Fred Wilson Asked, Fred Wilson Gets
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
World Famous Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson wrote on his blog yesterday:
"I have never spent much time trying to obtain perfect grammar, spelling, and wording .... I'm not a perfect speller by any means. And I mess up/mix up its and it's all the time. I went to an engineering school not a liberal arts school and it shows at times ...... But there is a solution that I'd love someone to build. If anyone could make basic edits to this post that don't change the meaning, I'd love that. I don't want an editor, but I am quite taken with the idea of audience powered editing."
Mr. Wilson, you asked and you shall now receive. Though our tool is not meant for that -it is meant to crowd-edit news stories for spin and inaccuracies- it will work perfectly well for this.
I am not a grammar expert -and commit typos faster than I type- but, I did have fun in the guise of a nit picky editor. Based on my personal experiences with editors, I also performed one of their most egregious, rude and, sadly, common errors---take a look at the extract and, see if you also find it nearly unforgivable!
If you would like to see how that changes appear on your blog, please simply add Spinoculars to your Firefox browser: http://spinspotter.com/download. When you have Spinoculars, visit your post.
For Mr. Wilson's readers: please feel free to augment my additions to the article---and, please, vote down or edit my rude pseudo-error. You can all vote them up or down without the Toolbar at http://spinspotter.com/article/286717 or, you can create your own edits to Mr. Wilson's piece on his own page with our toolbar.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
News Transparency Brothers and Sisters
News Transparency Brothers and Sisters
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Many of you read about Spot.us, a news start-up from the halls of academia who hope to remake the new world by turning to readers to decide which stories get investigated---because only stories that get funded make are published. It's a cool idea which has garnered a lot of press.
I hope Spot.us won't mind if I consider them part of a movement we call News Transparency. This is a movement peopled by folks like us, NewsTrust.org, FactCheck.org and the like: all of us seem to have the goal of news unfettered by bias or inaccuracies. Where we seem to differ, though, if in whether or not a commercial entity can be trusted to provide that type of look into media. Spot.us is a for profit business, as is SpinSpotter and some feel that make us less trustworthy.
I do think that entities who demand transparency must themselves provide it. In the case of SpinSpotter, we went to come fairy unusual degrees to be transparent ourselves; have you read our management bios? We list, among other things, our political donations (all of them of which we are aware---not just the so called "big ones"), our charitable donations and our political points-of-view; at regular intervals we also publish our advertisers and business partners, for all the same reasons. While one could still be a transparent cheat, we think that exposing our interests will make it easier for you to expose us should we ever skew results to make ourselves happy or to drive an agenda other than our stated one: to make news reporting transparent.
Here, though, is a question for the non-profit entities in the equation: how you do you deal with issues of transparency as relates your donor base. Do you think your users have a right to know all of your donors? It's a sincere questions, not a jab. Please let us know.
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Many of you read about Spot.us, a news start-up from the halls of academia who hope to remake the new world by turning to readers to decide which stories get investigated---because only stories that get funded make are published. It's a cool idea which has garnered a lot of press.
I hope Spot.us won't mind if I consider them part of a movement we call News Transparency. This is a movement peopled by folks like us, NewsTrust.org, FactCheck.org and the like: all of us seem to have the goal of news unfettered by bias or inaccuracies. Where we seem to differ, though, if in whether or not a commercial entity can be trusted to provide that type of look into media. Spot.us is a for profit business, as is SpinSpotter and some feel that make us less trustworthy.
I do think that entities who demand transparency must themselves provide it. In the case of SpinSpotter, we went to come fairy unusual degrees to be transparent ourselves; have you read our management bios? We list, among other things, our political donations (all of them of which we are aware---not just the so called "big ones"), our charitable donations and our political points-of-view; at regular intervals we also publish our advertisers and business partners, for all the same reasons. While one could still be a transparent cheat, we think that exposing our interests will make it easier for you to expose us should we ever skew results to make ourselves happy or to drive an agenda other than our stated one: to make news reporting transparent.
Here, though, is a question for the non-profit entities in the equation: how you do you deal with issues of transparency as relates your donor base. Do you think your users have a right to know all of your donors? It's a sincere questions, not a jab. Please let us know.
Monday, December 22, 2008
When will the NY Times get better at being lazy?
When will the NY Times get better at being lazy?
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Is this laziness, spin or ... actually, there is no "or" for this.
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Is this laziness, spin or ... actually, there is no "or" for this.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Magic Legitimacy of the Neutral Professor
The Magic Legitimacy of the Neutral Professor
-or-
If SpinSpotter can figure this out why can't Fox News?
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder based on the work of SpinSpotter Community Member Devio.
Tort Lawyers and some News Organizations have a game they like to play. It's called the Magic Legitimacy of the Neutral Professor. The game works like this: when someone is a professor, they are perfectly and permanently neutral. They are great "experts" in court. In fact, they are so neutral that such Ph.D'd professional experts often specialize as defense experts or prosecution experts. And, magically enough, they are still just seeking truth. After all, they are professors and, as such, they are above having a point of view.
When the magically neutral are quoted in news articles, they enjoy the same veneer and, often, employ the same decision to specialize. It's a neat game when it works. It's no fun when you get caught doing it and that magic assumption of neutrality falls away.
