments from Fark. Unfortunately, 230 of the books 278 pages (including the index) are used for these examples. What time is spent talking about the media and the advertisement model it is built on, is insightful a bit cynical and very brief." Read below for the rest of the review.The book starts off with a brief Fark history lesson. What Drew did before Fark. Its first incarnation and how it got to be what it is today. The author then gives us an outline of the different types of news stories that he considers not newsworthy. Drew points out that since most news is brought to you by an entity that makes its money selling ads, the more eyes watching those ads the better. History has shown that nothing attracts eyes like fluff, fear and stretching the truth. There is a reason why there are so many tabloids in the checkout lane.

The first type of news story Drew covers is what he calls, 'Media Fearmongering'. Everything from finding bacteria on your keyboard, terrorists in your home town to animal attacks. This is the most easily recognized type of non-story.

We then move on to, 'Unpaid Placement Masquerading as Actual Article'. This includes most surveys, new words in the dictionary and all things publicity stunt related. Everything you'd read in the 'Lifestyles' section of the newspaper.

Next is, 'Headline Contradicted by Actual Article'. Misleading headlines to outright lies are addressed. Drew makes the point here that the people who run these stories often realize that they are misleading at best but know that they will generate traffic.

'Equal Time for Nutjobs' covers Noah's ark being discovered, conspiracy theories and a guy who thinks the garden of Eden and Atlantis are in Florida. The crazier the claim the better.

Then we have 'The Out-of-context Celebrity Comment'. Why do we care what someone who pretends to be someone else for a living, has to say about Nuclear proliferation? Who knows but we sure do.

Drew next looks at 'Seasonal Articles' . The amount of money lost due to a fall in productivity because of the Super Bowl, inspecting your Halloween candy, and traffic spikes during holiday weekends. All of these stories should look familiar.

The next chapter is, 'Media Fatigue'. How do you know when a big story has just about run its course? Wait for the stories about whether or not the media has given it enough attention or if they've gone too far.

'Lesser Media Space Fillers' covers everything that couldn't fit into one of the other categories as well as some of Drew's personal observations of what type of stories tend to get the most coverage.

Each one of the chapters has a collection of Fark comments after every example story. The comments seem to be chosen at random and are frankly extraneous. The only reason I can think of to include them is that someone in marketing wanted to tie the book more closely to Fark.

The final chapter of the book is by far the most interesting to read and only 14 pages long. This is the wrap up of the problem as Drew sees it and what he thinks the mass media should be doing instead. His ideas are well reasoned and in my opinion spot on. As long as the media is driven by advertising they will walk the line of responsible, informative journalism and outrageousness as close to outrageousness as they can and still be taken seriously by a majority of consumers.

My criticism of this book is that almost the whole thing is just a list of Fark stories. If you've read Fark you've read 90% of this book. It would have been more interesting if the book was an actual discussion of the shortcomings of the mass media, why it is in the place it's in and what could be done to change it. Those topics are covered but in such a brief way that they almost seem like an afterthought.

If you like reading Fark and for some reason you want to read a collection of Fark stories and a few comments in a non-computer screen format you will love this book. If you want to read about how the mass media works and some thoughts on how it could be better you'll love 50 pages of this book.


You can purchase It's Not News, It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

229 comments

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

Don't buy it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325115)

It's a trap!

Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (1, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325203)

Although it's rare for a first post to be on topic, this one is. "It's a trap!" refers to the statement made by Admiral Akbar in Star Wars and is a catchphrase often employed on Fark.

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325221)

Thanks for explaining that. I'm sure no one understood.

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325467)

Thank you, Ric Romero.

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (2, Informative)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326405)

Old and busted: Modding someone informative for providing good information.
New hotness: Modding someone informative for providing redundant information!

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (2)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325499)

You are one of those people who clog Wikipedia with painfully irrelevant "Internet zeitgeist" crap, aren't you?

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (1)

Erasmus (32516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325795)

They keep doing it long after it passes out of the zeitgeist...

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (2, Insightful)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325595)

"It's a trap!" refers to the statement made by Admiral Akbar in Star Wars and is a catchphrase often employed on Fark.

... and everywhere else on the internet, too.

Re:Modded by someone who doesn't know Fark (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325833)

Although it's rare for a first post to be on topic, this one is. "It's a trap!" refers to the statement made by Admiral Akbar in Star Wars and is a catchphrase often employed on Fark.

