I'm modifying my previous post about my final project proposal. While I will include some of the ways the Internet and the development of web 2.0 social networking tools have affected journalism with the emergence of citizen journalism and the devastation being wrought on the business models of media outlets everywhere, I want to explore the emergence of web 3.0 and how the "semantic web" may change parts of the very definitions of journalism. The role of journalist may expand to include computer programmers as well as writers and photographers (or should I say multi-media specialists?) There are some in the industry that feel the tools and methods of web 3.0 may offer new opportunities for the survival of all forms of legacy media and which will necessitate a concentration on increased local coverage and the use of citizen journalists, among other things, like this Knight proposal from the People's Times in New Zealand.
Jeff Jarvis: "Owning content may not be valuable. it may be links, it may be embedding..the essential structure of media is yet to change." (1:47 video, Shot with a Flip camera, talking about the Digital News Affairs 2009 Conference)
There has been a quiet buzz going on around this issue. Like so much else in the media industry there are lots of questions and uncertainties. There is enough interest to justify conferences and grants to explore possibilities. The writings of Clay Shirky, Jeff Jarvis (see above) and others are looking into this, and the Knight News Challenge has provided grants to such internet and pioneers as Tim Berners-Lee and Martin Moore and Dan Pacheco of the The Bakersfield Californian to do research. There is also software being developed like Calais, "a free program that scans content and suggests meta tags that computers can read to automate the process of relating and linking information by topic." How this affects journalism- and IF it does- will be interesting to investigate.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Can there be such a thing as "too much democracy?" Is there a danger that the digital revolution will give too much power to citizens who aren't compe
I have found that there is a fair amount of polarized opinions on this topic/question. An example of this divergent thinking can be found in the contrast between the sentiments expressed in the book entitled the Citizen Renaissance and the arguments of the political theorist Samuel P. Huntington.
The book Citizen Renaissance, which is presently in draft form, may be an example of a Digital Revolution innovation as it solicits all those who enter its web site to “Please contribute your thoughts and help finish the book”. Might this in itself be an example of too much democracy? Will it become common practice to solicit pubic commentary via the Internet before we publish a book? In any case, I believe it to be a great example of the Internets’ capacity to facilitate sharing and collaboration.
In its’ third chapter: The Digital Revolution and a New Democracy, the author with fervent optimism and assertiveness makes declarations such as the following:
The Digital Revolution has democratized communications in a radical way so that top down messaging has become a thing of the past.
Power now rests with the people and people now expect to be heard as a right.
In the digital democracy, we are inquiring, less respectful, or even trusting of authority.
The audience may be fractured and fragmented but they can coalesce on-line into a force for change because the beauty of the digital is the effective democrat- ization of people and opinions.
In The Crisis of Democracy, Samuel Huntington, et al. argues differently. In his theory of political cycles:
“Increased political participation leads to increased policy polarization within society;
Increased policy polarization leads to increasing distrust and a sense of decreasing political efficacy among individuals;
A sense of decreasing political efficacy lead to decreased political participation.”
Huntington believes that: “There are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” “(T)he danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains…”
The first two of my links leads to articles that seem, albeit somewhat anecdotally, to support the notion that there may be such a thing as “too much democracy.”
www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/05.28.98/election-9821.html
www.loweringthebar.net/2007/09/bulgaria-suffer.html
www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
www.uoregon.edu/~jboland/hntngton.html
The book Citizen Renaissance, which is presently in draft form, may be an example of a Digital Revolution innovation as it solicits all those who enter its web site to “Please contribute your thoughts and help finish the book”. Might this in itself be an example of too much democracy? Will it become common practice to solicit pubic commentary via the Internet before we publish a book? In any case, I believe it to be a great example of the Internets’ capacity to facilitate sharing and collaboration.
In its’ third chapter: The Digital Revolution and a New Democracy, the author with fervent optimism and assertiveness makes declarations such as the following:
The Digital Revolution has democratized communications in a radical way so that top down messaging has become a thing of the past.
Power now rests with the people and people now expect to be heard as a right.
In the digital democracy, we are inquiring, less respectful, or even trusting of authority.
The audience may be fractured and fragmented but they can coalesce on-line into a force for change because the beauty of the digital is the effective democrat- ization of people and opinions.
In The Crisis of Democracy, Samuel Huntington, et al. argues differently. In his theory of political cycles:
“Increased political participation leads to increased policy polarization within society;
Increased policy polarization leads to increasing distrust and a sense of decreasing political efficacy among individuals;
A sense of decreasing political efficacy lead to decreased political participation.”
