Comments on: What’s Right and Wrong with Media Now

By: Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation & the Web » Blog Archive » The Power Struggle for the Future of Media

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:26:17 +0000

[...] Chris Anderson using content from Wikipedia in his book. [...]

By: Mark Lord

Mark Lord — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:22:42 +0000

In the UK certain tabloid newspapers check their facts by tapping into mobile phones, but I think most of the other tabloids just make it up to get more readers. So maybe things aren’t so different between the traditional media and the new media – i.e. blogs looking for more clicks.

‘Truth’ is in short supply!

By: joe

joe — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:27:51 +0000

The mezrech book is sensationalized and its not meant to be a dry, fair and balanced history book; but a dramatic movie. It is a bit unfair, maybe he should have fictionalized it to prevent lawsuits. He fictionalized or composited much of bringing down the house, which was actually enteratining.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:09:50 +0000

LOL. Good observation!

By: Ivan Lazarte

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:43:38 +0000

Omg that video is hilarious. I love how she tries to pass it off on the audience. Sarah is (on her best days) pretty much the Michael Bay of journalism.

“It’s not my fault, I’m too famous, and everyone else is sexist.” ROFLMAO.

By: Ivan Lazarte

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:34:10 +0000

It’s not being a bad writer, it’s Process Authoring, and the numbers show, the readers love it! If he’s totally wrong about anything, later he’ll write another book!

It’s everything TC represents and more!

By: Phreddy Tran

Phreddy Tran — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Let’s not forget Sarah’s attempt to interview Zuck at the SXSW Conference:

http://www.wire...xsw-mark-zucke/

By: Digitale medier, koncepter & livet som sådan – Tingenes reelle værdi

Digitale medier, koncepter & livet som sådan – Tingenes reelle værdi — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:38:50 +0000

[...] (Hattip til Techcrunch) [...]

By: New Gadgets | Comment on What’s Right and Wrong with Media Now by New Gadgets |…

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:32:49 +0000

[...] Original post by Hostpundit – Hosting and Gadgets [...]

By: Ari Bernstein

Ari Bernstein — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:08:00 +0000

Pheddy, while I hear the merit of your criticism of Sarah, I think that a fundamental difference exists between Mezrich’s writing and Sarah’s. Mezrich admitted that he never spoke with the individuals on the other side of the story. In fact, he declared, “The book isn’t reportage. It’s big juicy fun.” When somebody makes those comments, they are saying that their book is just gossip. Sarah, therefore, was well sourced when she used Mezrich’s book as example of how journalism has become more salacious than investigative.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:05:53 +0000

This post and many like it come from Arrington’s personal crusade against so called “old media” – i.e. the New York Times. I’d like to see TC expand on what is wrong with “Old Media” and write something in depth. To date the most thorough breakdown I’ve read comes from Scoble http://bit.ly/4pp3Pf.

By: i lold

i lold — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:46:45 +0000

To see the worst side of web 2.0 all you have to do is look at http://www.anonboard.com

By: roadman

roadman — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:43:11 +0000

If the film/book is entertaining without truth then it is an entertaining film/book.

If the content is based on mistruth then Facebook can always sue, no need to have Sarah stick-up for them or the blog community.

Content is king though.

By: New Gadgets | Tech Crunch: What’s Right and Wrong with Media Now

New Gadgets | Tech Crunch: What’s Right and Wrong with Media Now — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:16:47 +0000

[...] Original post by Hostpundit – Hosting and Gadgets [...]

By: billbanker

billbanker — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:25:53 +0000

Sarah referred to Zuckerburg as Zuck in her book. Would it be fair to suggest that Zuck is a friend of Sarah’s? By her professed familiarity with Zuck and her admission that she has not read Mezrich’s book, this is just a friend preemptively defending her friend. The bigger the journalist, the bigger their friends. And once the journalist is an entity unto themselves, the reporting is no longer objective. They have too many interests to protect including their own economic interest. Sarah’s primary asset is her access to Silicon Valley’s top entrepreneurs. Her defense just upped her rank in the elite entrepreneurs’ eyes. This is why her rant can’t be taken as objective.

By: Clayton

Clayton — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:17:09 +0000

that’s not a link

By: Spinchange

Spinchange — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:31:01 +0000

The problem with the socialization of news (blogs, etc) is that it completely eviscerates objectivity whether we admit it or not. Even when we ‘disclose’ — it’s complete bullshit because we’re human and inherently biased

Add to that the fact that it’s now almost completely popularity based -not qualitatively- Pageviews, Page Rank are the single most important things to focus on. This is really, really dangerous. The wisdom of the ever-increasing mob, is starting to trump the wisdom of the editors.

It so bad that in even in “bad behavior examples” for stories like these, we have to link to the perpetrators vacuous defense & apology -instead of a credible, independent 3rd party post explaining without spin what his journalist/literary sins actually are.

By: OoTheNigerian

OoTheNigerian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:12:25 +0000

Hi Sarah,

I can clearly see where you are coming from but I think it would have been better if you had actually read the book even if it would not have changed your mind. It would be difficult to get people to see your own side if you do the EXACT same thing. Of course the implication of your accusations against Mezrich are not as grave as Mezrich’s against Zucky.

There is also the emotional aspect to it considering you have known and covered Zucky for a while. I’ll be seeing you tomorrow so I guess I’ll hear more from you.

Cheers!!

By: bill

bill — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:39:56 +0000

sarah, no mention of your own “reporting” based on rumors, innuendos and without talking to the subject of your writing? remember sequoia, zhang fan and the apology you had to issue?
http://www.tech...30;..n-trouble/

By: What continent did Lacy post story from?

What continent did Lacy post story from? — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:15:41 +0000

Praise from Caesar’s kid sister.

By: Brian Russell

Brian Russell — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:14:26 +0000

The dig about the NYTimes money woes wasn’t needed, IMHO. It very likely is not the source of any bias you’re feeling.

By: Maksim T

Maksim T — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:49:46 +0000

Didn’t someone at TC say ‘getting it right is expensive, getting it fast is cheap.’ That’s where I see most of the online media going: to attract lots of viewers, and get advertisers to pay, you need new content daily; of course it’s hard to research good stories daily.

Perhaps someone will come out with more in depth reporting with a business model that does not rely on advertising, and thus will be able to afford to publish less, better researched stories. Though I wonder whether such a media outlet will ever be able to specialize in some area, (eg start ups) and maintain a mainstream audience.

By: jose del moral

jose del moral — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:24:30 +0000

Sarah, it’s not totally true that traditional media are being taken away by bloggers. In fact, the big media have now more readers than ever before. Kind of tricky, I know.

By: MetricsMan

MetricsMan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:22:42 +0000

1. If you AGREE with the author, then any amount of sloppiness seems to be acceptable for them to make the point one agrees with

2. If you might DISAGREE with the author, or you just don’t like them, then any breach of appropriate research or bias is unacceptable

This has got to be one of the most hypocritical and poorly written articles I have ever seen. It in fact perfectly typifies “the problem with the media”.

Maybe you should read your own article Sarah.

Alas… if you had a track record of stellar writing, I might think this was an ironic work of brilliance in which one purposefully creates hypocrisy and debate to make a point.

By: Fake Mike Arrington

Fake Mike Arrington — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:54:36 +0000

Mike, this is a very poor excuse for a Techcrunch article. There is no deep analysis here. She didn’t even read the book she is complaining about. Rather, she delivers stream-of-conscious babble about reporting, while bragging about her own book-writing prowess (which appears to me to be plugging her own titles).

Why was this even published on Techcrunch? Can’t your editors say “no” to half-baked posts and self-promotion like this?