|
|
"But just because he doesn't do what eveybody else does..."
|
|
|
|
|
No. I can get everything that I need for free; BBC, CNN, Telegraph, etc., etc. Printed media is so 20th century and the web sites that cling to the rather quaint notion that people will pay for what you can easily get for free is rather sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
I only pay for something when i very need it and cannot find it at other sources.
In code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
I get enough "news" shoved onto my phone that I rarely have to go hunting for rubbish to read. The various mandatory news/information/garbage feeds on a samsung device are a bloody good argument for rooting a phone!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
No. All the news I need to know I get reading the Lounge.
For example, as far as I can tell, no network reported that Jack Bruce died. Codeproject did.
QED.
That reminds me. I need to find my Cream DVD.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
The almost only place I read is:
http://www.codeproject.com/Insider.aspx[^] and it is free
About the rest of the news... I only read very few ones.
Just to know that the world is crazy and the people is even crazier... not worth.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've bought newspapers my whole life, and that patronage has paid the salaries of reporters.
If you think all news is free, you're mistaken. It takes a lot of people a lot of time to research and present news to consumers, and people who will give that time for free are people with their own agendas, so you can't trust their words.
Journalism in general, the Wizard of Id's "Golden Rule" applies: He who has the gold makes the rules.
a. If I and a million people like me are paying a little each for the news to be produced, we make the rules (with our feedback).
b. If one person/organisation/corporation is paying the whole cost, they make the rules (and any feedback from us is strictly edited in their favour).
I prefer option a.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't claim that news was generated without cost.
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you think all news is free, you're mistaken. It takes a lot of people a lot of time to research and present news to consumers, and people who will give that time for free are people with their own agendas, so you can't trust their words.
If you think that the news for which you pay is any less biased than asking an anonymous stranger on the street than I'll leave you to that opinion. I've seen more than one news report (covering areas of my expertise) that were so one sided - so biased - so inflammatory and flat out wrong that I stopped watching news programs on TV altogether.
Paying for news doesn't make it trustworthy - that is an odd view for sure.
Usually paying for information implies corruption of one sort or another.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: If you think that the news for which you pay is any less biased than asking an anonymous stranger on the street than I'll leave you to that opinion.
You shouldn't, because it's an incorrect opinion -- and you are showing your own bias by having incorrectly interpreted my words in that way.
The difference is: Is the bias honest, because the writer has an opinion; or is the bias dishonest, because the writer is being paid to manipulate you.
Nobody would buy a newspaper that didn't share their own biases, but free news doesn't have genuine biases; its biases are based on how much it is being paid to be biased -- i.e. instead of giving you honest opinions, it is babysitting you.
If you prefer being manipulated by such people to being spoken to as an equal by your peers, then more fool you -- seriously.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It reads as if you are asserting that payment for the news (by the masses) translates to some level of honesty that exceeds that of news source funded by a single person (or group). If I mis-read that I apologize - I'm probably missing your point.
In the unlikely event that is the case I can cite several examples where major news organizations (paid by the masses) have demonstrated a dishonest bias (lied, buried evidence, ignored the story) - while free news sources (blogs, etc) got the story exactly right.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: I'm probably missing your point.
You did. I didn't say that your paying for it makes them honest; I said that your paying for it means that they have to give you what you want, not what some "investor"* wants.
If a million people want a right-wing newspaper, and pay for one where the journalists express a right-wing bias, then those journalists can't just infiltrate "bought" left-wing material into it to make their sponsors happy -- they have to keep a thick wall between sponsors/advertisers and editorial content.
That works vice-versa for left-wing papers, of course, and for any other conflicting opinions/viewpoints.
It's the paying public that dictates what you publish, because if you don't publish what they're interested in, they won't buy it -- and Thou Shalt Not break their trust by insinuating paid conflicting material in sheeps' clothing
In free news, that "separation of church and state" ethic does not exist, so the publishers are free to put anything they want into their "stories", so you end up with what is known as "native advertising": articles that pretend to be stories, but are really nothing more than lengthy adverts for products/political opinions/etc.
MehGerbil wrote: I can cite several examples where major news organizations (paid by the masses) have demonstrated a dishonest bias (lied, buried evidence, ignored the story) - while free news sources (blogs, etc) got the story exactly right.
I dare say you can, but, to take an extreme example, I don't want to read that Paris Hilton loves her family very much and treats them very sweetly; I want either to not read about her at all, or to read how she behaves like a tramp.
Readers don't care which is more right; they want what they want, and, as a journalist, you are honour-bound to provide it (if it's true).
So bias is OK, in journalism, because everybody is biased, and you write for your readership -- as in my example: don't lie to me about the tramp, but don't tell me stuff about her that I don't want to read.
And don't try to promote beany-babies to JSOP by putting native advertising into a gun mag with them wearing Zapata moustaches and holding guns.
... Or do. He might get a laugh out of it.
* Yes, I am using that as a euphemism
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: You did. I didn't say that your paying for it makes them honest; I said that your paying for it means that they have to give you what you want, not what some "investor"* wants.
