http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/business/07flowers.html
why is that even news??? 90% of sites ranking for 90% keyword with traffic will have "paid" links... Ah well more propaganda will make it harder for newbies to rank :D
article pulled or sub only?
still there for me.. no sub required.
working now, tks.
Has it come to that? You'd seriously consider intimidating a journalist for reporting on link-buying? If that's the standard for what deserves intimidation, what would a company like Enron do to keep journalists off the story?
[I know you're just shooting off... but just trying to inject a bit of perspective]
See here: http://th3core.com/talk/members-only/nobody-likes-a-rat/
What a douche bag.
How ironic would it be if the NYT was outed as using phone tabbing and private investigators like Times of the World? Imagine somebody found out and the NYT was forced to shut down. Out of a job clown.
Funny how one of the flower companies got a link at the top of the article while being bitched at. :D
VERY good point Brian :) Wonder why only one of them got a link?
Was it paid? ;-) Bad press better than no press.
Did you all see this - http://gawker.com/5853502
Basically a company who buys links in articles on popular sites :) Now that article had 74k views, showing PR6 on my side, and a nice branded link to the baddies website... Makes ya wonder doesn't it!
Quote from: agerhart on November 22, 2011, 12:57:16 AM
See here: http://th3core.com/talk/members-only/nobody-likes-a-rat/
I understand that thread. Joost is part of the SEO circle jerk and, as people said there, what goes around comes around. He's playing a dangerous game (and he's most certainly playing a game).
But here we're talking about a journalist. That's his JOB in some respect, whether he makes enemies or not. Did you get upset at the journalist who reported on all the US Senators and Representatives engaging in what amounts to insider trading? Like link buying, it is not illegal, but I'm sure glad Peter Schweizer (author of "Throw Them All Out) is exposing the bastards.
Sure, link buying is hardly equivalent to government corruption, but my point is that if a guy gets a bloody horse head in bed for a reporting on link buying, wouldn't it be normal to expect that Peter Schweizer could expect a bullet in the head for the type of reporting he does?
I guess I just can't accept, in a free society, intimidating journalists, even in jest. Sorry to be such an ass about it, but I feel really strongly about that.
Thank you for saying that, Ergophobe.
Quote from: ergophobe on November 23, 2011, 05:45:57 PM
I guess I just can't accept, in a free society, intimidating journalists, even in jest. Sorry to be such an a## about it, but I feel really strongly about that.
Ok fair enough, but this jurno just exposed 1 keyword like its only those 3 flower shops who are doing it when in fact every site ranking will have some sort of paid links.
This guy just seems like his is trying to show the world how smart he is. "Hey look at these 3 sites for this 1 keyword who have links against the guidelines of a tax evading monopoly". Fair enough if he was trying to out what all SEOs but none admit to, if he tried to stand up for the independent flower shop being told not to buy links when the top 3 sites have but he's not.
QuoteI guess I just can't accept, in a free society, intimidating journalists, even in jest
Whereas, I take the view that most journalists are unscrupulous scum and deserve the maximum intimidation and opprobrium unless they clearly prove themselves to be above it.
Sure, there are some good journalists, and much like lawyers, they are a necessary evil... but, as we found out recently, the 'award winning' News of the World' journalists were mostly devious little sh*ts using illegal tactics to spy on anyone they thought would make a good story.
As a profession, they have been caught out lying, cheating, threatening, intimidating, illegally accessing private information etc etc .... and there appears to be little doubt that the recent hacking scandal will spread beyond the News of The World, and beyond UK shores over the next 12 months or so.
Even before the recent N.O.W. scandal, journalism regular comes near the top of 'least trusted professions' in surveys.
IMO, there is a MASSIVE different between protecting the freedom of the press, and giving journalists free-rein to behave as they frequently do without criticism.
When it comes to our industry, they rarely research the subject in enough depth - and in this specific case, it is hard to say whether the link to the flower site was just plain incompetent or done deliberately - either way, it sucks.
Horses head? too harsh on the horse, a severe thrashing or pelting with crap should do the job.
@Ergophobe - you didn't REALLY think that the original post was REALLY suggesting that a horse should be slaughtered and its head put in the journalists bed? You didn't REALLY think that the journalist would be reading this and feel intimidated? No, of course you didn't, you knew full well that it was just a bit of humorous free-speech, and disapproving comment on the journalist in question - surely we still have the right to do that ??? ..... or is that right restricted to those with a press card and a job working for one of the tabloids?
