New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


March 6

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

Download this week's slides (PDF)


Assignments

Planning to work in a group? Let us know by this Friday, March 9 by emailing the instructors with a short paragraph explaining why a group approach to your proposed topic for the final project makes sense.


Readings

Optional Readings


Class Discussion

I know this is very close to the start of class, and I'll repost it in the chat, but I just saw this article: a few Anonymous affiliated hackers that called themselves Lulz Security have been arrested on numerous counts of hacking into major companies.


Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/technology/lulzsec-hacking-suspects-are-arrested.html?_r=1&hp

The article says that "The arrests suggest friction within the ranks of the 'hacktivists' " but never really explains how, besides the fact that one seems to be cooperating with authorities.

The other thing that stood out to me was one of the hackers claiming, "Anonymous will go forward as usual. So will I. We hired an army of lawyers last January. We are prepared for a big slug-out." It's an interesting idea, but I wonder how true that is. How believable is it that the individual and notoriously independent and multi-national Anonymous members would coordinate their legal plans together? Do they have that kind of $$ funding? On the other hand, they're smart people who are aware of the risks they're taking. It'll be interesting to see this develop. AlexLE 21:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


What do people think of "The Death and Life of the Great American Newspaper"?

I thought the author's first premise was that these old media outlets have an intrinsic value and should continue to exist. To be rather reactive and harsh, let them die. If they can't cope, good riddance. To be a bit more diplomatic, reasonable, and thoughtful, I think a basic flaw in his ideas is this idea that 'old media' as we think of it, that is these institutions like the NYTimes, WAPost, Time Mag, etc., were always there. The author talks about people coming to the US in the 1830s and being impressed with the number and quality of periodicals; but it wasn't even "professional" journalists as we think of them. It wasn't newsrooms of paid writers being directed by editors. It was what we think of as "citizen" journalists. At that period, there weren't the large industrial printing presses: It was movable type plate presses. So, the cost of physically producing a copy was roughly the same whatever the scale. After the industrial revolution, when steam began powering large presses, it became very marginally cheap to product a single print copy. So, if you were large, you could print them cheaper, and if you were small, you couldn't compete on price. A "citizen" paper couldn't hope to compete, largely because of the high barrier to entry with a mechanized press. Hence, the rise of large papers. The internet has taken us back to where the cost of publishing a given piece is the same for everyone. I think that this distinction between "citizen" and "professional" journalist is false. If you're reporting original news, you're a journalist. If you offer original analysis, you're a journalist.

So, then it comes to actually finding a solution to the quandary of actually getting good journalism in people's hands (or screens). Here I found the author's solutions to be, not only flawed in respect to my above premise, but also rather complicated and disturbingly focused on preserving physical periodicals out of principal. Subsidize mail distributions? That's the whole purpose of the internet. Still, I do see the need for someplace people can publish and read good news. Blogs don't usually work so well, because good writing and research takes time and effort. In order to keep a blog relevant, it really needs at least a weekly story. Most people would probably not be interested in publishing more than a story or two a year. I've certainly come across some great blogs, especially those run by a few professionals writing about news in their field. "science based medicine", for example, has some of the best medical reporting around, especially if you want the skeptical version. It helps that it has several contributors as well. But overall, quality control is still an issue, as is finding information centrally. One solution might be say, an online newspaper, with either paid or at lease vetted editors that accept user submitted stories, check facts, ensure that the story is at lease in some semblance well written, factually correct (at least generally), and basically edits what stories are published. They could also (as online publications already frequently do) update the stories easily as more facts come to light, or other users check facts, etc. I know that no individual component of this idea is new; it's sort of wiki meets blog applied to a newspaper format online, but I haven't seen it applied in this manner yet. It's not a perfect idea, but it's a whole lot more sensical than subsidies for newspaper subscription and other convoluted government fixes.

Am I crazy here? Anyone else have any counters or solutions to the author's ideas? BlakeGeno 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


March 6: New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

In a more perfect world I think that citizens of various democratic societies would have more access to the media. Instead of the conventional authoritarian control model, the citizens have direct access to shape the message that is delivered. And this is partly what I think is interesting here and about new media models. I think that we are starting to become more level in this regard. Although, citizens tend to still gravitate towards an “authoritarian” stamp of approval. And, I think that this is partly due to social conditioning through the educational as well as various other institutions made to serve the state. However, there is still room for improvement.

I think that people like the request hour on the radio when you can call in a request to dedicate a song to a loved one. Things like this connect us within our community. So, I think that we are moving more towards this type of thing through social media.

Will we no longer require old news models to get our news? If anything, I think that large media corporations are buying up many of the smaller firms. So, we are receiving more of a finely tuned message that is designed to upkeep culture with offerings such as is seen in pop culture. And the agenda is dictated by the policy makers ad so forth.

However, new utilities such as Facebook and Twitter – I call it Twit ER (as in emergency shouts made by twits), because it is essentially monitored by government agencies to single out dissidents and potential trouble makers – are an interesting concept to add to this mixture. This is because it can ether go one of two ways – there can be more control given to corporations to single consumers out and to essentially control their every waking thought or physical movement through new technology; or, these newly implemented policies of control will not work to serve their purpose and citizens will ultimately take over by using these platforms for their own agendas. And we are beginning to see this through groups such as anonymous. However, the general public is still very much asleep as to … well, anything. Which, in turn is good for the large corporations wishing to control consumers to buy more of their products.

The main problem for corporations and government is conditioning a lager number of workers to monitor and enforce laws within new media models. Of course, one of the ways this can be achieved is through a self-generative climate of fear and ignorance. Film, television, and various other popular culture contributes towards this climate. When we don't have numbers, we have the GI Joe movie to freak the minds of children and give them this idea that there's hard edged soldiers running around cities. And the controlled news is always packaged to shape the overall outcome – depicting the right amount of violence and sexuality, with a hint of optimism for the everyday man.

