Kevin Rose Quotes

I'm glad that he's got all this behind him. And I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of people - and there are certain people that don't report the news accurate for their own personal fame and gain. And they know who they are.

There is no doubt that the way journalism worked when I was growing up and getting started has changed forever.

At The Huffington Post, we thought of the front page as a one-stop shop for everything you'd need in news.

Many of us get our news from social networks, blogs, and daily aggregators.

From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in the open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice.

I get my news from selected Google News and my social feed.

The first information I consume in the morning is probably 'The New York Times' and then my Twitter feed. I think Twitter is a really fascinating, easy way to stay on top of what stories are out there.

Well-reported news is a public good; bad news is bad for everyone.

The problem is that with blogging, the model is publish first, maybe fact-check later. In newspapers, the model is you fact check first and then publish. But those models are merging.

I just get my news from the Internet.

I'm not an absolutist about free speech. Intellectually, I believe that most of the time it's better to let things get said, argue them, and put lies and stupidities to rest. Practically, I know that newspapers rarely issue corrections with the same prominence they give to denouncements - and Twitter, by its nature, never does.

One of the reasons why I think people have gone from reading mainstream newspapers to the Internet is because they realize they're being lied to.

If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.

I'm saying that the WMD reporting was not consciously evil. It was bad journalism, even very bad journalism.

I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us.

Traditional news is often full of mistakes, but I think that people are getting more sophisticated in knowing what to trust and what not to trust.

No longer is there a quest for the truth so much as there is this apparent need to present both sides of an issue even if one is nothing but lies and distortions.

Be it true or false, so it be news.

There's plenty to criticize about the mass media, but they are the source of regular information about a wide range of topics. You can't duplicate that on blogs.

It used to be CNN and other television outlets were founded on this idea of a news wheel. You give us 22 minutes, and we'll give you the world. But that's not the way people consume news and information any more.

I discover real-time news far more often on Facebook than on Google News or a regular Google search.

The upside of web-based journalism is that everybody gets a chance. The downside is that everybody gets a chance.

All of us technology companies need to create some tools that help diminish the volume of fake news. We must try to squeeze this without stepping on freedom of speech and of the press, but we must also help the reader.

I get mad at myself when I get news from Twitter before I get it from a regular news source. Then I'm off to a bad start: getting the second-hand, filtered experience all day long.