On 3/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:10:16 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as.
The press? A bunch of dunces. They print all kinds of crap. But - if they print *bad* crap they have to pay Actual Money so they tend to be at least marginally careful.
Bloggers can also be sued for Actual Money. In the case of the Bauer lawsuit aren't the sources we're citing in the article also being targeted directly as well?
Especially considering the blog in question is written by an Actual Editor of considerable experience.
Answering "this blog is not crap" with "lots of blogs are crap" is unconvincing as an argument.
The problem is it might be [[Eric Lerner]], not Joe Bloggs
- as non-experts it is very hard for us to tell the difference. So we
fall back to requiring that most things be filtered through the editorial processes of dependable secondary sources, and that should work well enough.
In this case it's obvious the authors are experts on the subject and there's no doubt they are who they say they are. (The blog is directly linked to a website that is an authoritive source on the subject) Whatever these blog authors write is kept in check by the organization they work for. That to me sounds like editorial control.
Mgm