Newspapers Verses Blogs. - Page 2

***Jolie77*** · 01-06-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Also, don't forget, if reading the newspaper online, there's the comments.

Aha, Yes that too.

There are some newspaper companies online that will require people to register to post their comments.

Hear Again · 01-06-2009, 10:23 PM

newspapers will always have a place even in the internet age. if one wants to keep up with current events, there is no other way to do so besides reading a print or online newspaper. blogs may have commentaries about current events, but they are based on opinion -- not fact.

Jiro · 01-06-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aghori

Newspaper ... so yesterday!

Blogs... come with comments.

newspaper are available online. and so are the writers. you can email writers to exchange your opinion and such. but blog.... my god.... can you believe the comments? it's full of flaming, "zing joke", and cheap shots. But I admit that it was funny

Banjo · 01-06-2009, 10:53 PM

I work with newspapers for a living. I can tell you without hesitation that more than often that the stories are misleading, inaccurate and much more than one can possibly imagine.

It's only the job of the reporter/journalist to report but they don't always get the complete story, just pieces of it. So when you want to talk about credibility when it comes to newspapers, my advice is to not take everything at face's value. Read the article, then do the research and ask around, this way, you will be able to get a better idea of what actually happened.

In general, bloggers can write whatever they want to. So yes, one would be right to assume that the story may be more than often to be misleading and not the truth. But there are bloggers with a reputation enough to be trusted by a large number of readers. The wonderful thing about the blogosphere is that anybody can speak their minds and offer different perspectives on anything they wish to. We can learn much more from each other this way.

Just saying that both newspapers and blogs aren't without its flaws. Normally, I read newspapers to get the latest stories. But sometimes I do read bloggers if they have a good reptuation and sometimes they have great commentaries to offer.

We can learn a lot from both.

Jiro · 01-06-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

I work with newspapers for a living. I can tell you without hesitation that more than often that the stories are misleading, inaccurate and much more than one can possibly imagine.

that's why there's a big difference between New York Times and Bergen Record. but yes - with reputable newspaper... and reputable blogger on same issue... it's a good balance.

deafskeptic · 01-06-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's why there's a big difference between New York Times and Bergen Record. but yes - with reputable newspaper... and reputable blogger on same issue... it's a good balance.

Or the difference between CNN and Fox news even if they aren't newspapers.

lsfoster · 01-07-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Normally, I read newspapers to get the latest stories. But sometimes I do read bloggers if they have a good reptuation and sometimes they have great commentaries to offer.

We can learn a lot from both.

See, I think this is what it really comes down to. Bloggers offer commentaries. They have to get the news somewhere to begin with, and that usually means a newspaper or news show of some kind. The thing is, newspapers are supposed to present the news impartially (and obviously some of them don't, but they're still supposed to be held to that standard). If all bloggers did was read the newspaper to you, then they wouldn't have much of a following. By their nature they have to have an agenda. I'm not saying that's always a bad thing. I mean, if someone has a blog devoted solely to pointing out all the crap that Fox news says, then go them!

The thing is, when I'm reading an editorial in the paper, I know it's an editorial, and it's understood that it's one person's opinion. I know a lot of friends who will take everything in a blog as fact, even though they rarely cite their sources or methods, and generally have really poor and fallacious arguments. Usually it's because that friend agrees with the point of the blog, and uses it to "back up" their view, since someone else feels the same way they do.

It just seems kind of silly. I mean, I could start a blog, and write this,

"I need to inform the general public that CHEERIOS CAN KILL YOU!!! It's true, I read a study saying that eating a bowl of cheerios is now considered as dangerous as smoking a cigarette. Researchers are currently investigating this baffling discovery, but for now, DON'T EAT CHEERIOS!"

I know plenty of people who would use the same kind of argument from a blog to support their point. Of course, not about cheerios, but that's just an example to show how ridiculous this issue can get. When it's a serious issue, and people want to prove that they're right, they'll use something presented like that as fact, even though there is absolutely none in there.

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2009, 10:15 AM

Yes, I second that, Banjo.

It depend on good or bad blogs and newspapers...

Example: I read a reliable newspaper and blog about the same case... but the blogger wrote more sense than newspaper over that same case... some newspaper reporter wrote more sense than blogger.. It really depend on situation what kind of view either it's sense or not.

I really haven't anything to say against blog and newspaper, like what Banjo said that we can learn alot from both.

PuyoPiyo · 01-07-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie77

Aha, Yes that too.

There are some newspaper companies online that will require people to register to post their comments.

Yup true.. I was registered reader for my local news

jillio · 01-07-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

I truly don't trust either.
They do tell a story and the news. Sometimes they are not accurate or they are exaggerated,
But it is not entirely false.

Media is out to get paid.