Huntington believes that: “There are potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.” “(T)he danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains…”
The first two of my links leads to articles that seem, albeit somewhat anecdotally, to support the notion that there may be such a thing as “too much democracy.”
www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/05.28.98/election-9821.html
www.loweringthebar.net/2007/09/bulgaria-suffer.html
www.citizenrenaissance.com/the-book/part-one-three-seismic-shifts/chapter-three-the-digital-revolution-and-a-new-democracy/
www.uoregon.edu/~jboland/hntngton.html
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
How journalism will evolve: partisan, paid for, geared towards the professional.
Continuing from last week:
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
I think it is important to note this is blogging by professional journalists, not Citizen Journalism.
Mossberg got the most appreciative response of the panel during a discussion about citizen journalism: "It's like citizen surgery!" said
Mossberg.
http://reportr.net/2007/05/31/the-space-between-professional-and-citizen-journalism/?referer=sphere_related_content/
Getting into an argument about who is a professional journalist and whether so-called citizen journalism is good or bad for the profession is a dead-end discussion. There is room for both.
More interesting are comments by Herrmann on the BBC Editors’ blog on how the phenomenon of social media - blogs, stories and pictures from the audience, and interactivity in general, has affected BBC journalism:
Two key strands of our day-to-day journalism – readers’ comments and opinions, and newsgathering based on information from the audience – have become an indispensable part of what we do, and talked about some of the logistical and editorial challenges this presents.
http://reportr.net/2008/11/26/insights-into-why-bbc-journalists-blog/
Insights into why BBC journalists blog
November 26, 2008 in BBC, blogs, broadcast, journalism, social media Tags: BBC, Robert Peston, Nick Robinson
One of my research interests is blogs at the BBC, so I was fascinated by the tweets coming from Paul Bradshaw and Dan Bennett on the session on blogging at the internal Future of Journalism conference organised by the BBC’s College of Journalism.
Bradshaw outlined the BBC blogs rules: authenticity, single author, impartiality, comments, commitment and obeying the rules of the blogosphere.
By all accounts, the star of the session was the BBC’s business editor and influential blogger Robert Peston. His blog had almost 8 million page views in October.
The BBC’s Jem Stone has posted his notes from Peston’s talk on his blog. Among the highlights from Peston’s comments:
I do see the blog as the absolute cornerstone of the way that I work. It’s central to everything that I do at the BBC.
The enormous personal benefits are you get to know a load of stuff that you can’t use in a 2-3 minute package on the Ten. Getting out detail that you can’t get into anywhere else is fantastic.
It also reasserts your ownership and authority when it comes to a story.
The comments are quite challenging and interesting and often generate ideas about where to go with a story.
All the standards I apply to my blog are the standards I apply to any other bit of my broadcasting.
I wouldn’t overstate the risks with blogs. Any time a reporter goes on the BBC News channel or Today programme, there is a huge risk in a two way. At least with the written word you will read it over a few times.At least you get a second pair of eyes. I assume there are many more checks and balances than with most “lives”. I think the reputational risks are diminished.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about this session is that blogs are a relative new innovation at the BBC. The first truly official blog by a journalist was launched in December 2005 by Nick Robinson. Now the corporation has more than 80 blogs, almost half of them by journalists.
It has come a long way since a BBC columnist wrote in 2003:
Blogging is not journalism. Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.
BBC NEWS | dot.life | Twitter - the Mumbai myths
"What Twitter has done is to provide instant information about anything that is happening near its millions of users, coupled with a brilliant way of sharing that information. What it doesn't do is tell us what is true and what isn't - and that makes the work of mainstream media outlets and professional reporters all the more relevant."
(tags: twitter BBC citizenjournalism web_2.0 UGC)
Continuing from last week:
Further input on why Islands of Quality will be necessary:
I think it is important to note this is blogging by professional journalists, not Citizen Journalism.
Mossberg got the most appreciative response of the panel during a discussion about citizen journalism: "It's like citizen surgery!" said
Mossberg.
http://reportr.net/2007/05/31/the-space-between-professional-and-citizen-journalism/?referer=sphere_related_content/
Getting into an argument about who is a professional journalist and whether so-called citizen journalism is good or bad for the profession is a dead-end discussion. There is room for both.
