John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
rbw wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
rbw wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42337
Moreso, I would tend to disregard anything by that author or ste as
yellow journalism:
Aw, come on... This site is funny in a satire
type mode...
Surely there is room for satire in the arena of
computing and especially end user issues in
computing!
There certainly is. However, satire is not journalism. Satire should not
be confused with factual reporting.
Similarly, I do not consider weblogs to be journalism either. Case in
point: I have never heard anyone honestly say ``Everything I needed to
know I learned from LiveJournal.''
-john
Hmmm...
I think I get what you are saying then again, not...
Are you saying that if a matter is reported in
an irreverent and satirical manner then it can't
be "factual" reporting and can't be "learned"
from? That doesn't seem to make sense. Now I do
understand that there is a distinction between
"serious journalism" and other forms of
disseminating information not so lofty in
stature (e.g. wry humor, satire, irreverent
twists and spin doctors with agendas, etc, etc).
I do understand that you may be saying that your
preference is to not even consider any of the
latter for information of any type and I have no
objection (like my objection means anything ;^)
but isn't that just a preference?
Here is a bit from that same site that is most
definitely edgy and even a condescending humor,
but is the reporting therefore not "factual"?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42363
RB(It ain't always so serious... sometimes ;^)W
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
