Friday, September 26, 2003
Heidi has an interesting point but I think we need to remember that the really marginalized people out there have no access to digital technology to express themselves to a mass audience. I think people like Heidi will always be needed, to give voices to the have-nots. They'll be needed not as traditional journalists with the weight and authority of a mainstream newspaper or television station behind them, but as intelligent, aware people who want to help.
Ok, I guess I am going to be first out of the gate to comment on this week's readings. I am such a geek!
Earlier this week, in response to something that I contributed, Justin wrote: "Heidi tells us that people want accountability. Not everyone does. We are dealing with a huge populace that just wants to know something cool. Who cares if it's wrong?"
After reading Lasica's articles last night, I am inclined to take back what I said about accountability and agree with Justin. I was especially moved by Lasica's anecdote about a Native woman who publishes non-mainstream news on a mailing list. Following a violent incident, her readership increased because people wanted to hear a different voice. As more people gain access to the internet and other digital technologies, more people also have the ability to self-publish and let their voices be heard. No longer do they have to rely on "accountable," mainstream, restrictive journalism to tell their stories for them. One of the reasons that I wanted to become a journalist was to tell the stories of people who have been silenced. Maybe, because of emerging technologies, the marginalized will need me and other traditional journalists less than I thought.
Earlier this week, in response to something that I contributed, Justin wrote: "Heidi tells us that people want accountability. Not everyone does. We are dealing with a huge populace that just wants to know something cool. Who cares if it's wrong?"
After reading Lasica's articles last night, I am inclined to take back what I said about accountability and agree with Justin. I was especially moved by Lasica's anecdote about a Native woman who publishes non-mainstream news on a mailing list. Following a violent incident, her readership increased because people wanted to hear a different voice. As more people gain access to the internet and other digital technologies, more people also have the ability to self-publish and let their voices be heard. No longer do they have to rely on "accountable," mainstream, restrictive journalism to tell their stories for them. One of the reasons that I wanted to become a journalist was to tell the stories of people who have been silenced. Maybe, because of emerging technologies, the marginalized will need me and other traditional journalists less than I thought.
I'm waiting for Nicole to pick me up to go out and do real (actually it's TV, but close enough) journalism, so I had time to do the readings, and I'm struck by the videoenabled cell phone reporting thing. It's really cool and very scifi really. Transmetropolitan (that comic I pimp to anyone who seems remotely interested) has feedsite listeners who are basically just people with that kind of connectivity and lack of editorial control and everything. In the City of that unspecified future, the only real journalism is the comment on what all those listeners are collecting. I think that the participatory thing is awesome. I love the idea of shmucks collecting info for everyone to see. And then having people who are accountable (or trustworthy or whatever) commenting on what those shmucks are gathering with their futurephones, and those commenters are the journalists. But again, that might not make any sense.
Dahh! I only previewed the post before Nicole got here, so now the whole immediacy I introduced that post with is lost especially as my net went down for hours this afternoon. Selah. So now I get to respond to Heidi's response which looks like it came after this. Stupid internet. Actually it doesn't require much response because Danielle did it. Well then. Heidi, I agree that the downtrodden masses still need you (cause they don't have futurephones). And now I'll shut up for a while.
Dahh! I only previewed the post before Nicole got here, so now the whole immediacy I introduced that post with is lost especially as my net went down for hours this afternoon. Selah. So now I get to respond to Heidi's response which looks like it came after this. Stupid internet. Actually it doesn't require much response because Danielle did it. Well then. Heidi, I agree that the downtrodden masses still need you (cause they don't have futurephones). And now I'll shut up for a while.
Again, in clickable form:
What is Participatory Journalism?
Participatory Journalism Puts the Readers in the Driver's Seat
(The clock is still three hours off. I'm not waking up at 5 in the morning to check the blog. Really.)
What is Participatory Journalism?
Participatory Journalism Puts the Readers in the Driver's Seat
(The clock is still three hours off. I'm not waking up at 5 in the morning to check the blog. Really.)
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Here are the readings for next week:
Readings for next class:
What is Participatory Journalism?
J.D. Lasica
www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php
Participatory Journalism Puts the Readers in the Driver’s Seat
J.D.Lasica
www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060218311.php
Readings for next class:
What is Participatory Journalism?
J.D. Lasica
www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php
Participatory Journalism Puts the Readers in the Driver’s Seat
J.D.Lasica
www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060218311.php
I'm sure a lot of people have already seen this site, but for those who haven't, its from the CBC and its on Media Ownership in Canada. It may not have to do with this class so much, but it is pretty relevant I think.
