Michael Bugeja on Transparency, Media and the Internet

On WikiLeaks and "Web-Think" Full Story »

Posted by Michael Bugeja
Tags Help
Member Tags: WikiLeaks, New York Times, Investigative Reporting
Stats Help
# Tweets: 0 (as of 2010-08-23)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Michael Bugeja - Aug 23, 2010 - 9:26 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Aug 24, 2010 - 3:18 PM PDT
Marsha Iverson
3.8
by Marsha Iverson - Aug. 23, 2010

This interview with Michael Bugeja defines standards and principles of good journalism--qualities sadly lacking in today's total media environment. Bugeja advocates for responsible evaluation, verification, and discretion by journalists, and contrasts the classic journalistic tradition of accuracy with "Web-think"-- today's preference for immediacy, impact, and influence without regard for fact or consequences.

Your average tipster now doesn’t read anything over 140 characters. The reporter might read the digital avalanche, but that isn’t journalism. You still have to ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Michael Bugeja
by Michael Bugeja - Aug. 23, 2010

I am involved in this story on WikiLeaks and Web-Think and hence cannot write a review.

Disclosure: Michael is involved in this story as the subject (review not included in overall rating). Help
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Bob Herrschaft
4.0
by Bob Herrschaft - Aug. 24, 2010

This is excellent journalism about transparency in the profession.

One is reminded of the N.Y. Times' Judith Miller who allowed herself to be fed misinformation by her "exclusive" White House source during the Valerie Plame scandal, another example of self-nominated "civil liberties heroes"(like Assange)who only serve to muddle real issues.

The best reporters also tend to be older with greater salaries, so many already have been terminated. Also, investigative reporting is expensive, and many publishers are ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 5 reviews (56% confidence)
Quality
4.1
Information
4.2
Insight
4.2
Style
4.3
Context
3.5
Expertise
4.0
Originality
3.5
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
4.7
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!