More interesting are comments by Herrmann on the BBC Editors’ blog on how the phenomenon of social media - blogs, stories and pictures from the audience, and interactivity in general, has affected BBC journalism:
Two key strands of our day-to-day journalism – readers’ comments and opinions, and newsgathering based on information from the audience – have become an indispensable part of what we do, and talked about some of the logistical and editorial challenges this presents.
http://reportr.net/2008/11/26/insights-into-why-bbc-journalists-blog/
Insights into why BBC journalists blog
November 26, 2008 in BBC, blogs, broadcast, journalism, social media Tags: BBC, Robert Peston, Nick Robinson
One of my research interests is blogs at the BBC, so I was fascinated by the tweets coming from Paul Bradshaw and Dan Bennett on the session on blogging at the internal Future of Journalism conference organised by the BBC’s College of Journalism.
Bradshaw outlined the BBC blogs rules: authenticity, single author, impartiality, comments, commitment and obeying the rules of the blogosphere.
By all accounts, the star of the session was the BBC’s business editor and influential blogger Robert Peston. His blog had almost 8 million page views in October.
The BBC’s Jem Stone has posted his notes from Peston’s talk on his blog. Among the highlights from Peston’s comments:
I do see the blog as the absolute cornerstone of the way that I work. It’s central to everything that I do at the BBC.
The enormous personal benefits are you get to know a load of stuff that you can’t use in a 2-3 minute package on the Ten. Getting out detail that you can’t get into anywhere else is fantastic.
It also reasserts your ownership and authority when it comes to a story.
The comments are quite challenging and interesting and often generate ideas about where to go with a story.
All the standards I apply to my blog are the standards I apply to any other bit of my broadcasting.
I wouldn’t overstate the risks with blogs. Any time a reporter goes on the BBC News channel or Today programme, there is a huge risk in a two way. At least with the written word you will read it over a few times.At least you get a second pair of eyes. I assume there are many more checks and balances than with most “lives”. I think the reputational risks are diminished.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about this session is that blogs are a relative new innovation at the BBC. The first truly official blog by a journalist was launched in December 2005 by Nick Robinson. Now the corporation has more than 80 blogs, almost half of them by journalists.
It has come a long way since a BBC columnist wrote in 2003:
Blogging is not journalism. Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.
BBC NEWS | dot.life | Twitter - the Mumbai myths
"What Twitter has done is to provide instant information about anything that is happening near its millions of users, coupled with a brilliant way of sharing that information. What it doesn't do is tell us what is true and what isn't - and that makes the work of mainstream media outlets and professional reporters all the more relevant."
(tags: twitter BBC citizenjournalism web_2.0 UGC)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
How social media is changing elections and politicians.
For my final paper, I want to evaluate how social media and technology have changed and are continuing to change elections as well as how it makes politicians accessible. By analyzing these pieces I can project if these changes are benefiting politics or just becoming a nuisance.
I've found a couple articles in previous posts about technology usage in regards to the election and will use those in conjunction with with these new sources. In order to predict what is going to happen in the future (and if it is good for us) one needs to thoroughly understand the past. That will be the first section of my paper and from that I will look at how elections and politicians themselves have changed to incorporate social media into their lives.
It takes technology to elect a president (http://www.businessweek.com).
This article takes a look at how technology has affected elections in the past and their predictions for what will be important in the 2012 election.
Copenhaver ventures to online world (http://chronicle.augusta.com).
This article looks at a local mayor and his use of facebook. He finds it useful to gain feedback and connect with his constituents, however this brings up an interesting problem with social media, how much feedback is too much feedback?
At this point, I have a couple paths to follow within my topic question and I may have to let the rest of my research lead me the rest of the way.
I've found a couple articles in previous posts about technology usage in regards to the election and will use those in conjunction with with these new sources. In order to predict what is going to happen in the future (and if it is good for us) one needs to thoroughly understand the past. That will be the first section of my paper and from that I will look at how elections and politicians themselves have changed to incorporate social media into their lives.
It takes technology to elect a president (http://www.businessweek.com).
This article takes a look at how technology has affected elections in the past and their predictions for what will be important in the 2012 election.
Copenhaver ventures to online world (http://chronicle.augusta.com).
This article looks at a local mayor and his use of facebook. He finds it useful to gain feedback and connect with his constituents, however this brings up an interesting problem with social media, how much feedback is too much feedback?
At this point, I have a couple paths to follow within my topic question and I may have to let the rest of my research lead me the rest of the way.
What should the press be doing to avoid information overload while satisfying consumption demands?
In a rush to respond to current technological advancements in the delivery of content, print and TV news is succumbing to the “bandwagon effect” of using the internet to deliver content via video, podcasting, blogging—well, the entire spectrum of social networking. Maybe instead of riding the bandwagon they should be leading the way in providing information in a way that provides context and meaning for the consumer.
The issue isn’t the survival of journalism. It’ll survive. Maybe not in the format that we know today, but it’ll survive. The evolutionary process will continue and we will have this thing called journalism. It’s strong enough to survive as story telling form.