We must look for the bias in everything we read, and always view it with a critical eye. However, this is much more necessary when reading a blog than when reading a newspaper. Newpapers will twist in order to make a story more interesting to the public (e.g. to sell papers), but bloggers will quite often post total innacuracies in order to promote their personal agenda.

jillio · 01-07-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

...and how do you know that what a blogger writes is fact? answer: it's not. it's opinion. nothing more, nothing less.

Bingo!

jillio · 01-07-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

The fact is what they wrote wasn't true.

I'm not saying all newspaper articles are bad. I'm just saying that you can't trust what you read in newspapers, any more then you can trust what you read in blogs because the newspapers wantt o sell and if things will go down better sensationalised or twisted in some way they will do just that.

I trust what I read in some blogs more then I trust what I read in some newspapers.

That would be considered a human interest story. Journalists have much more creative leeway in a story of this nature than a news journalist has in reporting factual accounts of a newsworthy event.

jillio · 01-07-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Of course it's the bloggers opion. Same as it's the Journalists opion. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Sometimes bloggers will write from personal experience in which case what they say generally carries more weight.

Only if it is clearly stated that it is an opinion piece.

jillio · 01-07-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

this is true as well. as my statistics professor said, the only thing you can do when reading a survey is to interpret the methodology, numbers and results as best you can before arriving at your own conclusion.

Looking at the methodology is extremely improtant if one is to interpret the generalizability of any statistical analysis. I have said it over and over on this forum.

Banjo · 01-08-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's why there's a big difference between New York Times and Bergen Record. but yes - with reputable newspaper... and reputable blogger on same issue... it's a good balance.

Actually, New York Time got busted quite a few times. Like I said, more than often, the news stories you read are misleading and not the whole straight story. It's difficult for journalists to do that if they are unable to get the information they need.

Hear Again · 01-08-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Looking at the methodology is extremely improtant if one is to interpret the generalizability of any statistical analysis. I have said it over and over on this forum.

exactly.

Hear Again · 01-08-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Of course it's the bloggers opion. Same as it's the Journalists opion. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Sometimes bloggers will write from personal experience in which case what they say generally carries more weight.

wrong. journalists are expected to practice ethical reporting -- bloggers aren't. aside from that, personal experiences don't translate into facts and since they can't be proven, they have no validity.

Jiro · 01-08-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Actually, New York Time got busted quite a few times. Like I said, more than often, the news stories you read are misleading and not the whole straight story. It's difficult for journalists to do that if they are unable to get the information they need.

yes... better "quite a few times" than strings of rambling blogs otherwise NYT's reputation will take a dive. and yes of course journalists cannot get the whole picture but they do the best they can. It is understandably misleading but not as blatant as blogs.... just like in statistic or measurement - there is expected margin of error. That's why there are follow-ups and continued coverage... and we'll slowly learn the whole truth. You don't often see that in blogs (except reputable bloggers with humbleness)

Bloggers don't need to do the best they can. They merely voice their opinion based on what they read or heard and stick with it without listening to other side.

Oceanbreeze · 01-08-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

I truly don't trust either.
They do tell a story and the news. Sometimes they are not accurate or they are exaggerated,
But it is not entirely false.

Media is out to get paid.

In my opinion, there is no debate because newspapers and blogs are both biased. Newspapers will slant events according the section of population they want to appeal to; whereas blogs are merely opinions stated by an individual. They both should be eyed critically and subjected to vast interpretation.

PuyoPiyo · 01-09-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

wrong. journalists are expected to practice ethical reporting -- bloggers aren't. aside from that, personal experiences don't translate into facts and since they can't be proven, they have no validity.

I agree, completely.

Hear Again · 01-09-2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes... better "quite a few times" than strings of rambling blogs otherwise NYT's reputation will take a dive. and yes of course journalists cannot get the whole picture but they do the best they can. It is understandably misleading but not as blatant as blogs.... just like in statistic or measurement - there is expected margin of error. That's why there are follow-ups and continued coverage... and we'll slowly learn the whole truth. You don't often see that in blogs (except reputable bloggers with humbleness)

Bloggers don't need to do the best they can. They merely voice their opinion based on what they read or heard and stick with it without listening to other side.

Jiro · 01-09-2009, 11:09 AM

Jakob Nielsen - world renowned usability expert

Quote:

No Blogs, Though
Nielsen may be ruthless about brevity, but he doesn't advocate blogging. Here's his logic: "Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easier to write. But they don't build sustainable value."

That's a debatable point. My experience has been that a thoughtful blogger who tags his posts can cover a subject well. But Nielsen's idea is that people will read (and maybe even pay) for expertise that they can't find anywhere else. If you want to beat the Internet, you're not going to do it by blogging (since even OK thinkers occasionally write a great blog post) but by offering a comprehensive take on a subject (thus saving the reader time from searching many sites) and supplying original thinking (offering trusted insight that cannot be easily duplicated by the nonexpert).

