atw: Re: Was: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick': Now what's a "feature"?
- From: Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:42:08 +1100
Matthew:
On reflection, I don't think I may it clear enough that what I was concerned
about was the implication that there's news and features, that the latter has
bits of attributable quotes from stake-holders etc, and the suggestion that
there's then "opinion"... or whatever. I wasn't so much specifically
questioning sources on your Facebook story per se.
Rather the point I was trying to make is that whether it's news or a feature,
there's always a need for journalists not just to quote the stake-holders but
to assess their overall credibility and the credibility of their story before
they rush to print and lend weight to those opinions. In other industries,
it's called quality control and verification.
So I was a bit off-topic -- which is why I added the "what's a feature" bit in
the subject.
I was also trying to make the point that writing a story for the front page
based entirely on quotes from the most dubious of sources lends weight to a
story that appears now to have had no legs, and makes the SMH look like a
gossip column. I don't see why Kate McClymont should have been given the
leeway for the story in the first place -- let alone encouraged to continue
digging in the rich vein of rumours from stand-over men and convicted crims
without a single firm line of reliable evidence to justify that mining.
What we now know is that public servants spoke to a lobbyist and people who
were asking about the application of the law or pressing for its application in
some areas. Surprise surprise, that's part of the job of public servants:
they do it every day. (But not always over coffee, apparently.)
They also heard from MPs and Ministers with representations on these and
related topics. Surprise, surprise: that's also the daily job and
responsibility of all three groups: MPs, Ministers and public servants.
Apparently none of this led to changes in the status quo at all.
So?????????????? When's the first shoe going to drop ? And if it doesn't,
was it ever really news? Or just a case of throwing stuff and seeing if any
of it sticks?
We need a deal more than "attributable quotes from stake-holders". We need to
know that facts asserted by these stake-holders aren't just special pleading,
dubious gossip or plain lies. Otherwise, we get the quality of Facebook or an
unchecked entry into a wiki or a blog.
The quality rule for journalism remains: know them from the quality of their
sources.
Relevance to tech writing? Well, some rules are cross-disciplinary.
-PeterM
peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