Check it out: http://archives.cbc.ca/300c.asp?id=1-73-790
Check it out: http://archives.cbc.ca/300c.asp?id=1-73-790
I know that this blog is definitely not designed for this, but oh well. Today Paul said "germane to the issue" three times during our Print and New Media classes! It was driving me nuts because I didn't know what "germane" meant, although I guessed that it must mean something like "relevant." Well, I looked it up in the dictionary, and "germane" is actually defined as "closely pertinent or relevant." Just thought I'd get that out in the open in case it was bugging anyone else! Sorry Paul!
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
While I don't think chat rooms are havens of wonderful journalism, this seems relevant somehow. It's about that MSN thing. The myth of Satan's web. It's talking about the illusions that people who don't get the internet harbour about the people who use it a lot, and the way that the Internet companies have to mask the fact that they actually want money.
And blogging is the right verb to use Becky.
And blogging is the right verb to use Becky.
Hi, I would like to do http://aldaily.com.
Suzanne
Suzanne
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Heidi tells us that people want accountability. Not everyone does. We are dealing with a huge populace that just wants to know something cool. Who cares if it's wrong? Accountability is all about continued readership as I see it. People won't come back to someone who lies to them. Or will they? The entire entertainment industry is based on the audience being lied to. If someone is still reading you they're getting something out of it. The public shouldn't support unaccountable journalists if they don't want them. If no one is reading you then you'd better get better or get used to writing for yourself. I'm not saying we should JB everything we do. I'm saying that the first step is being accountable to yourself, and that is where the web and all those random bloggers who are doing it for free come in.
Does that make any sense? Reading it over, I can't tell. It's sort of half formulated and I'm sure if I had raised my hand in class to make this comment I would have lowered it again or trailed off in the middle. I think it might be getting on the hideously idealistic side. But it's out on the internet now. Hooray for that.
Does that make any sense? Reading it over, I can't tell. It's sort of half formulated and I'm sure if I had raised my hand in class to make this comment I would have lowered it again or trailed off in the middle. I think it might be getting on the hideously idealistic side. But it's out on the internet now. Hooray for that.
Hi,
I would like to do disinfo.com
Caroline
I would like to do disinfo.com
Caroline
Monday, September 22, 2003
An interesting comment on the recent decision by CanWest to charge for their online newspaper sites.
This is from the CAJ list (Canadian Association of Journalists) where this topic has generated a lot of responses.
The writer is Alan Bass:
While I think the "pay for access" strategy is risky, the really key
question once you've decided to go that route is pricing. Many publishers
who have gone that route have made the mistake of pricing the online product
as if it was the print product - only to find that people don't yet value
online as much as the more familiar print product and thus won't pay print
prices.
The Web is still a new medium that has yet to establish a mass audience
habituated to the product, let alone habituated to purchasing the product.
(Dead tree newspapers have history on their side: How many of us subscribe
to a local newspaper because we can't imagine not subscribing rather than
because we feel we get a quality product?)
Part of the challenge that CanWest faces is to establish a pricing scheme
that will continue to encourage the occasional or infrequent user to access
the site. If it can do that, CanWest might continue to build an audience,
one that that might be willing to pay more down the road when the Web is
more firmly established as a mass medium or that would be attractive to
advertisers should "pay for access" fail.
(One possibility is to provide easy alternative access options to the
occasional user - such as Salon has done by allowing non-subscribers one
day's access to the site if they agree to view a particular advertiser's
ad.)
Personally, I still expect that most mass-oriented Web sites will end up
financing themselves the same way most general interest print publications
now do, primarily from advertising. The proportion of advertising dollars
that flow to the Web today is still very small, but it is continually
increasing and will likely grow at a higher rate as online publications
learn more about how to leverage unique Web advantages like contextual and
user targeting.
I believe the proper business strategy for online divisions at this moment
is to habituate people to the product - and any pricing strategy that
negatively affects that is not only likely to fail now but also do long-term
damage to the product's viability.
Cheers,
Alan Bass
This is from the CAJ list (Canadian Association of Journalists) where this topic has generated a lot of responses.
The writer is Alan Bass:
While I think the "pay for access" strategy is risky, the really key
question once you've decided to go that route is pricing. Many publishers
who have gone that route have made the mistake of pricing the online product
as if it was the print product - only to find that people don't yet value
online as much as the more familiar print product and thus won't pay print
prices.
The Web is still a new medium that has yet to establish a mass audience
habituated to the product, let alone habituated to purchasing the product.
(Dead tree newspapers have history on their side: How many of us subscribe
to a local newspaper because we can't imagine not subscribing rather than
because we feel we get a quality product?)
