Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:08 PM
Wed Nov 11
72 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05/21/09
But those that just reprint photos and draw on them and make fun of people and harass others and continue to declare that they're journalists is SO insulting to anyone who writes for a living, at a publication, for a fee.
News doesn't fall from the sky onto our computers. People go out and report about it. We should not forget about this.
05/21/09
Even Jezebel draws heavily on newspaper and magazine reporting. Let's not forget that.
05/21/09
This is the only thing that "old media" has going for it, and yet it's still firing reporters. IDIOTS!
The world does not want to get everything through the wire services... There's still plenty of room for good reporting under syndication as well. People WILL pay for it, as they see a qualitative difference. The quality has slipped so much, nothing distinguishes news sources any more.
PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR FACT-CHECKING AND SPELL-CHECKING. Raise prices if you have to. But sell on your strengths, not ubiquity - the Internet has you beat there.
05/21/09
We'll be 50% LESS informed than we are now, and that's saying something.
05/21/09
My other pet peeve is when people point at Judith Miller as reasons why blogs are so much better than newspapers. Judith Miller! As if she represents an entire profession! It's outrageous!
Sorry - this is a sore spot for me.
05/21/09
"News" on broadcast stations is like a variety show of shock and obviousness. I come away no more informed about local or world affairs than when I started, though I do know inexplicably how many murders there were in Queens this year.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
The only drawback, I think, is that we can be more selective in the things we read about, and perhaps not open ourselves as much to articles/stories of importance that may not be on our radar. I understand most news sites feature a variety of things, but I'm more likely to scan over to a story on a newspaper (or sit around to watch a news story) than click on a link that doesn't particularly interest me. I mean, I know it's easy to find 2390472389 times more information online about a much wider variety of subjects, but the ease of just looking at a different spot on a printed page lends itself to more reading diversity, I think.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
I know some are crazier than others - I think people should be critical always.
05/21/09
@inabook: That's neat. I guess I just get weary when people use them as their sole source.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
NYTimes: credible
NOM website: maybe not so much.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09