Like a lot of what Nielsen says, this is both obvious and thoughtful.

jillio · 01-09-2009, 11:14 AM

Jiro. If you are looking for perspective, a blog can be useful. If you are looking for supportable fact, better use another source.

Byrdie714 · 01-13-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lsfoster

I like to quote the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" on situations like these.

"There are preachers who kill,
There are killers who preach,
There are teachers who lie,
There are liars who teach."

As far as I'm concerned, newspapers are more reliable. Granted, there are some journalists and some newspapers that have agendas, but there are very few bloggers that don't. The fact that some newspapers might be biased does not change the fact that most bloggers are.

Also, there are no requirements or restrictions on bloggers. Are there some journalists and newspapers that still abuse their position? Sure, watch Fox sometime. But the fact is, why bother blogging if you don't have an agenda, and who would care what you have to say? There are so many dependable news sources out there, I don't see why anyone would bother blogging/vlogging if they didn't have an agenda.

I forgot about that quote......and it's a scary quote!

lsfoster · 01-15-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

I forgot about that quote......and it's a scary quote!

Yup, but it's a great quote.

dreama · 01-25-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

If newspapers tell lies, they would have been slapped with several slander suits and bankrupt by now...

Sorry to go off topic but have you tried to sue any newspapers for talking nonsense about CI? Like the one we discussed in that thread a while back.

dreama · 01-25-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

blog authors carry their own agenda. newspapers do not.

That's your opinion but I beg to differ. I don't believe what I read in the newspapers.

shel90 · 01-25-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Sorry to go off topic but have you tried to sue any newspapers for talking nonsense about CI? Like the one we discussed in that thread a while back.

That was written by a family member. It wasnt in the news...

Jiro · 01-25-2009, 09:28 PM

lalalaaaaa lalaaaaaaa lalaaaaaaa

dreama · 01-25-2009, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

That was written by a family member. It wasnt in the news...

It was in a newspaper though. And I don't think it's an isolated case either.

The point is it offended a lot of deaf people but nobody as far as I know tried to sue the paper.

Besides how would the average parent know it was nonsense since poeple generally believe what they read in newspapers.

01-06-2009, 10:23 PM	#32 (permalink)
Hear Again Each day is a gift. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 20,067 Blog Entries: 6	newspapers will always have a place even in the internet age. if one wants to keep up with current events, there is no other way to do so besides reading a print or online newspaper. blogs may have commentaries about current events, but they are based on opinion -- not fact. __________________ Left ear - Nucleus 24 Contour Advance with Freedom BTE (Implanted: 12/22/04 \| Activated: 1/18/05) Right ear - Nucleus Freedom (Implanted: 2/1/06 \| Activated: 3/1/06) Deafblind/Postlingual

01-07-2009, 10:15 AM	#38 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Sussi 7.7.86 - 18.6.09 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 30,970	Yes, I second that, Banjo. It depend on good or bad blogs and newspapers... Example: I read a reliable newspaper and blog about the same case... but the blogger wrote more sense than newspaper over that same case... some newspaper reporter wrote more sense than blogger.. It really depend on situation what kind of view either it's sense or not. I really haven't anything to say against blog and newspaper, like what Banjo said that we can learn alot from both. __________________

01-25-2009, 09:28 PM	#59 (permalink)
Jiro YOU DOMESTIC DISSENT! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Sopranos State Posts: 21,957	lalalaaaaa lalaaaaaaa lalaaaaaaa __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-06-2009, 10:53 PM	#34 (permalink)
Banjo Mr. Movie Guy Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 5,884 Blog Entries: 1	I work with newspapers for a living. I can tell you without hesitation that more than often that the stories are misleading, inaccurate and much more than one can possibly imagine. It's only the job of the reporter/journalist to report but they don't always get the complete story, just pieces of it. So when you want to talk about credibility when it comes to newspapers, my advice is to not take everything at face's value. Read the article, then do the research and ask around, this way, you will be able to get a better idea of what actually happened. In general, bloggers can write whatever they want to. So yes, one would be right to assume that the story may be more than often to be misleading and not the truth. But there are bloggers with a reputation enough to be trusted by a large number of readers. The wonderful thing about the blogosphere is that anybody can speak their minds and offer different perspectives on anything they wish to. We can learn much more from each other this way. Just saying that both newspapers and blogs aren't without its flaws. Normally, I read newspapers to get the latest stories. But sometimes I do read bloggers if they have a good reptuation and sometimes they have great commentaries to offer. We can learn a lot from both.

01-09-2009, 11:14 AM	#53 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 32,289	Jiro. If you are looking for perspective, a blog can be useful. If you are looking for supportable fact, better use another source.