(nothing personal - just my own lack of journalistic morals coming to the fore ;))
Quote from: 4Eyes on November 23, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
Whereas, I take the view that most journalists are unscrupulous scum
My family and I have had some pretty bad experiences with unscrupulous journalists - like we found one in the upstairs of our house, uninvited, taking a picture off the wall. My mom, who is very non-confrontational, found her. If it had been someone else in the family, she might have been arrested but my mom let her go (ouch!).
So I don't have any illusions about the universal quality of the journalistic profession. As a profession, they tend to have no understanding of statistics (always mess that up), are terrible at really verifying sources to the degree that a scholar would find adequate, often miss the real story (in fact, more often than not when it's something complex). Yep, lots of bad apples from ambition, incompetence and worse.
Quote@Ergophobe - you didn't REALLY think that the original post was REALLY suggesting
Of course not - as I said or implied in both my posts.
Quotesurely we still have the right to do that ???
Of course you do, and far worse!
But for the reasons mentioned, it just isn't something that I personally would joke about and wanted to put it out there.
Quotenothing personal
To be honest, there's very little I take personally. You'd have to go a LOT further than that before it would occur to me. So no worries there!
ah good :)
We'll scrap the horses head, and just settle for hurling dung then ;)
Yeah... it's all good. Like I say, just a sensitive topic for me.
When we live in a world where the government does this
http://th3core.com/talk/water-coolerextra/wearing-my-tinfoil-hat/
I'll put up with a lot of BS from journalists and still be pretty strident about their right to report whatever they want, be it link buying, Kim Kardashian's wedding or NSA phone siphoning, because I really don't want reporters looking over their shoulder. I want the NSA doing that.
why was the woman journalist in the house in the first place, had she broke in, was it a family friend ?
QuoteI'll put up with a lot of BS from journalists and still be pretty strident about their right to report whatever they want, be it link buying, Kim Kardashian's wedding or NSA phone siphoning, because I really don't want reporters looking over their shoulder. I want the NSA doing that.
That's where we differ slightly - I want them BOTH looking over their shoulder - they are both dangerous and manipulative, they both have power, and they both abuse it. I absolutely do NOT want journalists having free rein to report anything they want IF 'what they want' involves illegal activities or, as recently been reported, is used to blackmail celebrities into endorsing part of a scandal story in exchange for a promise, subsequently broken, to suppress the more salacious aspects of the story. I also don't want them having the unhindered right to hack a murdered girls mobile phone so they can get aspects of the story earlier than the police would like. I want them to know that if they do that, they will go to prison.
We need enforceable standards - not necessarily to restrict what can be reported on, but at least to require a certain level of legal, ethical and professional behaviour when doing so. Yes, sometimes in the national interest the 'legal' bit has to be sacrificed for national interest... but that is where the moral, ethical and professional bit should come to the fore - and it so often doesn't.
Investigative journalism is great in theory, and it would be nice to see it as a useful weapon for 'the people' against abuses of power and privilege..... but as we have seen recently, in practice the 'who' and 'what' that gets investigated is often sanctioned or squashed by people like Murdoch, and often for political reasons.
The problem comes down to a 'who polices the police' issue. I want them both policed, by each other, by themselves, and by 'us' ... and I also want 'us' being able to fight them back with the same weapons they both use to attack our freedoms..... and that means we should reserve the right to try to ridicule, and, if deserved, threaten and intimidate journalists in exactly the same way as they do to us.
It would be different if the whole profession was 'held to account' and somehow forced to toe an ethical and professional line, but until that day, we need to be prepared to fight them with their own weapons - which we now know included threats and intimidation.
I know we are straying from the main story and journalist here. IMO, he did shoddy research and/or the whole post was financially motivated - the timing and 'outing' via a link, were just too 'convenient'. The whole article needs investigating by a proper honest journalist - but where the hell will we find one of those?
4eyes - Well said. The only part I disagree with is that the 'legal' part can be sacrificed for the greater good of national security. Otherwise, I wish I had said what you said.
Amidst the journalistic incompetence and lack of ethics we see, we also see this
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/nyregion/nypd-stops-reporters-with-badges-and-fists.html?_r=1
So that's why I bridled at suggestions of strongarming.
The reason I, reluctantly, accept the need for 'legal' to sometimes be ignored is because history shows it has to be every now and then.
