Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:34 AM
Fri Nov 27
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/06/09
11/06/09
07/15/09
06/16/09
So with Van Natta at the helm of MySpace, is he going to turn them around and trounce FB? That would be poetic, I think.
06/16/09
why don't you give us something juicy (intended) like why facebook had to hide all the hotties in their old lytton street office, and where said hotties are residing in the new digs?
-mike
06/16/09
-prion
05/27/09
--Gulliver's Travels
05/13/09
Julia Allison drank a glass of water today, and twatted it. Do I smell a sixth story?
04/24/09
And I may yet learn to recognize some names from the digerati. Beyond Sarah Lacy, I mean. And my other Twitcrush, 8.
04/09/09
This ancient bastard is about 5 years too late.
People care more about writing themselves than reading. It's not logical to have a "Tribune" or "Times" company.
This luddite paper fetish bullshit has to stop.
04/09/09
like book reviews in newspapers, criticize is what blogs do. if the intent of the blogger is to supersede the work that they are excerpting (by re-publishing paragraphs upon paragraphs of unoriginal copy, as owen points out), well, that's not "fair use." i would say the WSJ crossed a line.
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/03/09
02/24/09
02/24/09
02/24/09
02/24/09
02/24/09
Is there video? That would be spectacular.
02/24/09
Not only is it impossible in some cases to eliminate conflict of interest, I'm not sure we should even want such a thing.
Sure, there are many cases (most even) where I'd like the reporter to just cover the event, tell us what happened, and keep their opinions and speculation to themselves. It's fairly obvious when this is being done (and fairly rare these days).
But in the more common case where opinions are being expressed, even if subtly, there are a myriad of influences, most of which may be unknown to the reporter as well as the audience. I don't think most of us know where our gut-level opinions on many subjects originate. Best we can do when it comes to reporting is to just stick to the facts (and not just carefully selected facts) surrounding an issue and when an opinion *is* being expressed, to as best possible, disclose our influences.
Best way for readers to get at the truth is to not rely on just once source. For most people, if they tell me where they get their news I almost don't need to know much more about them to predict their opinions on a particular subject.
This is something that probably needs to be fixed by the publications themselves, not the individual journalists.