I see your "Get moderators attention to fix egregious moderation" and raise you one pedantry: they call it a cliche on Fark

Re:Don't buy it (2, Informative)

wampus (1932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326027)

I would have to agree.

It's not news... (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325117)

...it's a revenue stream.

I like Fark and all, but it's getting a little ridiculous lately, especially with the changing away from the old days of naughtiness that alas, are gone...

Re:It's not news... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325201)

Very true. After the site changes Fark stinks like rotten dog breath.

The redesign is ugly. Load times are (still) twice as long as before the site change (back-end fixes my rear end!). Fark isn't what it was 1 year ago, and that's a bad thing.

Re:It's not news... (2, Informative)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325363)

My first thought when I saw the redesign was that they were trying to look like Digg.

My main reason for not reading Digg is that it is goddamn ugly.

Good job there, Fark.

Every single change that they've made in the past 1.5-2 years has been for the worse.

/ Has not gotten over it.
// Can I use Slashies on /.?

Re:It's not news... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325215)

> changing away from the old days of naughtiness that alas, are gone...

I couldn't guess why you say it's any less (or more) naughty than it ever was. I pop over occasionally for a bit of light relief but I can't say I ever read the comments, as they seem to be the entirely predictable rantings of ill-informed racist whiny Americans, who take delight in posting and reposting the same cliched in-jokes as if they are funny. On Slashdot, should you choose to read comments unfiltered you notice that sort of thing, but they're almost immediately moderated away. On Fark, the same sort of first post sadness exists but without filtering you're exposed to it whenever you look. There also doesn't seem to be any way of viewing the comments with a nested view, which makes for clumsy reading.

Re:It's not news... (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325341)

On Soviet Slashdot, cliched in-jokes post and re-post YOU.

Re:It's not news... (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325639)

I couldn't guess why you say it's any less (or more) naughty than it ever was.

Seen a Boobies link lately? Not on the main page you haven't.

Re:It's not news... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325971)

Fark Boobies links went to Foobies.com, in contrast to this, the SBB Girls ads they put on the standard (i.e. non-Total Fark) mainpage became bigger and closer to being work-inappropriate content. Don't know if this is still the case. I haven't checked Fark since the awful redesign.

Re:It's not news... (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325787)

Yeah, but this is why you go bang a raw unshaven vegas hooker every once in a while, gotta take a raw break from the air brushed "OMG I GAINED 3 lbs" fake breasted Hollywood call girls. :)

(Translation: This is why I watch "Amature" porn once in a while, and not the skinny "barely legal" crap that is all over the place)

Re:It's not news... (2, Interesting)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325439)

The old days of naughtiness?

You forget then, about the days pre-naughtiness.

I haven't seen the book, so I don't know what history is presented in it, but the increased levels of naughtiness didn't start 'til mid/late 2000, when Fark got mentioned in Playboy.

Disclaimer : I used to be an admin (Joe) on Fark from 1999 'till about May 2000.

Re:It's not news... (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325527)

I agree, as Fark has gone from unknown, to underground, and now to internet-mainstream, it really has been watered down significantly. I was a TFer for a while, but I find myself looking at it less and less due its relatively inane banter these days.

Re:It's not news... (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325533)

You'll get over it.

[insert a cleverly-captioned cat picture here]

Re:It's not news... (4, Insightful)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325873)

Yes, it is pretty insulting. Fark's owner publishes a book that essentially criticizes the mass media for watering down their content in order to make the most money, then almost immediately afterwards changes the rules of his site to get rid of user-posted content that isn't advertiser-friendly.

Re:It's not news... (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325947)

I like Fark and all, but it's getting a little ridiculous lately

That's OK, people are allowed to grow and change.

And from what I can tell, it's a dead-on take on the mass media.

If we can finally break some of the spell that the media has on nearly everyone in this country, we might be able to actually make some changes and avoid the disaster that's surely ahead for us the way we're going. We might even be able to demonstrate why the whole "Liberal Media" meme is pure bullshit.

If you look at the last 5 years, and investigate the way this fucked-up administration has used the media to advance the worst possible agenda for this country, it makes your hair stand on end. All the times, for example, that the administration would leak a bogus story, which the media would run, then Dick Cheney would go on TV and say "see, the media agrees with us" because they ran the bogus story that Cheney himself leaked in the first place, and the way they've "played the refs" by convincing everyone that the entire media is part of a vast liberal conspiracy in order to get people to stop believing in facts.

