De ondergang van de reguliere media aka MSM : commentaarsecties naarstig verwijderd

[zonbron]

De ondergang van de reguliere media aka MSM : commentaarsecties naarstig verwijderd

Onze MSM en populaire 'wetenschappelijke' sites verwijderen steeds meer commentaarsecties, de 'consensusvernietigende' publieke opinie hindert duidelijk 'hun welbekende taak'.

De lastige 'lezers' moeten nu zwijgen!

Let bvb. op hoe volgende 'wetenschappelijke' site de commentaarsectie afsluit, netjes op tijd voor het bekendmaken van IPCC nr.5, de AGW-hysterie...

Popular Science - Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments - Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story.
24 september 2013 - Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why. Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.

It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters. Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla. We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters.

But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:
Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

There are plenty of other ways to talk back to us, and to each other: through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, livechats, email, and more. We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. Don't do it for us. Do it for science.

Na de reacties op de Op-Ed van Putin in de NY Times, zullen ook zij hun commentaarsecties beperken.

New York Times - Comments on Comments
20 september 2013 - The New York Times’s commenters are in a class of their own. If you think I’m sucking up, just read the comments in response to the Vladimir Putin Op-Ed, and ask if this kind of discussion, with this kind of spotlight, could have happened on any other general news site.

Boing Boing - Roundup: introducing Boing Boing's new BBS forums (we killed comments)
28 juni 2013


Commentaarsecties dicht en we cultiveren opnieuw de juiste consensus!

In dit topic staat de commentaarsectie echter wagenwijd open!

Enjoy!


zb

[Vrolijk op Vrijdag]

De MSM hun rijk is uit en ze weten het.
Mensen jonger dan 40 lezen geen kranten meer, die krijgen hun informatie-fix via het internet.
En op het internet kiezen zij zelf wat ze lezen, bekijken en geloven.
Daar wordt informatie actief vergaard (en niet passief zoals via TV) en kritisch vergeleken.
Op het internet is iedereen zijn eigen hoofdredacteur.

[zonbron]

Genomen uit een ander topic :

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Die ervaring heb ik ook, als je hun op hun fouten wijst en citeer je gestaafde feiten (zelfs van de overheid zelf) publiceren ze het niet.

Lul je wat mee over hun onzin, hoe onnozel het ook is, komt het wel online, al dikwijls ervaren. Brood en spelen en de mensen dom houden...

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Vrolijk op Vrijdag

De MSM hun rijk is uit en ze weten het.
Mensen jonger dan 40 lezen geen kranten meer, die krijgen hun informatie-fix via het internet.
En op het internet kiezen zij zelf wat ze lezen, bekijken en geloven.
Daar wordt informatie actief vergaard (en niet passief zoals via TV) en kritisch vergeleken.
Op het internet is iedereen zijn eigen hoofdredacteur.

Dat is 100% juist @Vrolijk op Vrijdag.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Vrolijk op Vrijdag

De MSM hun rijk is uit en ze weten het.
Mensen jonger dan 40 lezen geen kranten meer, die krijgen hun informatie-fix via het internet.
En op het internet kiezen zij zelf wat ze lezen, bekijken en geloven.
Daar wordt informatie actief vergaard (en niet passief zoals via TV) en kritisch vergeleken.
Op het internet is iedereen zijn eigen hoofdredacteur.

2!

Ook Seymour Hersh laat zich bijzonder kritisch uit over de reguliere media ea.


The Guardian - Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media
27 september 2013 - Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should 'fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can't control'. If Hersh was in charge of US Media Inc, his scorched earth policy wouldn't stop with newspapers. "I would close down the news bureaus of the networks and let's start all over, tabula rasa. The majors, NBCs, ABCs, they won't like this – just do something different, do something that gets people mad at you, that's what we're supposed to be doing," he says.