http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Google has always been about net neutrality, and now they're inking one of the first large deals that will ignore it. What the hell changed?

Click for irony

http://gizmodo.com/5605310/google-just-killed-net-neutrality

apparently the New York Times ran with the wrong information in the updates

The day I have to pay premiums to view specific websites is the day I throw in my youth towel and become 'that old man who hates progress'

It's interesting that when you get THAT much info wrong in an article on such a major newspaper... think it was on purpose/smear campaign?

Maybe they work for Fox

Touche...

aww, you think the news companies care about anything.

They do care about something.

$$$$$$$

OK, so Google didn't agree to restrictions but according to what genk posted they aren't disagreeing with them either for mobile devices. Still seems like the opposite of their usual stance.

Unless I'm just reading that post way wrong.

Difference between spinning a story and out right lying.

I think it's misinformation rather than a lie. That is, incompetence.

...is beyond the comprehension of the modern "reporter."

So I guess the news journalists in other countries that are war torn, currently in a state of war, just hit by a devastating natural disaster, or are just plain horrible places to go to, in order to bring an awareness and assistance to these events are only in it for the money?

There are journalists out there that have a passion for what they do, and not just the money they get paid.

And for the record, some journalists get paid **** for doing these things.

Yeah, it's not the journalists who only care about money, and nobody said it was.




Reading comprehension much?

Do you mean the 23 year old fresh English grads who get chauffeured around Iraq by bottom-tier army units to add a mote of legitimacy to the bald-faced lies the War Department tells them to publish?

Or maybe you mean "reporters" like Amanda Lindhout, who work as uncontracted freelancers and have to pay for their own trips to countries like Somalia, who are so passionate about the news that news companies won't hire them?

LOL

Nope, not talking about any of those people. Talking about real journalists, the ones that do their job for the sake of doing their job. Not the one's you're generalizing in with the "reporters" you see on Fox, CNN or MSNBC. Try taking a course on journalism, it'll actually teach you about a few examples. If you need one immediately, which I'm sure you will demand, think about Vietnam. And then think about the pay these people received to do what they did and be where they were. Even if the pay was good, that's a horrible situation to put yourself into just for the sake of your job. Obviously you care a little more about something other than money. Do all that, then think about the impact of what these people had on America and journalism, then come back and talk about it as if you know what you're talking about.

I guarantee you don't even have ball hairs remotely close to the size these people had.

Also: Journalism is not restricted to only "reporting the news". Documentary filmmakers are journalists in their own right. Bringing up subject matter and topic's that aren't widely known is a form of journalism. You're chronicling the world and its events, not just what happens at 6pm.

Journalism undergrad trap sprung.

I'm not a journalism student.

Idiot bomb blown.

This thread sucks.

You go Joncy! Beat on Temper's strawman!

Nobody cares.

Vietnam is not a modern example of journalism.

Print is dead, journalism is dead. There's no profit in printing facts when: 1.) the biggest, fastest stories make the most money, even when they're outright lies, 2.) there are no legal repercussions for doing it, 3.) you need to print what the White House tells you to print or you're shut out, and 4.) thanks to TV and the internet, you can silently redact or edit news articles and leave almost no proof of what you've done.

Modern Michael Moore-style shockumentaries have as much to do with journalism as rap has to do with lowering the incarceration rates of indigent black men.

Your description is not a modern example of journalism. I will agree that for the most part, print is dead.

However, there is still a high demand for educated, detailed reporting of topics as opposed to quick blog write-ups. The whole "big and fast" phenomena is rapidly losing focus as people are beginning to put more value into accurate information instead of speedy information. The fact that the blog rush has almost entirely shut down now is a great example, and the success of new online publishing techniques shows that it's not a complete loss.

Also, while TV may be edited silently without proof, online articles are not so lucky. If an article is edited or removed online, and it was something significant enough to warrant noticing, odds are the comments or other news sources will call them out on it. Combine that with archiving from places like the Google cache or Archive.org and such mistakes rarely go unpunished.

In addition, there's a new trend where edited articles are using strikethroughs instead of complete removal of the old content.

I feel like good journalism exists, but it's a niche market that makes very little money. The Christian Science Monitor has had a ton of trouble making any real profit in recent years, and only partly because of their misleading name.

To be fair, you did start your post with "LOL" which kinda undermines everything else yo have to say.

While simultaneously betraying that he is not a journalism student.

I sure wouldn't buy that simply based on the name, Christian science what.

I love the Christian Science Monitor.

No, from what I've seen Temperamental is vastly more capable than the average 'reporter' these days. Every newspaper article is riddled with grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, and compensates for it with the most tedious puns ever written.

I hate how everyone refers to Microsoft as "the software giant," or Ford as "the automotive giant," etc. It's an attempt at being clever and creative that fails outright. It fails because it's overused and because three words when "they" would suffice is excessive.

Modern reporters are born when English majors read Politics and the English Language but are too stupid to understand it.

However, referring to mb as "the fatty giant" will never grow tiresome.