Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

The willow is too close to the house.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

There are no moderate republicans – only extremists and cowards.

The press swings at every pitch, we don’t have to.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

Second rate reporter says what?

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

You are here: Home / Politics / Media / New York Times goes all interactive

New York Times goes all interactive

by | 13 Comments

This post is in: 

I was very surprised, pleasantly so, to see the New York Times adopt the FireDogLake/TalkingPointsMemo model for group journalism:

Let us know, using the comments box below, what you think is interesting in the report and the other documents — and please be specific, citing page numbers and paragraphs along with your observations.

(h/t Greg Mitchell)

But who will fact check the readers? That’s what I’m worried about.

Update. The next logical step is this:

Let us know, using the comments box below, what you think is factually incorrect in this Alessandra Stanley column — and please be specific.

Reader Interactions

13Comments

  1. 1.

    The Bearded Blogger

    The “no comments” linky thing in this new post seems appropriate as part of the message. What else is there to say?

  2. 2.

    The Bearded Blogger

    Shite, I meant my previous comment for the other thread, the one about Obama having to move right

  3. 3.

    PeakVT

    I don’t understand what is being done here. How can references to facts possibly outweigh the Villager consensus?

  6. 6.

    Zifnab

    @Ash Can: You can’t outsource it if you weren’t doing it to begin with.

    That said, I don’t really care how they do their fact checking. I’ll be satisfied if they actually issue corrections when a reader notes common facts a reporter/editor has totally muddled.

  8. 8.

    YellowJournalism

    Anyone else feel that all this so-called interactivity is kind of killing the integrity of print, electronic, and broadcast media? (Okay, what’s left of it.) This just reminds me of the i-reports that CNN started, which are really nothing more than i-spoutmygoddamnopinion rather than actual “reporting”. It takes away from the real reporting, editing, and fact-checking these organizations are supposed to be doing. It just makes all those in charge of the MSM seem so lazy and incompetant. At this point, wouldn’t it be cheaper to pay for monkeys to sit at keyboards?

    Or do they…

  9. 9.

    Brachiator

    @YellowJournalism:

    Anyone else feel that all this so-called interactivity is kind of killing the integrity of print, electronic, and broadcast media?

    Killing?

    It’s dead, Jim.

  10. 10.

    ricky

    Why did Ms. Stanley constantly refer to Mr. Conkite by his middle name, Walter? Everyone else called him Uncle.

  11. 11.

    Quicksand

    I think the NYT is making too much work for themselves. Let me propose this alternative formulation:

    Let us know, using the comments box below, what you think is factually correct in this Alessandra Stanley column — and please be specific.

  12. 12.

    mike

    Let us know, using the comments box below, what you think is factually incorrect in this Alessandra Stanley column — and please be specific.

    so obvious, and yet so awesome

Comments are closed.