"A War on Truth" is the best way I've seen it put.

The people behind Fark are more insightful than most, so they stand a good chance of being part of the solution by exposing what's going on. So the jokes aren't quite as dirty any more... Oh well.

A few of us have upped and left (4, Informative)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326089)

We formed bannination.com where we can have lots of naughtiness and moderate ourselves instead of having someone making all the calls.

Re:A few of us have upped and left (1)

starling (26204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326191)

Interesting looking site you have there ...

Re:A few of us have upped and left (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326211)

You look familiar!

Re:A few of us have upped and left (1)

starling (26204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326287)

I get all over, me.

Re:A few of us have upped and left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19326419)

Yay...

Frist Psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325123)

Natalie Portman Naked & Petrified

So in summary: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325135)

Fark, like Slashdot, is just a collection of idiots who really didn't do anything to change the world.

Re:So in summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325607)

"May your footsteps be deep in the sand of eternity"

Or something like that.

Fuck you Pissants (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325145)

./ers are gay.
i fucking own this first post shit.
fark is alright. better photoshops usually than photoshop phriday at somethingawful.com. /.ers are still gay.

someone bite :( plz :`(

btw i still troll 4 profits.

Didn't you get what you paid for? (4, Insightful)

Lejade (31993) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325147)

>"it would have been more interesting if the book was an actual discussion of the shortcomings of the mass media, why it is in the place it's in and what could be done to change it. Those topics are covered but in such a brief way that they almost seem like an afterthought."

Then again, if you were really looking for an insightful analysis of centralized media, maybe your time would have been better spent reading Marshall McLuhan [barnesandnoble.com] or Noam Chomsky [barnesandnoble.com] than Drew Curtis.

Just a passing thought...

Re:Didn't you get what you paid for? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325407)

maybe your time would have been better spent reading Marshall McLuhan or Noam Chomsky
Not really, Chumpsky is a communist moonbat.

Re:Didn't you get what you paid for? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325535)

Ladies and gentlemen, the fartards have arrived! - painendstheass

You can't even troll properly (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325589)

Chomsky isn't a communist, he's an anarchist, as he's said numerous times.

And he's still smarter and better informed than any right winger.

Re:Didn't you get what you paid for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19326497)

Thank you for your opinion Mr Raymond, but next time wait until we ask for it, mmm'kay?

Re:Didn't you get what you paid for? (-1, Flamebait)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325919)

Why would anyone want to read anything by Noam Chomsky? He's a complete nutjob with no relevance to actual reality.

Re:Didn't you get what you paid for? (2, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326187)

The man is brilliant, and what he has to say is completely relevant. He has one of the most insightful analysis of modern society I've ever read. I challenge you to come up with an example of him being a nutjob. In fact, I think that you know he isn't a nutjob. I think that what he's saying challenges your beliefs, and you don't want anyone being swayed by what he has to say. If he were a nutjob, that fact would be obvious to everyone, and you wouldn't need to mention it. I mean, who bothers to mention that the Timecube guy is a nutjob? We all know it from one look at what he has to say. Not so with Chomskey, which is why small minded defenders of the status quo always feel the need to attack him.

It's not News for Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325165)

It's Slashdot!

"My criticism of this book ... (4, Funny)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325181)

is that almost the whole thing is just a list of Fark stories. "

You'll get over it.

Re:"My criticism of this book ... (1)

Real World Stuff (561780) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325441)

Oh yeah...I see what you did there. Your post has too much whitespace BTW.

BBC = advertisement free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325183)

So, the BBC are good journalists?

Re:BBC = advertisement free (2, Insightful)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326107)

The BBC are definitely on the better end of journalism, that being both reason for and symptom of its betterness. The fact that every single Prime Minister of England hated the BBC is another piece of evidence that it's pretty awesome.

It's not news... (0, Redundant)

dr_strang (32799) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325187)

It's Slashdot.

It's not a book review, it's Slashdot. (5, Funny)

CanSpice (300894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325195)

Does anybody actually edit or proof these book "reviews", or do the "editors" just copy and paste it from their inbox? Seriously, the opening three lines are so stilted and crap that no proper editor would accept this review. Couple that with the traditional "it's" screwup and I didn't want to read any further.

