Comments on: Media briefs: Underbelly pixels, Bias-spotter http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/10/media-briefs-underbelly-pixels-bias-spotter/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:29:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Alan Ramsay http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/10/media-briefs-underbelly-pixels-bias-spotter/#comment-17675 Alan Ramsay Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17675 I subscribe to Crickey! with the hope of reading lots of good quality writing and incisive journalism. All too often, you serve up the same sort of tripe that you criticise so readily in others. Today, you have gleefully mocked a simple little typo by the people at Adelaide now. Why? Why waste your readers' time with such stuff? Please, if you really think such mistakes constitute the difference between good and bad journalism, clear the mote from your own eye, and start paying more attention to your own typos. For the record, for example, I wasn't greatly impressed by your sub-editors who on 1 September, even where the correct spelling of Michael Jeffery's name was writ large and clear in the article that was the subject of a typically contemptuous piece by you, contrived to spell it wrongly FOUR times in a single paragraph.<br /><br />Might it help you to know that I, and I suspect a lot of other people, keep hoping to get from you the same high-quality writing that I see in newspapers such as The Economist, free of petty prejudice and emotion, moderately even-handed, and profound? Last night's TV ratings, constant publishing by you of information that you know perfectly well has been unethically and perhaps illegally leaked to you, and your constant rants against the mainstream media isn't doing it for me. Nor are the constant editorial asides from many of your writers that so quickly betray their personal views. When you're good, you're very, very good. But when you're bad, well, you're very ordinary.<br /> I subscribe to Crickey! with the hope of reading lots of good quality writing and incisive journalism. All too often, you serve up the same sort of tripe that you criticise so readily in others. Today, you have gleefully mocked a simple little typo by the people at Adelaide now. Why? Why waste your readers’ time with such stuff? Please, if you really think such mistakes constitute the difference between good and bad journalism, clear the mote from your own eye, and start paying more attention to your own typos. For the record, for example, I wasn’t greatly impressed by your sub-editors who on 1 September, even where the correct spelling of Michael Jeffery’s name was writ large and clear in the article that was the subject of a typically contemptuous piece by you, contrived to spell it wrongly FOUR times in a single paragraph.

Might it help you to know that I, and I suspect a lot of other people, keep hoping to get from you the same high-quality writing that I see in newspapers such as The Economist, free of petty prejudice and emotion, moderately even-handed, and profound? Last night’s TV ratings, constant publishing by you of information that you know perfectly well has been unethically and perhaps illegally leaked to you, and your constant rants against the mainstream media isn’t doing it for me. Nor are the constant editorial asides from many of your writers that so quickly betray their personal views. When you’re good, you’re very, very good. But when you’re bad, well, you’re very ordinary.

]]>