Week 8 -- 21 November - Online Media
Reading:
We The Media
Group 4 - Chapter 7, The Former Audience Joins The Party
Everyone - Chapter 12, Making Our Own News
Assignment:
General reaction to Gillmor's thesis: anything new for you? What do you disagree with? What are the implications for the media, politics, governance for the US and the world?
Reaction(s):
In the chapter “Making Our Own News,” Dan Gilmor introduces the Internet as the “most important medium since the printing press…anyone can be a writer…and for a global audience (216),” something he describes as “more democratic” and “messy.” This is so true, in a world where the net is the printing press for all people where the audience can play an active role through mail lists, web sites, blogs, SMS and RSS (listed as innovative tools that overturn a top-down hierarchy) and where anyone can write the news – trusted sources become an issue. Having learned about Wikis through this class I discovered the collaborative contributions which make up Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” in conversation with some friends, not all had realized that. One person’s response was, “That’s horrible! I’ve been using this for school and any random Joe can write something?!” Not until describing how it could mean people are likely to edit out misinformation, did my friend see some restored benefit in Wikipedia. Gilmore quotes a Wikipedia founder defending its trustworthy, neutral tone “The only way you can write something that survives is that someone who’s your diametrical opposite can agree with it (149).” This is definitely an example of a format where the audience is more engaged; they make the news and check it too.
Open and free information transforms “Big Media.” Gilmore uses his book as an example of what he views as a “creative commons” where “some rights are reserved,” challenging the traditional copyright license by making it available for free download on the web. I agree that as a business model, it may be beneficial for the potential of more circulation, however whether that translates into more money is questionable. Only time will tell, Gilmore mentions that technology change occurs so fast that it is difficult to keep up but that is the fun part – “the conversation continues.”
Implications:
In the chapter “The Former Audience Joins the Party,” Gilmore writes about the big deal in blogging. He discusses bloggers who reported what the news lacked on Iraq and how it is a great source for non-profits and alternative media, even suggesting a future business model where citizen’s will fund journalists to investigate and blog the news they want to hear. Will this change the newspaper and “Big Media” establishment in the US?
One of the most interesting and exciting Gilmore assertions is on the “evolutionary and revolutionary” potential of blogs: “American’s protected by the First Amendment, can generally write blogs with few consequences. However, in country after country where free speech is not a given, the blogosphere matters in far more serious ways. This is the stuff of actual revolution (140).” In strict repressive regimes, Persian or Chinese weblogs for example, can bring free speech to citizens forced to live in silence. While blogging can come with consequences such as being jailed, it offers hope for some voices to be heard. Can the Internet provide free speech to the world? Will it be the Gandhi of the Information era for political and government change?
We The Media
Group 4 - Chapter 7, The Former Audience Joins The Party
Everyone - Chapter 12, Making Our Own News
Assignment:
General reaction to Gillmor's thesis: anything new for you? What do you disagree with? What are the implications for the media, politics, governance for the US and the world?
Reaction(s):
In the chapter “Making Our Own News,” Dan Gilmor introduces the Internet as the “most important medium since the printing press…anyone can be a writer…and for a global audience (216),” something he describes as “more democratic” and “messy.” This is so true, in a world where the net is the printing press for all people where the audience can play an active role through mail lists, web sites, blogs, SMS and RSS (listed as innovative tools that overturn a top-down hierarchy) and where anyone can write the news – trusted sources become an issue. Having learned about Wikis through this class I discovered the collaborative contributions which make up Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” in conversation with some friends, not all had realized that. One person’s response was, “That’s horrible! I’ve been using this for school and any random Joe can write something?!” Not until describing how it could mean people are likely to edit out misinformation, did my friend see some restored benefit in Wikipedia. Gilmore quotes a Wikipedia founder defending its trustworthy, neutral tone “The only way you can write something that survives is that someone who’s your diametrical opposite can agree with it (149).” This is definitely an example of a format where the audience is more engaged; they make the news and check it too.
Open and free information transforms “Big Media.” Gilmore uses his book as an example of what he views as a “creative commons” where “some rights are reserved,” challenging the traditional copyright license by making it available for free download on the web. I agree that as a business model, it may be beneficial for the potential of more circulation, however whether that translates into more money is questionable. Only time will tell, Gilmore mentions that technology change occurs so fast that it is difficult to keep up but that is the fun part – “the conversation continues.”
Implications:
In the chapter “The Former Audience Joins the Party,” Gilmore writes about the big deal in blogging. He discusses bloggers who reported what the news lacked on Iraq and how it is a great source for non-profits and alternative media, even suggesting a future business model where citizen’s will fund journalists to investigate and blog the news they want to hear. Will this change the newspaper and “Big Media” establishment in the US?
One of the most interesting and exciting Gilmore assertions is on the “evolutionary and revolutionary” potential of blogs: “American’s protected by the First Amendment, can generally write blogs with few consequences. However, in country after country where free speech is not a given, the blogosphere matters in far more serious ways. This is the stuff of actual revolution (140).” In strict repressive regimes, Persian or Chinese weblogs for example, can bring free speech to citizens forced to live in silence. While blogging can come with consequences such as being jailed, it offers hope for some voices to be heard. Can the Internet provide free speech to the world? Will it be the Gandhi of the Information era for political and government change?
posted by Stephanie Wilder at
7:44 AM
2 Comments:
I know you know, but I thought I'd say it anyway. Wikipedia is monitored by many, but there is an informal 'senior' editorial group, I would guess that trys to keep it all on the up-and-up and accurate.
The notorious John Siegenthaler incident put the Wikipedia crowd on notice. And, remember the recent analysis that put Wikipedia up against The Brittanica - the net: No discernible difference between entries. The only real difference is the scholars who edit Brittanica entries and, of course, what they charge for content. . .
You pointed out two questions from your article: Can the Internet provide free speech to the world? Will it be the Gandhi of the Information era for political and government change?
In my opinion, if internet provide free speech to the world, that must assume that the digital divide has eliminated. Then my answer will be yes, possible. I think internet enhances the chances to speak out our opinions and provides the platform to do some feedbacks. It is hard for government to censor all the information that they don't like. So far the barrier to internet still exists such as minimum equipment and infrustruction cost. As a result, internet is a medium that subsumes many possibilities. In our age, we will see how it's going.
As for the second question, the internet is worthy anticipating for some changing in politics and government. In fact, we have already noticed some examples Take Dan Rather for instance, he was resigned after the blogger found the news he reported were not truth. If the information isn't exchanged and the flow is slow, there is no way for requesting responsibilities.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home