But I did. And lo and behold it's a typical Slashdot "review", consisting of ten paragraphs summarizing each chapter individually followed with "I thought this book sucked/ruled because...". My criticism of this "review" is that almost the whole thing is just a list of the chapters.

If this was a book review for an elementary class you might slide by with a B, but otherwise you get a D.

Re:It's not a book review, it's Slashdot. (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325567)

No kidding. Terribly written with bad grammar and weak punctuation, a simply uninteresting non-review of a book that could have been worthwhile. Pity.

Re:It's not a book review, it's Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325615)

I work for Slashdot Book Reviews so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you don't know about the topic....

Don't make yourself sound like you do. Cos some geeks believe anything they hear.

Re:It's not a book review, it's Slashdot. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325923)

I work for Slashdot Book Reviews

Your grammar and writing style make this apparent.

Complete the cycle!!! (2, Funny)

darkrowan (976992) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325209)

Quick! We must continue the cycle. Someone Digg this article, then get that as a link on the main page of Fark. Or add reddit into the mix as well.

Re:Complete the cycle!!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325457)

Done [digg.com]

Necessary Illusions (4, Interesting)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325219)

Noam Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions" has a very good look at why US news media is practically useless.

Short version: the media companies have trained themselves to avoid conflict with the powers that be. The powers that be hardly need to come down on media anymore. These days if you see a news story regarding the powers that be coming down on the media - it's fluff.

Long version: it's Chomsky - you'll have to read it for yourself. Unless anyone else wants to elaborate...

Re:Necessary Illusions (0, Flamebait)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325301)

Chomsky is a moron not because he has a niche viewpoint but because he doesn't realize he has a niche viewpoint and wants the government to regulate free speech and the media only because it doesn't reflect his lame, niche viewpoint.

Re:Necessary Illusions (2, Informative)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325497)

"wants the government to regulate free speech and the media"

??

You obviously are thinking of another Noam Chomsky - or you're off your meds. You have also obviously not read the book. Chomsky has no love for the US Gov and is against more gov regulation.

At least try and do some Googling before you post.

Re:Necessary Illusions (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325597)

Chomsky describes himself as a "a libertarian socialist", whatever that means.

He's one of those guys that heavily criticizes the USA, but still seems to admire it. Constructive criticism as opposed to the destructive type we usually get in the media.

As for free speech, he refuses to even take legal action when someone libels him, so I'd say he favors free speech. :)

I dunno. Even after being aware of him since my teens, sometimes I'm still not sure what to make of the guy.

FSOW (2, Informative)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325847)

"Chomsky describes himself as a "a libertarian socialist", whatever that means."

Libertarian Socialist [wikipedia.org]

Re:Necessary Illusions (0, Flamebait)

aevans (933829) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325453)

What Chomsky doesn't realize is that he's just a small cog in that media machine, designed to keep stupid people like you distracted from real problems by having you wade through his tripe and talk about how you were able to wade through his self-aggrandizing navel-gazing and somehow feel that getting his diarrhea all over you makes you feel special.

Re:Necessary Illusions (2, Funny)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325547)

Oh Yeah?

Well you're a big poopy-head!

There, I said the same thing you did without a run-on sentence.

Re:Necessary Illusions (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325505)

The problem is that Chomsky is just another ideologue, and you can't trust ANYTHING from an ideologue no matter how smart they are (or manage to seem). I even agree with his basic view here, but I wouldn't trust him as a reference.

Re:Necessary Illusions (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325623)

Different strokes for differnt folks.

We'll all have to choose an idealogue if we want real meaningful change in government, no matter what country we're in.

Re:Necessary Illusions (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325707)

No, we don't have to choose a ideologue. Choosing such people usually results in long bloody civil wars, genocides, bloody power struggler, incompetence, even more incompetence, horribly badly designed programs, horribly badly designed laws, ego trips by politicians and finally a return to something even worse than where we started.
Anyone who believes they are "right" period can never be trusted. Blind change is worse than no change.

Re:Necessary Illusions (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325841)

Sounds like all of the recent US administrations.

Idealogues get elected. Average Joes don't get elected.

Re:Necessary Illusions (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326025)

Not quite imho, career politicians almost need to be sellout to get elected. They care much more about power and influence and votes than anything else. Still even with such moderations tons of downright horrid laws and policies get passed as a result of the ideologue tendencies in them.

