Every time I used enough grocery store coupons to offset its cost, I bought one of those since it now seemed like a freebie. There was some FANTASTIC writing in there. My favorite, and I still have it, is "Benji (the movie star dog) was gay and he died of AIDS." He caught it on the set of Oh Heavenly Dog. He spent much of his fortune going out of the country trying to find alternative remedies that were mostly scams. And, when he died, he was found clutching a little medal of St. Bernard. I can just imagine the team sitting around the office throwing out all those ideas and putting them into an article. They must've been having trouble catching their breath from laughing at how off the hook wrong it was.
lol
they were way ahead of the onion... the only site i've seen where the rando nutbar ads in the buffer are more accurate than the main event
You know, the same bias is true about National Enquirer. It's a trash paper, but sometimes its information is not false. That's the worst kind of rag, because they can point to the times they got it right and use that to publish things that are wrong and...how can the reader tell the difference? See also: boy who cried wolf.
one of his concerns: the banning of news sources used
I've observed that... when Tom Petty died, TMZ had a pretty solid timeline (it took place late at night, with the 911 call at 11pm and pronounced dead at 1 a.m. so the reporters on the east coast were really confused since it all happened on the same "day" by their clocks). But the wiki editors of that page refused to accept the clearest source because it was TMZ.
I made it halfway through and ...it's interesting. Yes, there are people sitting on their favorite pages, leaping in to undo edits as quickly as they're made. Yes, some nod should be made to alternative storylines when they're significant, but âand this is importantâ it is wrong to expect all stories to be presented as possibly equally valid. YES, people go to wikipedia to get answers. If I ask what the moon's made of and one paragraph says it's iron and the next paragraph says it's green cheese, and I'm expected to then enumerate the disparate possibilities and go to some other source to "research" for myself what the moon is made of, then that takes Wikipedia out of the game altogether.
An encyclopedia is not a news source. It should present minimal editorializing/opinion, and try to present the most widely accepted storyline. Call it "establishment" if you want, but just because his favorite conspiracy theories are given short shrift doesn't mean there's a huge industry coverup happening.
one of his concerns: the banning of news sources used
in my opinion wikipedia is generally pretty good for non-politicized subjects
what? people like this will probably question the media too
I made it halfway through and ...it's interesting. Yes, there are people sitting on their favorite pages, leaping in to undo edits as quickly as they're made. Yes, some nod should be made to alternative storylines when they're significant, but âand this is importantâ it is wrong to expect all stories to be presented as possibly equally valid. YES, people go to wikipedia to get answers. If I ask what the moon's made of and one paragraph says it's iron and the next paragraph says it's green cheese, and I'm expected to then enumerate the disparate possibilities and go to some other source to "research" for myself what the moon is made of, then that takes Wikipedia out of the game altogether.
An encyclopedia is not a news source. It should present minimal editorializing/opinion, and try to present the most widely accepted storyline. Call it "establishment" if you want, but just because his favorite conspiracy theories are given short shrift doesn't mean there's a huge industry coverup happening.
My parents were an interesting mix of practical, poor, cheap and leading edge. I had access to BBS services and lots of public resources so I never had my own. So in my youth I read the copies of friends and family. They always struck me as oddly static for what they were. In the last several years I've had the opportunity to peruse various editions from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. It's amazing to me how much bias is built into those editions. They are all tainted by the time they were printed in. To some extent that is expected, but it is pretty obvious and puts some perspective on the media bias discussions of today.
When I was a kid I lived library time in the resource section; partly because I was ADD and dyslexic before it was cool, and partly because, in my way of thinking, the universe of knowledge appealed to me more than any one book could provide. I'm surprised that these were still being printed. Didn't World Book cease to be in print years ago? Maybe not.
After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is going out of print.
Those coolly authoritative, gold-lettered reference books that were once sold door-to-door by a fleet of traveling salesmen and displayed as proud fixtures in American homes will be discontinued, company executives said.
In an acknowledgment of the realities of the digital age — and of competition from the Web site Wikipedia — Encyclopaedia Britannica will focus primarily on its online encyclopedias and educational curriculum for schools. The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, which weighs 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project. (...)
My parents were an interesting mix of practical, poor, cheap and leading edge. I had access to BBS services and lots of public resources so I never had my own. So in my youth I read the copies of friends and family. They always struck me as oddly static for what they were. In the last several years I've had the opportunity to peruse various editions from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. It's amazing to me how much bias is built into those editions. They are all tainted by the time they were printed in. To some extent that is expected, but it is pretty obvious and puts some perspective on the media bias discussions of today.