This week, Fox News played that game with three people in a single article which seemed to attack the Associated Press's analysis of Global Warming. Read the Fox News piece yourself and then tell me, would you noticed this and this?
For the bereft of time---here's a screen shot (click to enlarge:
In the case of Fox News vs. AP on the topic of Global Warming, Professor Deming seems an excellent choice to play the role of the prosecution witness/genetically neutral brain without guile or ambition.
All great professors have points of view, all great journalists do as well. But, if a journalist uses a source so easily attached to a point of view, that journalist simply must disclose that. If the journalist is writing from a point of view, they should disclose that as well. To do otherwise seems a little less than honest ... in fact, it seems like game-play.
-or-
If SpinSpotter can figure this out why can't Fox News?
By Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder based on the work of SpinSpotter Community Member Devio.
Tort Lawyers and some News Organizations have a game they like to play. It's called the Magic Legitimacy of the Neutral Professor. The game works like this: when someone is a professor, they are perfectly and permanently neutral. They are great "experts" in court. In fact, they are so neutral that such Ph.D'd professional experts often specialize as defense experts or prosecution experts. And, magically enough, they are still just seeking truth. After all, they are professors and, as such, they are above having a point of view.
When the magically neutral are quoted in news articles, they enjoy the same veneer and, often, employ the same decision to specialize. It's a neat game when it works. It's no fun when you get caught doing it and that magic assumption of neutrality falls away.
This week, Fox News played that game with three people in a single article which seemed to attack the Associated Press's analysis of Global Warming. Read the Fox News piece yourself and then tell me, would you noticed this and this?
For the bereft of time---here's a screen shot (click to enlarge:
In the case of Fox News vs. AP on the topic of Global Warming, Professor Deming seems an excellent choice to play the role of the prosecution witness/genetically neutral brain without guile or ambition.
All great professors have points of view, all great journalists do as well. But, if a journalist uses a source so easily attached to a point of view, that journalist simply must disclose that. If the journalist is writing from a point of view, they should disclose that as well. To do otherwise seems a little less than honest ... in fact, it seems like game-play.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
What Channel Will You De-Spin?
What Channel Will You De-Spin?
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
As we near the release of our Explorer Toolbar for Human Spin Spotters, we are testing a new video that which you can see right here. This has already caused a little bit of controversy ... right now 50% of people who have commented on it think it's "anti-Obama" and 50% think it's "anti-Bush". So, perhaps we made the vaunted middle-ground for lending offense. But, we didn't mean to lean either way...the piece is about Spin Images, be they words, pictures, camera angles, lighting, special effects of complete doctoring of photos. Can you spot the spin? Are we re-spinning?
If this video inspires you to do something about media-spin then please grab your Spinoculars and set forth; the most efficient, fun and easy way to contribute to a de-spun news media is to de-spin the channel you think is most guilty of spin. You will enjoy the feeling of editing their pages! Do this once a day and share what you find, through our share tool, by joining our Facebook Group or simply my leaving your comment here.
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
As we near the release of our Explorer Toolbar for Human Spin Spotters, we are testing a new video that which you can see right here. This has already caused a little bit of controversy ... right now 50% of people who have commented on it think it's "anti-Obama" and 50% think it's "anti-Bush". So, perhaps we made the vaunted middle-ground for lending offense. But, we didn't mean to lean either way...the piece is about Spin Images, be they words, pictures, camera angles, lighting, special effects of complete doctoring of photos. Can you spot the spin? Are we re-spinning?
If this video inspires you to do something about media-spin then please grab your Spinoculars and set forth; the most efficient, fun and easy way to contribute to a de-spun news media is to de-spin the channel you think is most guilty of spin. You will enjoy the feeling of editing their pages! Do this once a day and share what you find, through our share tool, by joining our Facebook Group or simply my leaving your comment here.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Fox News: Let’s play obscure that source
Fox News: Let’s play obscure that source
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
An excellent, text-book piece of really bad journalism from Fox News.
Human SpinSpotter prepare_for_y2k finds Fox News using an expert to deride Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald---the man prosecuting Governor Blago. The problem is, Fox News chooses not to tell you why this expert has a dog in the race. This is why you need SpinSpotter.
Fox News: Let’s play obscure that source
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
An excellent, text-book piece of really bad journalism from Fox News.
Human SpinSpotter prepare_for_y2k finds Fox News using an expert to deride Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald---the man prosecuting Governor Blago. The problem is, Fox News chooses not to tell you why this expert has a dog in the race. This is why you need SpinSpotter.
Fox News: Let’s play obscure that source
The New York Times: Psychiatrists
The New York Times: Psychiatrists
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Isn’t it great when your newspaper can magically examine people’s psychological health---without ever examining them, or having anyone else do that?
Today, the New York Times, explains that Governor Blago is not corrupt, he’s insane.
Add your own edits, here.
Todd Herman, SpinSpotter Founder
Isn’t it great when your newspaper can magically examine people’s psychological health---without ever examining them, or having anyone else do that?
Today, the New York Times, explains that Governor Blago is not corrupt, he’s insane.
Add your own edits, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)