What we really need is rational (moderate) politicians who have backbones. People who can actually admit that they're probably not right in what they're doing (maybe close but maybe not) and plan accordingly.

Re:Necessary Illusions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325761)

Noam Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions" has a very good look at why US news media is practically useless.

More accurately that should be stated as Noam Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions" has a very good look at how the US news media fails to give enough consideration to his iconoclastic views. It should be subtitled "A person in a glass house throws stones".

Re:Necessary Illusions (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326195)

Wow, so many knees jerking, I think that it might have even thrown off the orbit of the Earth...

News is what someone doesn't want published (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325227)

All else is publicity.

It's a big issue, ignoring this commercial for "Fark" (which I hadn't heard mentioned in years). There are very few US newspapers left with much news. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are about it.

The San Jose Mercury News used to be one of the last remaining local papers with real reporting, but since Knight-Ridder sold it to some suburban throwaway publisher, it's had very little real content. Most of the reporters are gone.

The real test is this: did the story originate with a press release or a press conference? If it did, it's publicity. Take a printed newspaper and mark the non-wire-service ads for which this is not the case. There won't be many such stories. In some papers, there won't be any.

slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDoS (3, Insightful)

anthonyclark (17109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325229)

I stopped reading Fark after they started censoring *that* special number. Plus they took away boobies links and seemed to start removing any image that showed more than an inch of female cleavage.

It used to be a fun low IQ flamewar filled insight into the minds of folks who would argue the relative hotness and sharp-kneed attributes of any female media celebrity. Some of the threads were freaking hilarious and definitely made my difficult work days a little easier.

In my opinion Fark has made some terrible decisions lately: Fark "TV", terrible redesign without any user feedback, increasing censorship and more paid links. I hated the decision, but it's gone from my bookmarks.

Makes me remember my love for /.

Re:slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDo (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325583)

Plus they took away boobies links and seemed to start removing any image that showed more than an inch of female cleavage.

There's a special site dedicated for fark porn. foobies.com [foobies.com] . All the news that's fit to masturbate to.

Re:slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDo (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325661)

Boobies links were often the best threads. Now only TFers can comment on the threads. Once a day there would be a good thread "She's too fat" "She needs a sammich" going back and forth with everyone posting photos (or links to photos) of someone who they thought was hotter.

I still read fark daily for news, but lately it has felt completely sold out.
1) Censoring of a NUMBER. I even posted a huge base-10 number created by me pounding the keypad... it was deleted.
2) Censoring of boobies in threads. There was a recent article ABOUT cleavage and some mod went all "OMG NO BOOBS IN THREADS" on the thread. If you're browsing Fark at work then you should know a thread about breasts is going to have pictures of breasts. I have "Images like Opera" installed and have it not display any images on sites originating at forums.fark.com.
3) The new layout SUCKS. Slashdot, when they went CSS, did it tactfully, I'll notice more features and slicker integration as time goes on. Fark threw all UI logic out the window. Thankfully there is greasemonkey.

Re:slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDo (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326057)

1) Censoring of a NUMBER. I even posted a huge base-10 number created by me pounding the keypad... it was deleted.
Did you read Drew's post about why they were censoring it? Drew reacted to it early, before there was awareness that there was no way they could put the kibbosh on public availability of the key. This is why the DMCA is bad folks -- Drew made the best choice in a system designed to produce that choice. Don't hate Fark or Drew, hate the DMCA. Faced between the choice of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and penalties, and censoring the posts, what do you think he would do? What would YOU do (in reality, not in some idealistic information-wants-to-be-free fantasy)?

2) Censoring of boobies in threads. There was a recent article ABOUT cleavage and some mod went all "OMG NO BOOBS IN THREADS" on the thread. If you're browsing Fark at work then you should know a thread about breasts is going to have pictures of breasts. I have "Images like Opera" installed and have it not display any images on sites originating at forums.fark.com.
It's not about people who are reading Fark and whether they are at work; it's about advertisers who do not want their product associated with lewd content, and markets whose parents don't want them viewing lewd content. You knew that, right? Fark is a business, not a hobby.