I used the phrase 'national interest' rather than 'national security', cos it is the stock phrase used in the UK as a 'get out of jail free card' when the law and the press come into conflict. It is a defence I would think fair and ethical for the press to use in court under certain circumstances - not perhaps one that I feel any government body should be able to use with the same freedom.
If there are unjust laws, we all need the moral courage to break them when it is strategically valuable to do so.
Quotewe also see this
We had similar over here - police stopping photos of their incrimination behaviour being taken by abusing the 'ant-terrorism laws'
I think we are on the same page - I see 'threats and intimidation' by the press on 'the authorities', and vice versa as being like two bullies fighting for who is going to get the right to steal my bike They are both wrong, but if I get a chance to kick one of them in the nuts so hard that he never wants to ride my bike, I'll take it and feel 100% justified :)
People power should be a valid defense against crappy/illegal journalism in the sense that people should simply stop buying the publication if there are repeated examples of poor work.
Unfortunately, the same Joe Public that makes a huge fuss about a particular newspaper hacking phones, will continue to buy said paper because it has become a habit and they want to get more salacious details.
The only real example I can think of where a large group of people have had the will to stop buying a newspaper en masse over ideological grounds is when Liverpudlians stopped buying The Sun after their coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. Even now the circulation figures in the city are very poor and more power to their elbow for that...
Yeah - People Power is great when it works - but, as you say, this is pretty rare.
.... and lets net forget, Hitler (yeah, I know, not him AGAIN) was elected into power by a democratic process.
'People Power' and democracy aren't enough by themselves, it needs checks and balances etc .. just got to work out who sets them..... I guess its why it is so contentious to mess with a nations 'constitution' - written or unwritten.
>>and lets net forget, Hitler
I could not find it, but isn't there a fact or statistic that says once a topic has got to a certain length then Hitler is brought up?
yes - hence my comment
on BBC HYS Its three comments to Hitler I believe. Or is that David Cameron?
My ex's relative was involved in an especially lurid accidental death a few years back. She was an avid reader of all the 'real life story' magazines and could bore for hours on scurrelous gossip. Then she was contacted by one of them for her own real life story and was absolutely horrified. Threatened to sue the magazine, floods of tears for weeks afterwards, I expect she's still traumatised by the phone call.
She absolutely couldn't see why I said she couldn't have it both ways, and actually nor could most of her (generally fairly intelligent) family. People just don't seem to get the cause and effect between them wanting to read something and someone having to find ways to write it. Of course journalists are ultimately responsible for their actions, but I think everyone needs a share in the responsibility and we do need to vote with our feet/wallets.
Agree Denise.
It's this thirst for shit, that causes more of it to be sent in our direction. Soap operas, rag mags, etc etc.
Quote from: ukgimp on November 29, 2011, 10:41:26 AM
>>and lets net forget, Hitler
I could not find it, but isn't there a fact or statistic that says once a topic has got to a certain length then Hitler is brought up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
QuoteGodwin's_law
4eyes Law:
Sooner or later, any debate will result in one or more participant posting something so mind-numbingly stupid that is becomes apparent that they slept through what few history lessons they actually attended. When faced with the most stunningly obvious lesson from history that proves they are not only wrong, but ignorant as well, such participant will attempt to introduce the topic of "Godwin's law" to draw everyone's attention away from their shame.
;)
... not, I hasten to add, a comment on anything discussed in this thread, but on the many others where Godwin's Law is brought up as part of the rhetoric of the ignorant.
Quote from: Gurtie on November 29, 2011, 03:02:25 PMavid reader of all the 'real life story' magazines
I know this topic is dead, and Hitler has come and gone, but I just want to add a plea to NEVER buy People, Us or any of those crap magazines. Please. If you must read them, read them at the supermarket and put them back without paying.
My family was put through the ringer by these magazines and "news" shows (I'm talking Tom Brokaw, supposedly respectable stuff). Not going to go into specifics since this all faded long ago (1990s). I never saw a People magazine in my house in my entire life and we never went in for this garbage, so no double standard there.
When I made me original comment about the rights of journalists, I did want to make an exception for this garbage, but I just didn't want to go into it. There is certainly a line between news and gossip. I think it's fine if they want to report on Kim Kardashian and that set, who have consciously made careers out of getting their names into this garbage. But leave Hugh Grant alone, not to speak of obscure people who get caught up in the news and have their phones tapped. But I would like to see due process applied. That's all.