There are good and bad newspapers. There are highly researched, informative blogs that are every bit as good if not better than many newspapers/journalists. There are informative twitter threads. None of these are not the same as any other.
For most people a blog is more akin to a journal. They maybe read by a few more people, but they are not the equivalent of a newspaper. Twitter is more akin to chatting or txting (and is used as such) than it is to anything else.
So this article raises my ire a bit. Neverminding the idiocy of suing someone to make far more public a comment that would otherwise have been read by a tiny number of people, or that, even if they are correct about the mold issue they look worse as a result of this (I wonder if the decision to sue was run by marketing), the real issue I have with the article is that any internet published set of words could even conceivably be held to the same or similar standards as journalism.
Yes, I know, it would be nice if all journalists would be held to the same standards as some blogs out there, but still...
No comments:
Post a Comment