3) The new layout SUCKS. Slashdot, when they went CSS, did it tactfully, I'll notice more features and slicker integration as time goes on. Fark threw all UI logic out the window. Thankfully there is greasemonkey.
Personal preference, I guess. Change is hard, but I'll bet you get used to the new layout over time. The old layout was pretty bad, too -- we forget how bad something is once we get used to it. And, as you say, there's always greasemonkey, so you should complain too much.

Re:slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDo (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325723)

You're right, fark sucks now. But what else are you going to do? It's still the best place to get "weird" news.

Re:slashdot farked black hole of unintentional DDo (1)

starling (26204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326133)

There's at least one alternative [bannination.com] .

For your mixed IQ flamewar & boobie needs (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326105)

My and a couple of friends set up bannination.com - it's less than a month old but coming along nicely.

I smell a sellout to Google or someone (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325245)

What with the new look that everyone hates, moderation up the wazoo, ever oppressive naughty word filters and sponsored links. Looks to be like ol Drunk Drew is getting ready to sell out, cash in, and drink up.

Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325285)

I work for Drew Curtis Presents Fark.com, so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you don't know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do. Cuz some slashdotters believe anything they hear.

Re:Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (1)

RayMarron (657336) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325635)

Since you didn't reply to any specific comment, how are we gullible slashdot readers supposed to know which comments about Fark are full of crap and which actually reflect reality? Will you be pointing those out for us and making corrections or are you just here to mention where you work and cast aspersions on everyone's intelligence (slashdot posters AND readers)?

Re:Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325813)

Since you didn't reply to any specific comment, how are we gullible slashdot readers supposed to know which comments about Fark are full of crap and which actually reflect reality? Will you be pointing those out for us and making corrections or are you just here to mention where you work and cast aspersions on everyone's intelligence (slashdot posters AND readers)?
You'll get over it. [reference.com]

Re:Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (1)

Stringer Bell (989985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325637)

I see what you did there.

Re:Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325811)

Actually, if the earlier posters were trying to imply that Fark is run by idiots, I think you just served up some solid confirmation of that. GJ!

Re:Fark: cancerous meme source of the net (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326495)

O RLY ???

Fearmongering, Contradiction, and Ads (1)

dj245 (732906) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325293)

Is this book a clever ruse for the internet predators to sneak in and rape your children? The answer may surprise you. Buy this book and find out.

For more thorough insight into "newsiness" (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325311)

I recommend that you examine some of the books in this "So you want to..." Amazon blurb [amazon.com] if you're looking into further insight into how mass media manipulates the news to their own ends.

In the meantime, I'll be avoiding clicking on Rugbyjock's entries.

Am I the only one . . . (1)

Anomalous Cowbird (539168) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325313)

. . . who has never even heard of Fark?

I'm off to look for it right now . . . .

Re:Am I the only one . . . (1)

jofny (540291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325671)

Pretty close to the only one. Despite all of the whining and moaning, it still manages to get most of the worthwhile stories (amusing or otherwise) faster than almost anywhere else and presents them in a simple, flat format. How many other places get entries about hostage situations posted by people in the affected building while it happens? (Chicago, recently)

Who knows but we sure do. (1)

yoyoq (1056216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325315)

"Who knows but we sure do. "

Thats from the article. I had to think about that one for a few minutes.

and someone would spend good money on this? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325319)

...and someone would spend good money on this because?

I'm thinking of just blocking out the SlashDot reviews; I've been on here for the better part of a decade and still haven't been moved to read, much less buy, any of the crappy, non-searchable dead tree products SlashDot shills for in this category.

Re:and someone would spend good money on this? (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325613)

If the Slashdot reviews are convincing you NOT to buy the crappy, non-searchable dead-tree products featured, they're valuable as well.

It sounds like this book could be included within its own subject matter.

It's not Fark (3, Interesting)

selfabuse (681350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325447)

It's BanniNation [bannination.com] Formed by a number of posters from fark who had finally had it with the way Drew runs Fark. It's a user-moderated fark-ish site, and IMO, has a much better community feel than fark does. It's nice being able to discuss a topic without worrying about the banstick coming down on your head.

Re:It's not Fark (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325911)

that looks like a blast. just take a look at that tag cloud!

