Comments on About Slog Posts

You still come out in print? I hadn't realized.

i don't see the difference... it's been published, you've burned your source and you've shown your bias to the readers... not the best thing to do if you're a journalist, huh?

josh, do you consider yourself a journalist? (that's real curiosity... not trying to be bitchy... just don't know if writers at weeklies are journalists or something else...)

I'm gay. Watch out.

Plus, Josh's job as a "reporter" is to "report."

In writing every story in the media, the reporter selects which quotes to use and which not to use.

However, I don't think it's inappropriate to accurately quote someone who expresses himself in an interview to a reporter, even in a way that might offend someone else with a "cheap shot."

It's definitely not a "cheap shot" by Josh, in any case.

The distinction between the two mediums seems to be getting blurrier and blurrier all the time. I read both the print edition and the Slog (obviously) and I can't say I ever catch myself thinking "Didn't I read something from Josh Feit about this topic? -- Oh wait, I read that in the Slog, not the paper, so nevermind."

This is getting way too meta.

Yeah... I haven't picked up an actual Stranger in a long time. I figure I've read it all online so why waste the paper?

Josh covered his ass by saying the quote was off-topic and not worthy of print.

As far as print vs. Slog, the Slog's never been promoted as the paper's official opinion... Most people don't even know Slog exists. Maybe if The Stranger didn't come out in print, this would have been a bigger deal, but as it stands the paper is primarily a print weekly. Everything else is supplementary.

In general, I think that Slog = Print as far as The Stranger's responsibility to journalism, such as it is.

However, the print version (or "online print" version) has a much wider circulation than Slog. Slog is a bit more informal, and you're not limited by the size of the pages (just the attention span of your readers).

The quote was a total cheap shot. Then again, it was said on the record to a reporter, so it is fair game. Keeping it out of your print version is a good move as it would detract from your story, but it is Slog-worthy.

This is simple folks-

The printed paper is the "real" Newspaper. Words printed on paper carry more authority that words read online.

Most readers know not to trust what they read on their computer monitors. But words printed on paper will last forever and really matter.

This whole thing is making me so mad that I'm off to write about it in my diary.

Um, what's up with Issur at @10? No rants on Judaism? Are you posting for real now?

My penis is hard. Watch out.

Mr. Poe are you going crazy? i'm not even gay and my penis is hard

I think people still have this misconception that the internet is not 'real' and that anything written here isn't actual conversation or writing.

Blog run along a fine line. You can delete a blog post (though the ethics of such a maneuver are questionable)... but otherwise, it's a quote, and blogs have been quoted in the news. Anything Josh puts here is basically a source unless the Stranger decides to get shady and start deleting or altering incriminating Slog posts.

In fact, the Stranger print edition will even refer readers to Slog for further reading on some articles and topics.

Basically, Josh, anything you put on here is basically on the record, whether or not you print it.

Eh? The lifespan of a slog post will always be just as long as the Stranger's printed copy, which is pretty much just be reprinted online.

Both will live forever in caches across the internet.

It's all the same. The slog, or the printed version.

remember when caches used to be hidden?

@14

No. I'm just trying to relate to this post.

would we have discussions about how mudede doesn't like pregnant women on the print version? possibly, but not as likely

So you pretty much can toss any shit you want on your blog and see if it sticks? On the one hand, you don't want to be held accountable for any poor judgement about what you post on the slog, but on the other hand, anything that appears here online before the PI or Times prints it should be credited to you as a "scoop." Credited as a scoop in print, of course.

Sort of like how Savage says The Stranger is merely "theater" when you're full of shit, but if you think you've done something right, then you want to be taken seriously.

josh, you know that slogging that quote was, indeed, unnecessary. you are a smart man. of course pasha is upset and we shouldn't be surprised by any anger directed toward the mayor, on topic or not.

the lines between the "real" paper and what appears online are increasingly blurred. slog is essentially the daily version of a weekly paper, oftentimes presented in a loosey goosey fashion. that is great and, as proven by the high traffic on this site, it is appreciated.

but, anything you guys print under the name the stranger, is still representative of the paper as a whole.
journalism should be responsible, regardless of the format it appears in. technology has changed public record. google it.

this nightclub thing is a fucking mess.

You people are idiots.

The printed paper is a completely different animal than online versions. A printed paper is a document of record. Online versions of Newspapers are just chat for fun.

No one expects things posted online to be checked for facts or anything. That's what printed newspapers are for.

22. Right, which is why the media often quotes blogs. They're not taken seriously at all.

You're exactly the type of person I was talking about in 15.

