15 comments

• 

  allen stern

  1 year ago

  the true question is here is whether anyone gives a shit if the story is true, factually accurate or not. some sites still receive new inbounds in any case. And frankly, I (sadly) disagree with Mr. Hodson - though I'd love to see it happen.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I know that kind of thing happens, Allen, but I think (or would like
  to believe) that if it happens enough it will drive people away and
  other sites will take their place.
  reply
• 

  allen stern

  1 year ago

  i'd certainly love it Mathew... and if it happens I will fedex you a dozen bagels :)
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  It's a deal -- sesame seed is my favourite :-)
  reply
• 

  Chris R

  1 year ago

  Good points to bring up, Mathew. I like constructive criticism and it's great that writers are trying to call out other writers, if anything, to improve their craft.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  1 year ago

  Seems a little unfair to single out Matt and Erick, both of whom have a history of writing pretty insightful and newsworthy stuff. The two posts that annoyed me most recently for their lack of research, insight or accuracy were the Techcrunch piece about the "evidence" showing Yahoo users are poorer than Google's, and the one on CenterNetworks aimlessly speculating about the link between teen suicide and social networks. Those seem like much better examples of sensationalist link baiting.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I agree, Daniel. And I hope my post doesn't come across as picking on
  Matt or Erick, because I think they are both great bloggers, and in
  fact are good examples of how much "journabloggers" can bring to the
  table.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  1 year ago

  Not at all -- I actually meant it was unfair of Fred Wilson to single them out. I thought your post was bang on.
  reply
• 

  Eric Rice

  1 year ago

  I thought our culture was moving towards 140 characters or less sound bytes? ;)
  reply
• 

  michael arrington

  1 year ago

  I overdid it? Watch out, you're next.
  
  kidding, kidding.
  
  why do i always comment here? Your audience hates me.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I guess you're just a glutton for punishment, Mike :-)
  reply
• 

  JoeDuck

  1 year ago

  Hey, I like Mike!
  
  But he seemed to overreact to this as you suggest here. Fred's basic points were valid and I didn't read his post as some sort of personal attack, rather an open question about journalistic standards with examples that could have been chosen more carefully.
  reply
• 

  ianbetteridge

  1 year ago

  Mike's comment about not caring about balance is both hypocritical and telling. On one hand, he's flaming Fred - and insisting on an apology - because Fred didn't call his writers and get their side of the story. On the other hand, he's saying he doesn't care about balance in his own work. How does that work again?
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  1 year ago

  There are different kinds of balance -- portraying an accurate story vs. giving equal weight to opposing opinions even though one is much stronger than the other. For example, if an author is writing about evolution, the last thing I want is for the opinions of creationists to be given equal weight to the facts presented by credible scientists.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  A fair point, Daniel.
  reply