1. Wired is not alone in that. From serious business papers like Forbes to gaming 'zines like Kotaku there is somebody to enjoy ranting over SL. Why? I don't know. What can be the cause. I can make a pretty long list. But, do one really need to read that? Question is whether that affects SL and how. And if yes, what is to be done?

Posted at 3:16PM on Aug 27th 2007 by dandellion Kimban

2. Only a guess, Tateru. The media, at least some media, don't want to be seen as cheerleaders. So with the exception of purposefully good-news stories, they'd rather take that angle that something is wrong or bad. Investigative reporters never probe behind the scenes to find good news. They want to find conspiracies, wrong-doing, and skulduggery.

Now, if that's what's really behind the scenes, great. I've done my share of muckraking when there was muck that needed to be raked. But to purposely focus only on part of the truth and to engage in deliberate distortion, well, that's not reporting. That's BS.

Posted at 3:47PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Veronique Lalonde

3. Wired sucks. I quit reading them years ago.

It used to be a technical read. Now it's just a bunch of snobs talking about their iPods and their "neo-culture".

Seriously, Wired. Technology is not a fashion statement.

Now if we could teach Steve Jobs this....

Posted at 4:09PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Kahni Poitier

4. Wired has always run using an editorial policy of saying stuff before the others then getting out of the conversation before they have a chance to be cross-examined on their facts. The demographic they're after, early adopters with disposable income they love disposing of on the next big thing laps it up. If you want a potted version of this policy just read their "wired vs tired" lists for a few months - anything that appears as "wired" them soon enough flips over to "tired" regardless of merit. It either proves their hype wrong or becomes mainstream and they need to disassociate with it lest they lose their cutting edge chiq. Tis a pity - they started out so well. I still have the first mag they put out and it reads very different from today.

Posted at 4:43PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Pavig Lok

5. I think one of the reasons is that 'Wired' like many other publications, need to either report on controversy, or they need to *create* controversy in order to stay afloat in the sea of news and stories.
Negative stories cause a commotion and bring attention to the publishers who print the story.
It is quite possible that someone at Wired also got burned in SL because it didn't fit their view of how things should be, but it may simply be an attention whoring article as well.

Posted at 5:23PM on Aug 27th 2007 by neural

6. Ironically, just before I read this post I happened to be watching a clip on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hoqlbrlk84) about "Building People Up to Tear Them Down." To me, that is exactly what Wired (and other publications) must do to survive: they have to first hype something up--and let's all be honest, there certainly was a bit of hype about SL--and then tear it down.

Wired, as a corporation, has one goal: revenue. It has to ensure that it has enough eyeballs each month to satisfy the promises made to its advertisers. So, first you hype up SL to make it the darling of the moment. This brings in readers. Then you start to cater to those that don't like SL. That doubles your audience as both those who like SL and those who do not like SL will read the articles. We bitch and moan, they gloat and are gleeful.

niko

Posted at 5:24PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Niko Donburi

7. "Building People Up to Tear Them Down" strategy makes sense. It is pointless to tear down somebody who is not popular yet. And, media can make somebody popular and raise its price in the news.
That is suicidal strategy though. Media loses all the inteligent readers that way.

Posted at 6:10PM on Aug 27th 2007 by dandellion Kimban

8. So what if they lose all their intelligent readers? How many units does the National Enquirer sell to Nobel laureates? If all they do is sell a million units to hordes of nodding mouth-breathers, they won't give a damn and neither will their legion of advertisers.

Posted at 8:41PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Shini

9. Ah, but do they sell that million? Remember, _Weekly World News_ just went under.

OTOH, maybe that just means that people are getting their tabloidesque jollies for free on the net.

Posted at 10:29PM on Aug 27th 2007 by Melissa Yeuxdoux

10. Well... try talking to idiots for a month... See the changes....

Posted at 3:04AM on Aug 28th 2007 by dandellion Kimban

11. Kahni posted exactly what I was thinkin'

Posted at 9:47AM on Aug 28th 2007 by Doubledown Tandino

12. I don't know if they actually sell a million... It was a large and somewhat profitable sounding number. Though by accessabc.com's stats they have a paid circulation of about 674k so I was a fair bit off. Alexa also says their site is slow, but does not provide stats about how dumb it is.

Alas, poor World Weekly News. How will I find out what's happening with Bat Boy while standing in line at the grocery store now?

Posted at 11:04AM on Aug 28th 2007 by Shini

13. I thought Wired was last months Slashdot articles?

Posted at 1:35PM on Aug 28th 2007 by Mecha Dinosaur