Online is not textbook. Blogs should never be quoted in the news. Ever. It's ridiculous.

FYI: I'm still hard. ROX!

Josh -- for all the times you post something on Slog and then bash the dailies when then don't credit you for breaking the story first, it would seem like you really do believe that the slog is a completely legitimate outlet of news, worthy of being quoted.

You can't have it both ways.

The Slog is The Stranger is the Slog.

So... why should I bother reading Slog if it's just a place for you writers to wipe your asses? Between this and Dan's quips about filling up the internets, I get the feeling that the stranger considers slog a place for dumping anything and everything one feels like. Seems to me that you're advocating a position that nothing that is written on slog should be taken even remotely seriously. That's a hell of a marketing angle.

"The Slog is The Stranger is the Slog."

@25: Agreed.

24. Yeah, the media does a lot of things they technically shouldn't do and covers a lot of things they shouldn't cover. But does that render what happens off the Official Record irrelevant? If Larry Craig gets blown on his own time out of sight, did it never happen? If Barry Bonds takes steroids outside of the park, did it never happen?

Slog is not some practice ground where what you write doesn't count. If they don't want it to count, they shouldn't post it on a public forum.

Everybody Poops!

Even reporters I suppose.

Might as well let them crap in Slog instead of on the paper.

It's not binary slog vs. paper. You can have both. Just like I can be against the war but for the occupation, Judaism allows for a rainbow of perspectives.

Somedays the Slog is as legitimate as the printed paper, other days online versions are just chat. That doesn't make either better or worse. Don't force your idiotic Christian hierarchy on everything. Judaism isn't like that, and a Jewish newspaper like The Stranger can print whatever it wants.

@25,

I agree that the Slog can be a real source for legit news stories. It often is. Again, I'll point to ECB's recent Burgess coverage.

However, the Slog is a weird animal because it can also be a place for toss-off thoughts, blind items, quick news analysis, jokes, etc...

I try to alert readers to which it is by the tenor, length, style of the post.

In today's instance I qualified Pasha's quote by saying it was off point and cut from the pending news story. I thought that would give folks an idea.

No, no, no. Gomez is absolutely right on target, and it's a very important issue. A newspaper's blog can be many things--a testing ground to see what stories garner interest, or a forum to respond to readers, but it cannot not be the newspaper itself.

It's a slippery slope to think otherwise; leaving out a quote, in this case, is pretty innocuous, but the defense that Slog is a different animal bound by a different covenant with its readers is very wrong, and ought to set off alarms. Clarify your standards, and hold yourselves to them.

so... if the seattle times had written on one of their blogs -- instead of in the printed newspaper -- that the copper brought a gun into tommy's, then josh wouldn't have anything to complain about?

because then it wouldn't be real...

#20 nicely put.

Josh how's that new rock opera Tommy?

Maybe you need a code to identify exactly what type of work any specific print or slog writing is.

33 & 34,

I hate to admit it, but you realize that Feit sounds totally reasonable on this and you all sound strange and obsessed with him a bad way.

It's like DVDs.

The print edition is the movie. Slog is the extras -- deleted scenes, director's cuts, commentary tracks, random shorts, making of specials, etc.

It's totally reasonable for you to point out that a 'blog post and a newspaper article have different levels of authority, but that line is blurring. This, in particular is a huge (and likely incorrect) assumption:

"This Slog post will disappear from the conversation sometime this afternoon. Yes, it will live forever online, but I don’t suspect it’ll be called up to inform the conversation."

Just try googling for a few keywords like "nickels nightclub crackdown" and see what comes up. My guess is that Google's search algorithms will like the Slog post more than the online article in the Stranger.

It's a potentially important issue for you guys to think about, particularly since a lot of people who read the paper for news (vs. club listings, classifieds, et c. may be moving fairly quickly and decisively toward online vs. in-print reading habits.

You people are getting tedious with your sermons on 'blurring lines', and Gomez seems to be having his own conversation with his 'on the record vs. off the record' non sequiturs.

It's really very simple. Stories in the print edition have been through the editorial process whereas Slog posts have not. Therefore, print stories are the official product of The Stranger whereas Slog posts are the products of the individuals posting them.* This is a pretty standard arrangement across many types of 'old media' that host blogs these days; if this is news to you then you really shouldn't presume to lecture people about standards of journalism or the changing media landscape.

*Or in Dan's case, his Slog posts are often the product of an apparent mind-meld with Andrew Sullivan.