Drew Curtis' shark jumping dot com (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325455)

I was an avid Fark user since 2001. I will no longer even hit the front page, as they have neutered Fark and alienated many of their loyal readers by instituting a new ban system without informing people what it was. Pictures that were *always* considered "safe for work" (such as the attention whore girl, are now deemed NSFW, and posters are banned without explanation. As one poster here has already mentioned the whole "you'll get over it" redesign was a bit of an odd approach, but I could live with that, what I cannot live with is the extra crappy censorship they have rolled out. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I loved visiting the site because it was a small bastion of free speech. Now they have chosen to eliminate that, fuck 'em.......

Good subject (4, Interesting)

Chaymus (697182) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325523)

I like the topic, too bad the book doesn't seem worth anything. I started out as a Journalism major and after 2 years of that I realized how I was rewarded (straight A's) for writing BS papers 30 minutes before class that I knew were completely wrong and morally disagreeable. (I switched to CS after I realized what a joke the journalism field was.) As long as you are citing someone else for reference you can selectively choose anything to make such a bias "news" piece that it will be publically acceptable. General media isn't geared to inform objectively anymore. Capping newspapers to 8th grade reading level, selectively chosing sources, and lazy investigations about one side of the story because it's more accessible is a serious downfall. Don't even get me started on television news, somehow 30 minutes of random sound clips and bad b-roll keeps me informed? I don't think so.
The problem that I see in the media, that hits home to most /.ers, is a combination of zero accountability (mods), and crappy moderators when they are in place. I have a choice in which bias opinion I watch, I don't have a location to form my own opinion without a lot more work. Add to that the network ratings are counted in thousands and a single letter coming in to the news station from a field expert telling them they don't know jack... there doesn't seem to be any insentive to even make a correction these days. Does anyone know of accountability actions for bad/misinformed/misleading journalism?

Ignorance (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325881)

General media isn't geared to inform objectively anymore. Capping newspapers to 8th grade reading level, selectively chosing sources, and lazy investigations about one side of the story because it's more accessible is a serious downfall.

The sad part is this ignorant nonsense gets modded "insightful". When it comes to mass media newspapers nothing significant has changed in well over a century.
 
Your complaints about the media show you to be no better than Joe Sixpack - the only significant difference is the source of the words you choose to parrot without understanding. Before complaining about how the modern media has failed - you'd do well to contemplate how you have failed yourself by merely repeating the complaint of others and in not knowing anything about the history of mass media.

Re:Ignorance (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326285)

Hell, things were worse in 1900. The newspapers invented stories outright back then--Remember the Maine; remember how people are led to war.

I HATE TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325561)

But Al Gore's "Assault On Reason" explores this in the first chapter. The rest of his book is, of course, a political piece on the Bush administration. But, to be fair, he doesn't give them any criticism they don't deserve. Anyway, the first chapter explores why the current news media has gotten the country in the mess it is in and the last chapter provides some hope for the future.

To be even more fair ... (4, Insightful)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326267)

But Al Gore's "Assault On Reason" explores this in the first chapter. The rest of his book is, of course, a political piece on the Bush administration. But, to be fair, he doesn't give them any criticism they don't deserve.
To be even more fair, it'd be tough these days to write a book called "The Assault on Reason" [powells.com] without writing a lot about the Bush Administration. It'd be sort of like writing about elephants without mentioning the one in everyone's living room.

The book is redundant (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19325617)

anyone with an above average IQ can spot the bias and non-news items pretending to be the news.

At Uncyclopedia, we bring you UnNews [uncyclopedia.org] that parodies real news to show how fake the real news companies have become. UnNews is your up to the minute source of news misinformation.

Re:The book is redundant (1)

lietkynes65 (694539) | more than 7 years ago | (#19326171)

The problem with that statement is that most people are below average. Get it, half people are above average and half are below it. We can't let 1/2 of our population be preyed on.

Ouch, my brain (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19325711)

Error: Brain cannot properly parse "Unfortunately 230 of the books 278 pages (including the index) are used for these examples."

Suggestion:
"Unfortunately, 230 of the book's 278 pages (including the index) are used for these examples."

My favorite "news" tale... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19326231)

Here in Portland, Oregon, I suppose our "news" presenters are no less vacuum-headed than those in other cities, and the stories which are presented as news are probably no worse. However...

Some years back one of our local channels presented a story about health advantages of folic acid. After the film clip and cut back to the studio, one of the "newspeople" added that if people were concerned and wanted to increase their folic acid intake, macaroni has more folic acid than almost any other vegetable.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>