Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

To the privileged, equality seems like oppression.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

No Kings: Americans standing in the way of bad history saying “Oh, Fuck No!”

Fight them, without becoming them!

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

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

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

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.