Yet another reason why journos and news orgs should not ignore comments to their sites:
"The first two errors that we helped get corrected were (1) a listing in the East Bay Express that provided the wrong location for a theater event; and (2) a reference in a TechCrunch story to the wrong police department. In both of these cases, the problem had already been reported to the media outlets in question — in their own comments.
"Neither error was earth-shattering, but neither was as trivial as, say, a simple typographical error. Yet the comments reporting the mistakes had sat on these websites for days (in one of the cases, over a week) without either a response or a correction."
Pitchfork reviews the re-releases of Yes's catalog. Some I agree with, some I don't. (Hey, I actually liked "Tales of Topographic Oceans")
Good roundup of the pros and cons of various web timeline-building tools.
Steve Buttry's apt critique of an earlier PEJ study which found that blogs mainly parasitize news orgs. In it, Buttry, clearly and specifically owns up to flaws in his earlier critiques of this study, and delves further into the matter, and ends up documenting his case even more fully than before.
"PEJ's question: â€œWhat role do new media, blogs and specialty news sites now play?â€ â€” purports to include blogs. But it includes only a narrowly defined segment of blogs. The answer to â€œwho reported new informationâ€ in part is advocacy blogs (or if itâ€™s not, we donâ€™t know, because Pew excluded them from the study).
"This decision reveals researchers studying the ecosystem the way they wish it was or the way they think it is, not the way it is. Rosenstiel and the Pew researchers took their snapshot of the news ecosystem through the lens of old media, deliberately cropping out key participants. Bluntly, they donâ€™t understand new media well enough to study it credibly."