I don't understand the importance of your distinction.
If I pay for it and they give me the bias I want or if I get it for free and read the bias I want in both cases I end up with news sanitized to appeal to my sensibilities.
You seem to hold to the idea that a paid news source is more honest.
I've seen no evidence that suggests that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Journalists tell you the truth, however biased to suit your tastes; their objective being journalism.
If they don't behave that way, they're hounded out of the profession (generally into marketing or free news organisations).
Marketing departments, sponsors, and "special interest" free-news providers (including bloggers) are not committed to the truth, and have no professional-ethics problem with misleading text or even blatant lies; their objective being your money or something else of yours.
If they don't behave that way, they make less profit from you.
If you can't see the distinction, you really need to look harder. There's a world of difference between bias and manipulation.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If you think the big paid for news organizations (journalists) are more credible than a guy living under a bridge then we've nothing left to discuss. Given the outright lies these people get busted for on a daily basis I'm honestly boggled that anyone holds the opinion you express.
Nothing wrong with that, I suppose... but yeah, damn.
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of my points (which you apparently chose not to read): They get busted -- but it's hardly a daily occurrence; kindly check your facts before sending unverified information to print.
Oh, I'm sorry. You're a believer that just because someone who doesn't have journalistic ethics says something it's true -- or truer than the word of someone who's hasn't slept for three days because he's been confirming the veracity of every word he wants to send to press, and still has had to scratch half his words because irrefutable proof of their veracity can't be identified.
So go ahead, read every word your free-news people say, secure in the knowledge that a third of it is assumption, another third is guesswork, and that not a single fact has been checked.
But that's OK, because they'll never get busted, and you'll never know if they've lied.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to honesty I'm not advocating one source over the other; however, I did make the claim that since the common tongue of both is lies that I'll take my lies for free.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. You're a believer that just because someone who doesn't have journalistic ethics says something it's true -- or truer than the word of someone who's hasn't slept for three days because he's been confirming the veracity of every word he wants to send to press, and still has had to scratch half his words because irrefutable proof of their veracity can't be identified.
I'm not sure at what point you began to hallucinate but I'm not going to be joining you there. By the way you mischaracterize what I've said I'm going to assume you work as an anchor for NBC, or perhaps a writer for the New York Times. Tell your constituency that I eat babies - they love that stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm tempted to forward this discussion to a journalists' board.
Take a wild guess at how they would react, and what they would say about developers.
You don't have to guess how much verified, fact-checked material they would find to back up any statements they could make about developers -- and you could bet your sweet life that they'd insist that you fact-check the things you've been saying about journalism.
Being clever and having opinions is great, but make sure that it is clear when you are talking non-fact-checked personal opinion, and don't insult people who do check and verify their facts.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I'm tempted to forward this discussion to a journalists' board.
I'm sure they'd find evidence of racism, homophobia, or 'terrorism' in my posts. They'd then paint me as a red state buffoon that slumps around my log cabin, living off a diet of whiskey and raw squirrel. They would then thank God, if only the ole boy existed, that they weren't born stupid.
Mark_Wallace wrote: You don't have to guess how much verified, fact-checked material they would find to back up any statements they could make about developers -- and you could bet your sweet life that they'd insist that you fact-check the things you've been saying about journalism.
Cataloging the intentional lies of the media is pretty easy to do - in fact, journalists help with that task. (There is no better way to take out the competition.) Of course, not all journalists lie, after all, there is no point in telling a lie if the truth will do more damage.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Being clever and having opinions is great, but make sure that it is clear when you are talking non-fact-checked personal opinion, and don't insult people who do check and verify their facts.
You keep taking this as a blanket dismissal of all paid journalists.
I'm sure good journalists exist - most of them are probably decent - it's just that I've seen enough crap in there that I'm no longer willing to pay for it.
My only claim is I can get the facts (or lies) just as easily for free.
This is a problem for journalists - I don't see where paying for information has any relationship to it being true.
If you'd like to somehow establish that journalists are more honest when paid by thousands then be my guest.
|
|
|
|
|
7 Reasons You Should Not Pay For The News! You Won't Believe #5
13 Ways To Tell You're Not Paying For The News
Should I continue?
If you're not paying for the news you want to hear, you'll get the news other wants to click to.
|
|
|
|
|
I've had an Economist[^] subscription for the last 4 or 5 years because I'm yet to find anywhere that does an equally good job of aggregating global news.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, but I do take great pleasure in picking their feeble attempts to lock you out apart...
I mean come-on, like a CSS overlay with a login box on, followed by a transparent full page overlay then the article is any challenge for the Chrome debugger!!
|
|
|
|
|
I find that simply disabling JavaScript works at times. 
|
|
|
|
|
True, but the former way appeals more as fun to my programmers brain ....
|
|
|
|
|
OK, there are now officially so many of those "as a service" services it has become a joke. However, I am spamming this one now[^]. Apologies if you don't get the message right away, it's a long list.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
