Comments on: Google to Address Ad Heavy Web Sites

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:41:28 +0000

Well, by calling an error a typo you actually made a molehill out of a mountain. I mean, the entire word should not have been there!

By: Charles Sullivan

Charles Sullivan — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:32:08 +0000

Sorry for making a mountain out of a molehill, Greg.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:08:59 +0000

Charles, how can you possibly characterize the word “not” in this instance as a “typo”???? It was an error. Probably not a conceptual one because otherwise why would I have written this post to begin with? Personally, I attribute it to several days of intense activity and lack of sleep followed by frenetic blogging.

Anyway, thanks for your “tolerance.”

Regarding local outlets, they are very different from Fox national news, partly because they were not created by fox in many instances, but rather, bought up by them then modified a little. Locally here in the twin cities, the local news was seemingly forced to become a bit more towards sensationalism, and they have a palpable right wing bias in their opinion pieces and “debates” and such.

By: Eric Lund

Eric Lund — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:09:08 +0000

The journalistic standards Greg mentions in the post were officially buried when Fox News went to court to protect their First Amendment right to lie to people, and won. I don’t doubt that some Fox affiliates are the best in their markets for local news, as DCS says. That, however, is a low bar to clear. Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” is an even more accurate description of TV news today than it was when he wrote the song three decades ago.

By: D. C. Sessions

D. C. Sessions — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:57:23 +0000

Yes and no. Local Fox outlets often have perfectly reasonable coverage, and even the national coverage of some topics (e.g. cruise ship wrecks) are no worse than other outlets.

Unfortunately, there’s a baby/bathwater issue here. To pick a perhaps more apt metaphor, one has to decide whether it’s worth picking through the horseshit for an occasional grain of truth.

By: Charles Sullivan

Charles Sullivan — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:39:36 +0000

Thanks, Joel. I can put up with Greg’s frequent typos, but the ‘not’ here really threw me off. It seems to mean the opposite. That’s a harder typo to digest when it does that. C’mon Greg.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:24:59 +0000

Correction: web sites will ~~not~~ be penalized in the Google Search Algorithm if they have too many ads above the fold. Which, imo, is perfectly reasonable - as is your extension to propaganda outlets.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:02:49 +0000

Lyle, not at all. The white house can decide who gets a chair in the press room, and the FCC can decide which TV show is really a news show and which is a comedy show or a home shopping show, if they want to, without violating the first amendment. And, professional organizations can (and do) maintain a standard of membership which can then be used as guidelines for issuing press passes.

This is not a problem free area. There are all sorts of difficulties and pitfalls with determining who gets to do what, and there are no easy answers and it is hard to be fair. But the first amendment does not apply to professional accreditation.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:52:42 +0000

What you suggest flys in the face of the plain language of the first amendment, congress shall make no law… If you pick and choose who can get credentials, then you are restricting the freedom of the press by picking winners and loosers in terms of access. Its just like the issue of who is a journalist, in particular is a blogger entitled to the protections accorded journalists?