Comments on: Does Fact Checking Get Tossed with New Scholarship? The Chronicle Thinks So

By: Gardner

Gardner — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:17:38 +0000

A fascinating comment thread, for sure; a short story in six episodes. Good reading.

I agree that the Chronicle is typically spotty or worse in its technology coverage, and they’re certainly guilty (as are many other MSM sources) of acting like Web 2.0 without acting in it. Another instance of the need for being there. On the other hand, I can’t agree with Stephen that we can just ignore it. For better or worse, far more administrators and faculty on my campus talk about something they “saw in the Chronicle” than about anything they see in a blog, or in an EDUCAUSE publication, or any other newspaper or periodical (unless it’s the New York Times). The Chronicle is the closest thing we have to a newspaper of record, at least in the US, and I think we still need to press them for better, fairer, more informed coverage of technology in education. Clearly your efforts in this very post have borne fruit, Alan. Kudos!

By: wiredcampus

wiredcampus — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:59:24 +0000

Hi Alan. Thanks for calling that to our attention. We fixed the item. We always welcome story pitches and other suggestions on how we can make our technology coverage better.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:43:51 +0000

Susan,

Did not mean to insult you, only the Chronicle ;-) There is a long list of people who did the same, including Ars Technica. We *think* the source was a posting on a Library listserv on December 10 that summarize the report (I have a copy of it) — it never says “just published” but the way it is written it might be construed that way (it was more like “just found”).

And yes on your suggestion; I asked our writers to put a timestamp on the next ne.

By: Susan Crawford

Susan Crawford — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:34:54 +0000

I’m the hapless academic who saw the report referred to as “recent” and blogged it. But the ref I saw was ArsTechnica, not the Chronicle. I don’t tend to read the Chronicle.

Sorry for getting the newness wrong!

Here’s a constructive suggestion for the next report: Put a release date on it, so that when it begins to float around the blogosphere everyone will see when exactly it came out.

Susan

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:40:09 +0000

Stephen, I don’t pay much attention; I don’t follow their feed, don’t check their web site. But I am using this as a good example of NOT what to do for your organization ;-)

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:37:39 +0000

Why pay any attention to the Chronicle?

The Chronicle has been sgtridently anti-technology for as long as I’ve known about it, and the standard of its reportage on technology issues has been almost uniformly poor. No news there.

But as a result, the Chronicle has been increasingly irrelevant as time goes by. Nobody who is involved in education and technology gets their serious opinions from the Chronicle, and it is not the news source of first – or last – record on these matters.

Let the Chronicle continue to pander to the puttering set, and let’s move forward without it.

By: Judy O'Connell

Judy O'Connell — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:35:05 +0000

I’ve gotta agree with your sentiments!! Definitely! I also love your succinct explanation of the importance of social networking – “the perils of acting like Web 2.0 rather than acting in a Web 2.0 mindset”. Here, borrow my flame thrower!