Sifting the web wheat from the net chaff
How many cosy, well-paid MSM journalists sift through the huge amount of material from PRs, especially publicly-funded ones, and bother to check out what is even true and therefore worthy of publication... before rushing to air/print?
Hew close to the line, and even if the truth hurts, let the chips fall where they may.
This will form part of my next unenhanced narrative, but slightly events interpreting blog:) Race you to two comments (not counting duplicate blogs).
Evening Standard - Health warning: rumours in cyberspace may seriously damage your credibility
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.