Comments on: 40 days http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2009/05/26/40-days/ searching for truth in wine Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:28:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Thomas Pellechia http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2009/05/26/40-days/#comment-1636 Thomas Pellechia Fri, 29 May 2009 13:16:07 +0000 http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/?p=2749#comment-1636 Yes, it takes time for the print media to develop and report a story, but sometimes, like fast food, wolfing it down immediately doesn't necessarily provide sustenance--or even meat! In this case, while the story may have seemed old to some, the WSJ take on it has opened a new wound, especially with RP's attack-response to it, which he later deleted from the Squire's forum. Apparently, RP, Squires, and Miller refused to talk with WSJ, but for years now RP has railed against journalists who print 'hearsay' and don't try to get his side of the story. The WSJ story also seemed to have been taken more seriously by RP; he posted on ebob new standards for WA critics--oops, independent contractors. Also, the WSJ story has helped to create a comedic atmosphere connected with the penchant for censorship shown on ebob. Yes, it takes time for the print media to develop and report a story, but sometimes, like fast food, wolfing it down immediately doesn’t necessarily provide sustenance–or even meat!

In this case, while the story may have seemed old to some, the WSJ take on it has opened a new wound, especially with RP’s attack-response to it, which he later deleted from the Squire’s forum. Apparently, RP, Squires, and Miller refused to talk with WSJ, but for years now RP has railed against journalists who print ‘hearsay’ and don’t try to get his side of the story.

The WSJ story also seemed to have been taken more seriously by RP; he posted on ebob new standards for WA critics–oops, independent contractors.

Also, the WSJ story has helped to create a comedic atmosphere connected with the penchant for censorship shown on ebob.

]]> By: Dylan http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2009/05/26/40-days/#comment-1607 Dylan Wed, 27 May 2009 15:33:37 +0000 http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/?p=2749#comment-1607 Online is an adjective in addition to a noun. When journalists become online journalists they do not lose something, rather they have gained that very adjective, they have gained a new medium. Content is content wherever you put it, the difference with online is the demand for dialogue. Usually I wouldn't be able to read story in print and see every reader's thoughts on the article listed directly below it. The conversations about the article can sometimes outshine the story itself. Yet as far as the standards of the story and how the content is made--the remains the same, it remains journalism, except it's journalism online. Online is an adjective in addition to a noun. When journalists become online journalists they do not lose something, rather they have gained that very adjective, they have gained a new medium. Content is content wherever you put it, the difference with online is the demand for dialogue. Usually I wouldn’t be able to read story in print and see every reader’s thoughts on the article listed directly below it. The conversations about the article can sometimes outshine the story itself. Yet as far as the standards of the story and how the content is made–the remains the same, it remains journalism, except it’s journalism online.

]]> By: John Kelly http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2009/05/26/40-days/#comment-1606 John Kelly Wed, 27 May 2009 14:26:18 +0000 http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/?p=2749#comment-1606 I think you have it right at the end - it really is about the money. All the rest of the hand waving and hand wringing is seems to be attempted justification for why we should pay for it. I think the justification point is well taken, to an extent. A good editor is a godsend. So is a solid research and fact-checking department. Some extremely newsworthy stories take more than 24 hours to uncover, develop and understand properly. Print media have still a worthwhile function. Most are still profitable, but shareholders insist on growth and the slice of the pie for print is shrinking and so they are punished in the market where lack of growth equals failure. I think you have it right at the end - it really is about the money. All the rest of the hand waving and hand wringing is seems to be attempted justification for why we should pay for it. I think the justification point is well taken, to an extent. A good editor is a godsend. So is a solid research and fact-checking department. Some extremely newsworthy stories take more than 24 hours to uncover, develop and understand properly. Print media have still a worthwhile function. Most are still profitable, but shareholders insist on growth and the slice of the pie for print is shrinking and so they are punished in the market where lack of growth equals failure.

]]>