Heh I went to try it and sure enough it was in the manpage but didn't work on the commandline because.....manpage was for /bin/kill but from the commandline I was using the builtin kill. WOW!
% kill -L
kill: unknown signal: SIGV
kill: type kill -l for a list of signals
% which kill
kill: shell built-in command
% /bin/kill -L
1 HUP 2 INT 3 QUIT 4 ILL 5 TRAP 6 ABRT 7 BUS
8 FPE 9 KILL 10 USR1 11 SEGV 12 USR2 13 PIPE 14 ALRM
15 TERM 16 STKFLT 17 CHLD 18 CONT 19 STOP 20 TSTP 21 TTIN
22 TTOU 23 URG 24 XCPU 25 XFSZ 26 VTALRM 27 PROF 28 WINCH
29 POLL 30 PWR 31 SYS
My startup Scoopinion does try to find the high quality journalism, this is how we do it:
Take a set of sites that
1) Have an editor and or are established blogs.
2) Publish content that you can show to your mother
3)
Then we have a community of readers with "Scrobbling" browser add-on that measures reading speed and read through percentage. Whenever they read, they implicitly rate the article with their behavior. Later the articles are recommended to people who read same sources, topics and journalists.
This has worked pretty well, at least what we hear from our users. If someone has better definitions of quality journalism, would love to hear those.
I really like it! Definitely works out well although it seems British- and maybe Australian-centric. Is that just based on who is using the Scoopinion now?
That's actually a really tough question. I think that there aren't any sources that I consider totally good. I generally read quite a few, and find one or two that cover each issue well. For example, I usually quite like the BBCs international reporting, but have felt a bit let down by their tech coverage recently. The Guardian (UK) can be good, but it can stray too far (for me) to left wing tub-thumbing at times. Places like The Atlantic and HuffPost have the occasional decent article, but I don't usually bother with them unless I know I can trust the author. I used to read the FT's (UK) general news and found it good, but it's been a while since I picked it up.
Yes. It is time to chase names rather than institutions.
We already do it most other professions. (Entrepreneurs, artists, Doctors, Lawyers etc)
One's personal brand can have credibility added to it by association with a large publication, but that association does not outweigh the value the individual brings. Especially if the costs associated with that publication no longer make sense.
As newspapers and online publishers continue to degrade their reputation through sponsored content (both off and online) and silly page view chasing slide shows and posts, the value they bring to the reader is also decreasing.
These institutions are failing. The individual or collaborative group of individuals is what will rise from the ashes.
