Online journalism blog= win!

[Ilovelucy]

After all the journalistic fail, th Online Journalism Blog takes the time to research the issue. This made me smile.

http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/02 ... s-athiest/

A wonderful headline malfunction at the Telegraph, in their story about the Dawkins Forum dustup, where the discussion forums at richarddawkins.net have been summarily suspended and made “read only” (*):



So, what are you?

ath?

athier?

or athiest?

(*) My take is that the Telegraph is rushing to catch up with a “religion” story that the Times got hold of first. Ruth Gledhill already had an interview with Richard Dawkins done before it even appeared on the Telegraph website. The Telegraph piece reads slighty like a digested and regurgitated version of the previous one in the Times.

They all seem to have got the wrong end of the stick in several respects, including Richard Dawkins himself, and are playing the “nasty rotten horrible anonymous internet culture” tune. Further, newspapers seem to have invented an intra-atheist culture war where one doesn’t exist, albeit based partially on Richard Dawkins’ own misapprehensions.

The actual history is well summarised by blogposts by former moderators Pete Harrison, Jerome23 and Darkchilde. The problem is not that the forum has closed; it is of the way the process has been (mis)managed – particularly because RD has taken a very hands-off approach and backed his employed staff over his volunteer moderators, when it is the former who may well be in he wrong.

The vitriol is being generated because volunteer moderators who have invested hundreds of hours building an online community, and the members of that community, have had their community summarily yanked from beneath them, and had their means of communicating with each other turned off. RD’s “Outrage” response is a restatement of a line from his employed staff which does not match the facts.

[fredbear]

After all the journalistic fail, th Online Journalism Blog takes the time to research the issue. This made me smile.

http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/02 ... s-athiest/

A wonderful headline malfunction at the Telegraph, in their story about the Dawkins Forum dustup, where the discussion forums at richarddawkins.net have been summarily suspended and made “read only” (*):



So, what are you?

ath?

athier?

or athiest?

(*) My take is that the Telegraph is rushing to catch up with a “religion” story that the Times got hold of first. Ruth Gledhill already had an interview with Richard Dawkins done before it even appeared on the Telegraph website. The Telegraph piece reads slighty like a digested and regurgitated version of the previous one in the Times.

They all seem to have got the wrong end of the stick in several respects, including Richard Dawkins himself, and are playing the “nasty rotten horrible anonymous internet culture” tune. Further, newspapers seem to have invented an intra-atheist culture war where one doesn’t exist, albeit based partially on Richard Dawkins’ own misapprehensions.

The actual history is well summarised by blogposts by former moderators Pete Harrison, Jerome23 and Darkchilde. The problem is not that the forum has closed; it is of the way the process has been (mis)managed – particularly because RD has taken a very hands-off approach and backed his employed staff over his volunteer moderators, when it is the former who may well be in he wrong.

The vitriol is being generated because volunteer moderators who have invested hundreds of hours building an online community, and the members of that community, have had their community summarily yanked from beneath them, and had their means of communicating with each other turned off. RD’s “Outrage” response is a restatement of a line from his employed staff which does not match the facts.

someone who does his research. good to see. yah he spotted the spelling error. shame he didn't proof read his own blog though. he wrong!

[virphen]

Journalists should turn to xkcd for their news.

[Valden]

Finally, someone actually get's it right!

[klr]

My faith in the fourth estate has been restored!

[Skylarking]

It's about bloody time someone promoted the reality of the situation... looks like not all journo's are amoral, story hungry scum bags.

[Valden]

It's about bloody time someone promoted the reality of the situation... looks like not all journo's are amoral, story hungry scum bags.

Skylarking! Glad you could make it.

[lordpasternack]

Just a question here. A few people have hinted towards this. Do we actually know for sure whether the tidbits from Richard's "Outrage" post where read by Richard himself at the source, or whether they were quotmined by Josh or Andrew and passed onto him?

[klr]

Just a question here. A few people have hinted towards this. Do we actually know for sure whether the tidbits from Richard's "Outrage" post where read by Richard himself at the source, or whether they were quotmined by Josh or Andrew and passed onto him?

We don't know for sure, we can only suspect. But surely RD would not knowingly quote something from here (posted after the event) and imply that it was from RD.net, before the lock-down? I doubt anyone here suspects RD of gross dishonesty. Jumping to conclusions maybe; trusting to the point of naivety maybe. But not dishonesty.

[lordpasternack]

Just a question here. A few people have hinted towards this. Do we actually know for sure whether the tidbits from Richard's "Outrage" post where read by Richard himself at the source, or whether they were quotmined by Josh or Andrew and passed onto him?

We don't know for sure, we can only suspect. But surely RD would not knowingly quote something from here (posted after the event) and imply that it was from RD.net, before the lock-down? I doubt anyone here suspects RD of gross dishonesty. Jumping to conclusions maybe; trusting to the point of naivety maybe. But not dishonesty.

Where does he suggest that he thinks the comments were from RD.net, and before the lock-down?

Edit: Hmmmmm... I've re-read it, and it is ambiguous - but I'd originally taken it to mean that he believed (falsely) we were as hostile as that INITIALLY, which caused the lockdown - but not that he believed those particular comments to have been from the self-same incident. And also that he believed (falsely) that the eventual ire was caused by the forum change plans in and of themselves. As I said, it's ambiguous, and some are bound to interpret it wrongly...