The issue may well be will it thrive.
Take, for example, The Huffington Post. By all accounts, accepted by many as a form of today’s journalism. Are they prototype for the model of journalism that will thrive? Today the have raised $25 million of the $100 million in their fundraising plan. Today with their aggregate news blog they, as an institution, are bigger than Lee Enterprises and Media General and are almost as large as McClatchy. (The Rash Report: WCCO Report: 12-2-2008) What are they doing to avoid information overload to satisfy consumer demands? Through building community they are able to sell ads. Is that the solution?
In my final paper I’ll reflect on what the press, print and TV, can do to provide news to consumers that satisfies their desires without providing so much or in such a way that it turns consumers off!
The issue isn’t the survival of journalism. It’ll survive. Maybe not in the format that we know today, but it’ll survive. The evolutionary process will continue and we will have this thing called journalism. It’s strong enough to survive as story telling form.
The issue may well be will it thrive.
Take, for example, The Huffington Post. By all accounts, accepted by many as a form of today’s journalism. Are they prototype for the model of journalism that will thrive? Today the have raised $25 million of the $100 million in their fundraising plan. Today with their aggregate news blog they, as an institution, are bigger than Lee Enterprises and Media General and are almost as large as McClatchy. (The Rash Report: WCCO Report: 12-2-2008) What are they doing to avoid information overload to satisfy consumer demands? Through building community they are able to sell ads. Is that the solution?
In my final paper I’ll reflect on what the press, print and TV, can do to provide news to consumers that satisfies their desires without providing so much or in such a way that it turns consumers off!
Choose your own News
This doesn't have anything to do with my paper for this class, but rather to the question of what is happening to news?
This news station in Little Rock, AR is allowing people to vote on the news stories they want covered.
http://cfc.katv.com/external.cfm?p=chooseyournews&h=2000
As of 4:30 on Tuesday, this is where the polls are. Interesting the topics to choose from.
C-Span campaign 2008 bus in Little Rock (56%)
Nashville Murder for hire trial (29%)
What illnesses are going around (15%)
Any thoughts on this? I like the way they are merging 'new media' with journalism, but something about letting viewers choose what the news reports on seems like a bad idea to me.
This news station in Little Rock, AR is allowing people to vote on the news stories they want covered.
http://cfc.katv.com/external.cfm?p=chooseyournews&h=2000
As of 4:30 on Tuesday, this is where the polls are. Interesting the topics to choose from.
C-Span campaign 2008 bus in Little Rock (56%)
Nashville Murder for hire trial (29%)
What illnesses are going around (15%)
Any thoughts on this? I like the way they are merging 'new media' with journalism, but something about letting viewers choose what the news reports on seems like a bad idea to me.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Do professional photographers have a place in the face of citizen journalists or are they destined to become disinter-mediated?
I am sticking with the main question I had posted in my blog last week. I have written a lot on the subject for my paper already and am so committed. I have a couple of new sources that I am considering, however, one of them is a book by Susan Sontag called "On Photography" so you will have to but it or check it out of the library to read it. The other is a recent program played on NPR/MPR called "On The Media" called "Snap Judgments" in which they covered the story on Jill Greenberg--the portrait photographer for "The Atlantic" This news program was seeded by the Greenberg photographs, but it was more a survey of portrait photographers, which touched on a number of subjects that I am including in my paper. It shows the power of the photograph, the responsibility of the photographer, and the falsehood of the photograph. It also shows how important and tricky ethics in photojournalism can be. It leads of course to the question of how well citizen journalists can work within such a structure. Greenberg knew what she was doing—she knew how to make McCain into a pariah, and chose to make that photo whether ethical or not. What does that mean for citizen journalists who may do such a thing by misunderstanding the medium's power to distort reality? What of the readers who approach a trusted news source to get the news only to get an accidental distortion instead of a conceived interpretation of the news? Who is better to make these interpretations than those who know the rules and break them or those who don't know the rules in the first place?
Here is the audio from that program:
Another recent source is one I found from Professor Iggers' email a while back regarding Vincent LaForet's writings on the state of photography. In that article, he made reference to another article called "The Cloud is Falling" which is helpful in its reference to the parallels between the music industry and photography which will no doubt be a part of my final paper.
Here is the audio from that program:
Another recent source is one I found from Professor Iggers' email a while back regarding Vincent LaForet's writings on the state of photography. In that article, he made reference to another article called "The Cloud is Falling" which is helpful in its reference to the parallels between the music industry and photography which will no doubt be a part of my final paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)