Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Nightclub Crackdown Story | Ach, Zombies! »

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

About Slog Posts

posted by on September 12 at 13:10 PM

There’s a comment thread going on below that I think is worth putting in the spotlight.

It’s a conversation—in reference to a bitchy quote I posted from a club owner—about Slog vs. Print.

Here it is:


Cheap shot, Josh, and not worth of a quote.

Posted by crazycatguy | September 12, 2007 12:35 PM

@1,

That’s why I cut it from the print story.

Love,
Slog

Posted by Josh Feit | September 12, 2007 12:40 PM

#3: So SLOG reporting is It’s ‘unofficial’? Or less priority? Or what? I don’t see the difference between online and print (do you?) so I don’t understand your reasoning here. Written is written.

I have to agree with #2. Pasha’s rant is irrelevant to your story, SLOG or no. Nickels’ son is over 18 and thus, the content of Pasha’s outburst is rather moot.

I completely disagree with Nickels’ approach to this issue, but I don’t see his son factoring into this story. If Nickels had been calling for leniency for his son, or claimed that his son was innocent or something, that would be different. Instead, Nickels has been largely silent about his son’s arrest and has not appeared to condone his behavior.

I think this quote is a red herring.


Posted by but | September 12, 2007 12:47 PM


@4,

The essential difference is this: The print story is the one that’s on the street for a week informing the conversation and telling the news. It’s also the version that will be archived forever on our website as the definitive story.

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.

Re: Slog posts in general. They come in all sorts of different stripes. They can be weighty attempts at the definitive story (See ECB’s recent long posts on Tim Burgess) or they can be toss offs… in which case, we note that. For example, in the very post we’re talking about, I flagged its relative insignificance by writing: “I cut one of his quotes from the story because it wasn’t on topic. But the quote did capture exactly how angry Pasha is about the clampdown.”

Posted by Josh Feit | September 12, 2007 12:53 PM

RSS icon Comments

1

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

Posted by twee | September 12, 2007 1:09 PM
2

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...)

Posted by teddy b | September 12, 2007 1:15 PM
3

I'm gay. Watch out.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 12, 2007 1:16 PM
4

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.

Posted by ewqt | September 12, 2007 1:17 PM
5

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."

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 12, 2007 1:18 PM
6

This is getting way too meta.

Posted by Ziggity | September 12, 2007 1:21 PM
7

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?

Posted by Carollani | September 12, 2007 1:21 PM
8

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.

Posted by Katelyn | September 12, 2007 1:22 PM
9

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.

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 12, 2007 1:22 PM
10

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.

Posted by Issur | September 12, 2007 1:26 PM
11

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

Posted by Mother | September 12, 2007 1:35 PM
12

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

Posted by Julie | September 12, 2007 1:38 PM
13

My penis is hard. Watch out.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 12, 2007 1:47 PM
14

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

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 12, 2007 1:53 PM
15

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.

Posted by Gomez | September 12, 2007 1:55 PM
16

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.

Posted by superyeadon | September 12, 2007 1:56 PM
17

remember when caches used to be hidden?

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 12, 2007 1:57 PM
18

@14

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

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 12, 2007 1:58 PM
19

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

Posted by vooodooo84 | September 12, 2007 1:59 PM
20

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.

Posted by elenchos | September 12, 2007 2:01 PM
21

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.

Posted by kerri harrop | September 12, 2007 2:06 PM
22

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.

Posted by Issur | September 12, 2007 2:12 PM
23

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.

Posted by Gomez | September 12, 2007 2:19 PM
24

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

FYI: I'm still hard. ROX!

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 12, 2007 2:28 PM
25

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.

Posted by John | September 12, 2007 2:33 PM
26

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.

Posted by just makin' it up as i go along | September 12, 2007 3:02 PM
27

"The Slog is The Stranger is the Slog."

@25: Agreed.

Posted by Ryan | September 12, 2007 3:08 PM
28

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.

Posted by Gomez | September 12, 2007 3:17 PM
29

Everybody Poops!

Even reporters I suppose.

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

Posted by Pack | September 12, 2007 3:27 PM
30

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.

Posted by Issur | September 12, 2007 3:51 PM
31

@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.

Posted by Josh Feit | September 12, 2007 4:48 PM
32

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.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | September 12, 2007 4:57 PM
33

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...

Posted by teddy b | September 12, 2007 5:04 PM
34

#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.

Posted by whatever | September 12, 2007 5:12 PM
35

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.

Posted by curly Q | September 12, 2007 5:47 PM
36

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.

Posted by Aexia | September 12, 2007 5:54 PM
37

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.

Posted by josh | September 12, 2007 5:54 PM
38

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.

Posted by Bison | September 12, 2007 10:52 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).