Part of the challenge that CanWest faces is to establish a pricing scheme
that will continue to encourage the occasional or infrequent user to access
the site. If it can do that, CanWest might continue to build an audience,
one that that might be willing to pay more down the road when the Web is
more firmly established as a mass medium or that would be attractive to
advertisers should "pay for access" fail.
(One possibility is to provide easy alternative access options to the
occasional user - such as Salon has done by allowing non-subscribers one
day's access to the site if they agree to view a particular advertiser's
ad.)
Personally, I still expect that most mass-oriented Web sites will end up
financing themselves the same way most general interest print publications
now do, primarily from advertising. The proportion of advertising dollars
that flow to the Web today is still very small, but it is continually
increasing and will likely grow at a higher rate as online publications
learn more about how to leverage unique Web advantages like contextual and
user targeting.
I believe the proper business strategy for online divisions at this moment
is to habituate people to the product - and any pricing strategy that
negatively affects that is not only likely to fail now but also do long-term
damage to the product's viability.
Cheers,
Alan Bass
Hi again!
I need to change my website for the assignment because I realized that Thunderbird is only put out twice a year, great as it is. I'd like to lay claim to the Guerrilla News Network mentioned in Deuze's article instead. Check it out at www.gnn.tv
I need to change my website for the assignment because I realized that Thunderbird is only put out twice a year, great as it is. I'd like to lay claim to the Guerrilla News Network mentioned in Deuze's article instead. Check it out at www.gnn.tv
Hi!
I'd like to comment on what Monica and Nicole said in their posts. I agree, Monica, that perhaps internet journalism is hampered by its very newness. My parents, who can barely type, are certainly not as internet-savvy as my sister and I. But it is their generation, and not mine, that currently has money and power. A fifty-something advertising executive is going to trust in paper newspapers much more than in the newfangled internet. Perhaps as the baby-boom echo gets older and starts to get high-paying jobs, internet journalism will gain credibility and take off.
As for Nicole's comments, I totally agree with you that if you aren't getting paid to write or you aren't getting published in a publication edited by others, you aren't a journalist. You can't call everything journalism and still have a profession. People want accountability; there is no accountability in random blogs. However, as we saw in our Ethics class today, sometimes people fail to be accountable even in peer-reviewed journalism. Just look at Jayson Blair. However, what really scares me are the Jayson Blairs who haven't been caught or have been covered up by their publishers.
I'd like to comment on what Monica and Nicole said in their posts. I agree, Monica, that perhaps internet journalism is hampered by its very newness. My parents, who can barely type, are certainly not as internet-savvy as my sister and I. But it is their generation, and not mine, that currently has money and power. A fifty-something advertising executive is going to trust in paper newspapers much more than in the newfangled internet. Perhaps as the baby-boom echo gets older and starts to get high-paying jobs, internet journalism will gain credibility and take off.
As for Nicole's comments, I totally agree with you that if you aren't getting paid to write or you aren't getting published in a publication edited by others, you aren't a journalist. You can't call everything journalism and still have a profession. People want accountability; there is no accountability in random blogs. However, as we saw in our Ethics class today, sometimes people fail to be accountable even in peer-reviewed journalism. Just look at Jayson Blair. However, what really scares me are the Jayson Blairs who haven't been caught or have been covered up by their publishers.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
I, too, like the simple pleasure of reading the weekend newspaper sitting in the sunny spot on my front porch, and reading a real book at night in bed, but I think technology can, and will, have a place alongside these preferences we have right now.
I'll give you an example.
Lots of people like to go to a neighbourhood coffee shop and read and write. In the past, you'd see people scribbling in a notebook with a line of empty cups of coffee in front of them. Lately, I've noticed not one, but two or three people, in a coffee shop near my house sitting tapping away at their laptops. Why?
Well, it works, it's easy and they don't really see it as "technology", just as a better notebook.
Wayne (MacPhail) mentioned to me that some food courts and coffee shops in
Toronto are now offering wireless hook-up in and around their store, so you can go onto the Internet while you much your taco.
Interesting stuff.
Paul
I'll give you an example.
Lots of people like to go to a neighbourhood coffee shop and read and write. In the past, you'd see people scribbling in a notebook with a line of empty cups of coffee in front of them. Lately, I've noticed not one, but two or three people, in a coffee shop near my house sitting tapping away at their laptops. Why?
Well, it works, it's easy and they don't really see it as "technology", just as a better notebook.
Wayne (MacPhail) mentioned to me that some food courts and coffee shops in
Toronto are now offering wireless hook-up in and around their store, so you can go onto the Internet while you much your taco.
Interesting stuff.
Paul
