May 14th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
09:52 pm - on Wørds and Wisdom... (and a little about Women at the end)

(80 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on Wørds and Wisdom... (and a little about Women at the end) - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: May 15th, 2006 - 11:57 am (Link)

EFIL 4 SM-IDLAM!

Bitchez!



uh... yeah...

as for current events, I don't know that I think its useless. Its just not authoratative. Especially in the very near term. Say a US Senator is assassinated. 5 min. later, the news would be all over the internet. Wikipedia will have the story. Granted there will be some mistakes, like, probably some people will report it wrong and it'll be the president. Others will report it wrong and it will be the entire Capitol building blowing up. But within the hour, that should mostly calm down and we'd have the basic facts right. And in the meantime, the sociological game of telephone is pretty interesting too. If you want absolute facts, use google news. And in the near term, that's going to be skewed too.

Obviously, I picked a very exaggerated example. But look at any real story. Katrina coverage, War in Iraq, NSA wire-tapping, whatever. Any newspaper is going to have a slant one way or the other. Wikipedia is interesting because its slant is always moving. Did Bush do something illegal with wiretapping? It doesn't really matter in the long run. What matters is whether the US people believe he did or not. I find that in general wikipedia is a pretty reasonable barometer for that sort of thing.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com