I don't think it surprises anyone, and it didn't require a 2-pages analysis.
After reading one line on her blog everybody realized she's either crazy or trying to scam.
But I don't think it justifies a $2M fine...
When Truth Survives Free Speech
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#22I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to burying sites like hers for using keyword stuffing and other questionable SEO techniques. Likewise, I'm surprised Mr. Padrick never contacted Google to have these pages removed either. Had either Google or Mr. Padrick…
Google doesn't editorialize. What do you mean allowed?
Observing gratuitous link-stuffing and content farming as such isn't editorializing.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#23I don't believe that journalists are shielded from defamation and libel laws either ... So the judge's ruling must just mean she's a lousy writer?
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#24I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to burying sites like hers for using keyword stuffing and other questionable SEO techniques. Likewise, I'm surprised Mr. Padrick never contacted Google to have these pages removed either. Had either Google or Mr. Padrick…
Google doesn't editorialize. What do you mean allowed?
it's not a questionn of editorialisation; it's whether one person using bad-faith seo tactics can manipulate front-page results like cox did.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#25Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…
Legitimate? Unless it's in a text of law, it's not legitimate. I could argue that he's not a judge the same way.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#26It may well be defamation. The courts should definitely look at it, after they examine the case of the NYT selling the U.S. a war. (Which one? All of them, actually.) I know this sounds facile, but it does indicate the kind of journalism cases that the court is interested in.
The court is interested in cases that are brought to them. It's hard for anyone to have standing in suing the NYT for not doing enough due diligence leading up to the war(s).
Point granted, though it is also true that financial investors are interested in bringing cases. I'm still left with a bad taste in my mouth; maybe it's a gut reaction to side with the weaker party.
Or perhaps I'm just being contrarian.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…
3 and 7 disqualify many fair and balanced "journalism" organizations as well. Accept that the judge was BSing and this part of the decision makes much more sense.
You don't need to be all those things, just some.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#28Perhaps beside the point, but part of journalism is good writing and the topic of the article includes writing quality.
"... turned out to be a MacGuffin, a detail that was very much beside the point..." -- is the reporter showing off he knows the word MacGuffin? He simply defines it immediately afterward making the word needless.
As Strunk and White says, "Avoid fancy words: Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able.
Then "Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but there is nothing in Mr. Padrick’s professional history or the public record that I found to suggest he is any of those things..." ... using old cliches doesn't help either. It just adds words with no meaning.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#29Carr ends with: >> Then again, I’ve got some institutional muscle when it comes to how I’m perceived on the Web. All Mr. Padrick had was his good reputation. Too bad there’s no algorithm to measure truth. I know he's a writer and needs to end with a real zinger, but it's a cheap shot against algorithms and their role in helping us make correct assessments. 1. There are algorithms which can gauge truth and accuracy. T…
Are there really algorithms for judging the truth? I think the closest we can get is heuristics for identifying whether or not something is being actively deceptive, but it's a big epistemological leap to say that we can definitely determine truth in an algorithmic way.
Google is very good in these situations, but Google has a hard time differentiating between a popular movement and a single determined astroturfer. I'm sure Google would rather display a commitment to good journalism ("You want to know about topic X? Here's what people are saying about it.") rather than a pursuit of the truth, at least when it comes to organic results.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…
Legitimate? Unless it's in a text of law, it's not legitimate. I could argue that he's not a judge the same way.
Unless it's in a text of law, it's not legitimate.
This is not correct. There's always some degree of ambiguity, and as the Courts hear cases that test those ambiguities, those precedents -- known as "case law" -- effectively become part of the law, even though they're not in the text.