[klr]

Just a question here. A few people have hinted towards this. Do we actually know for sure whether the tidbits from Richard's "Outrage" post where read by Richard himself at the source, or whether they were quotmined by Josh or Andrew and passed onto him?

We don't know for sure, we can only suspect. But surely RD would not knowingly quote something from here (posted after the event) and imply that it was from RD.net, before the lock-down? I doubt anyone here suspects RD of gross dishonesty. Jumping to conclusions maybe; trusting to the point of naivety maybe. But not dishonesty.

Where does he suggest that he thinks the comments were from RD.net, and before the lock-down?

Simple. He doesn't say otherwise. He never mentions this forum, or anywhere else specific, but only bewails the internet in general.

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.

Emphasis mine. If the immediate (by his own definition pre-lockdown) insults were so serious, why hasn't he quoted any? If you knew nothing of this affair before reading that statement, or if you were not aware of rationalia, you would in all probability assume that the insults quoted were amongst those which triggered the lock-down. This is the picture that he has tried to convey to the media.

BTW, it's possible that strong insults were sent in via email or PM in the immediate aftermath of the initial announcement. But they wouldn't justify a lockdown of the forum, and there are in fact very easy countermeasures to take against such things. And in my experience, people will use the most immediate and convenient avenue possible to make their thoughts known in the first instance - meaning the response thread. Only after the lockdown would other routes be exploited.

[klr]

Sorry, I missed your edit:

Edit: Hmmmmm... I've re-read it, and it is ambiguous - but I'd originally taken it to mean that he believed (falsely) we were as hostile as that INITIALLY, which caused the lockdown - but not that he believed those particular comments to have been from the self-same incident. And also that he believed (falsely) that the eventual ire was caused by the forum change plans in and of themselves. As I said, it's ambiguous, and some are bound to interpret it wrongly...

I'd say it's very deliberately misleading on that score, but the ultimate source of the misleading is not RD himself. If and when he realises he's been had, he could completely blow his top.

[Skylarking]

It's about bloody time someone promoted the reality of the situation... looks like not all journo's are amoral, story hungry scum bags.

Skylarking! Glad you could make it.

The feeling is mutual.

[lordpasternack]

You will notice that the forum has in fact been closed to comments (not taken down) sooner than the 30 days alluded to in the letter. This is purely and simply because of the over-the-top hostility of the comments that were immediately sent in.

Emphasis mine. If the immediate (by his own definition pre-lockdown) insults were so serious, why hasn't he quoted any?

Because he can't. Because Josh deleted it all, and he only has Josh's word that it was of the same character as the quoted pieces were.

If you knew nothing of this affair before reading that statement, or if you were not aware of rationalia, you would in all probability assume that the insults quoted were amongst those which triggered the lock-down. This is the picture that he has tried to convey to the media.

You are exactly correct in that that's how I'd perceive it, but whether or not this was an oversight on the part of Richard - a failure to see that misinterpretation - remains to be seen.

Fuck, can we pull him aside in Melbourne and try to get to the bottom of just how confused he is about the facts of this issue and try to set him straight? If he doesn't want to fan flames, then he shouldn't be speaking out of such total ignorance, spreading misinformation, misrepresenting people and events, and voicing strong opinions against things he's in some way misunderstood in the first place, and probably has no evidence for. I really have the urge to sit down with him with some other forum guys and grapple through the details - not because it matters in the much wider scheme of things - but because I've been involved in this, and inaccuracies and perceived injustices just fucking get me going.

And if he decides he "doesn't want to talk about it", then I'll be all: "Then you should never uttered a word about it, then. You provoke discussion, you take the discussion, boy. You did not post your various bits of confused misinformation in a vacuum. In fact you advertised them quite boldly. So be a man and take the reciprocal for a few bloody minutes while we pick your brain and feed it." Perhaps we may finally reach some sort of resolution... And then perhaps we can have passionate make-up sex.

BTW, it's possible that strong insults were sent in via email or PM in the immediate aftermath of the initial announcement. But they wouldn't justify a lockdown of the forum, and there are in fact very easy countermeasures to take against such things. And in my experience, people will use the most immediate and convenient avenue possible to make their thoughts known in the first instance - meaning the response thread. Only after the lockdown would other routes be exploited.

I've already commented that this was inappropriate. The schism of 2008 was in my opinion far more hairy and discussion wasn't locked once, and never required being locked.

[klr]

...
Fuck, can we pull him aside in Melbourne and try to get to the bottom of just how confused he is about the facts of this issue and try to set him straight? If he doesn't want to fan flames, then he shouldn't be speaking out of such total ignorance, spreading misinformation, misrepresenting people and events, and voicing strong opinions against things he's in some way misunderstood in the first place, and probably has no evidence for. I really want the urge to sit down with him with some other forum guys and grapple through the details - not because it matters in the much wider scheme of things - but because I've been involved in this, and inaccuracies and perceived injustices just fucking get me going.

As they do me. If I were RD, and found that Josh deliberately misled me as we suspect, he'd never work for me again, no matter how good he was at his job.

The schism of 2008 was in my opinion far more hairy and discussion wasn't locked once, and never required being locked.

I think I may have made that comparison as well in another thread somewhere. There was a lot of high emotion and strong feeling sloshing around in public in 2008, and RD was quite ready to let it be aired, as long as it didn't go too far. He even apologised to you after the "thumb sucking" jibe as I recall. He probably thought it wise to let people express their feelings and try and thrash things out, rather than suppress it and possibly make it worse. The latte is of course exactly what happened here.