Of course, the agenda is to keep the social order. However, at what expense? Is there going to be a point where people have just had enough of living in a constant state of fear? So, policy makers have been experimenting in this regard, because the social order is a delicate thing to maintain. Too much fear that is too soon, and people rebel. Not enough, and they don't go to work. So I think that these new models are primarily another experiment towards progress. We are not going to see the end of newspapers or traditional media. We may see them change. However, they serve too great of a purpose to control the collective mind of the general population.

“A great news organization is difficult to build and tragically easy to disassemble” (John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney). So, this is much like the social order. Newspapers literally have a major role in dictating exactly how people organize, think, and conduct themselves within society. Without them, citizens may be inclined to set outside of the social order. They are a pillar of society. Without them, many people wouldn't even know their own name. Although, it's nothing to fear in terms of a degeneration of individual citizens rights -- so long as everyone is kept happy.

So, back to a more level playing field. All of news is advertizing. All of it, even the stories. And they are all biased and created through politics. However, in a more free and open society we are going to hopefully see every citizen having access to the media. If I want to send a song to my loved one on the radio as she is driving to work in her car, then I should be able to do this for her. If I want to buy out the front page of the New York Times to wish her a happy birthday, then I should be able to that. It is a part of our collective cultural history. And this shouldn't be an exclusive right only left to corporations that can afford to advertize. It should be more of a right for everyone in society. Especially because corporations are trying to change social norms. If history is being recorded this way -- everyone should be able to shape our history. I don't want to look back and wonder how people used to be - only to see the Jonas Brothers. And I don't care how clean it is -- I want to see something a little bit more human. And, I think that this is partly what we are seeing with this new stratification of media. It is not just entertainment, but a historical record.

So, we are not going to be seeing the disappearance of old media models. However, what we are beginning to see is more of a level playing field. Anyone should be able to advertize in the paper, not just large corporations or governments that can afford the front page spot. Not just Kings and Queens, but equal and divided rights amongst each and every citizen.

Just Johnny 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy link: http://www.knightcomm.org/executive-summary/ Qdang 04:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What do people think of "The Death and Life of the Great American Newspaper"?

I thought the author's first premise was that these old media outlets have an intrinsic value and should continue to exist. To be rather reactive and harsh, let them die. If they can't cope, good riddance. To be a bit more diplomatic, reasonable, and thoughtful, I think a basic flaw in his ideas is this idea that 'old media' as we think of it, that is these institutions like the NYTimes, WAPost, Time Mag, etc., were always there. The author talks about people coming to the US in the 1830s and being impressed with the number and quality of periodicals; but it wasn't even "professional" journalists as we think of them. It wasn't newsrooms of paid writers being directed by editors. It was what we think of as "citizen" journalists. At that period, there weren't the large industrial printing presses: It was movable type plate presses. So, the cost of physically producing a copy was roughly the same whatever the scale. After the industrial revolution, when steam began powering large presses, it became very marginally cheap to product a single print copy. So, if you were large, you could print them cheaper, and if you were small, you couldn't compete on price. A "citizen" paper couldn't hope to compete, largely because of the high barrier to entry with a mechanized press. Hence, the rise of large papers. The internet has taken us back to where the cost of publishing a given piece is the same for everyone. I think that this distinction between "citizen" and "professional" journalist is false. If you're reporting original news, you're a journalist. If you offer original analysis, you're a journalist.

So, then it comes to actually finding a solution to the quandary of actually getting good journalism in people's hands (or screens). Here I found the author's solutions to be, not only flawed in respect to my above premise, but also rather complicated and disturbingly focused on preserving physical periodicals out of principal. Subsidize mail distributions? That's the whole purpose of the internet. Still, I do see the need for someplace people can publish and read good news. Blogs don't usually work so well, because good writing and research takes time and effort. In order to keep a blog relevant, it really needs at least a weekly story. Most people would probably not be interested in publishing more than a story or two a year. I've certainly come across some great blogs, especially those run by a few professionals writing about news in their field. "science based medicine", for example, has some of the best medical reporting around, especially if you want the skeptical version. It helps that it has several contributors as well. But overall, quality control is still an issue, as is finding information centrally. One solution might be say, an online newspaper, with either paid or at lease vetted editors that accept user submitted stories, check facts, ensure that the story is at lease in some semblance well written, factually correct (at least generally), and basically edits what stories are published. They could also (as online publications already frequently do) update the stories easily as more facts come to light, or other users check facts, etc. I know that no individual component of this idea is new; it's sort of wiki meets blog applied to a newspaper format online, but I haven't seen it applied in this manner yet. It's not a perfect idea, but it's a whole lot more sensical than subsidies for newspaper subscription and other convoluted government fixes.

Am I crazy here? Anyone else have any counters or solutions to the author's ideas? BlakeGeno 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


@ BlakeGeno: You are not crazy for bringing up an interesting point! However, I would like to counter your argument against subsidizing mail distributions, because it is way to sustain skilled journalism. It is interesting to note that old fashioned skilled journalism was collapsing even before the arrival of the internet, replaced my less skilled commercialized journalism, hence the need for subsidizing mail distributions. In addition, if the goal is to inform all communities, then we do not want to exclude those who but are not tech savvy.

Regarding Andersen's article, Yahoo! Answers point system is a great example of making it fun if you are not paying your workers. By gaining points for a promotion in ranking, it gives users a competitive motivation, and in a sense it is like a game when people compete to reach the top level. Qdang 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


The readings for this week’s class were very interesting and got me thinking about many of the topics covered. The article regarding the Life and Death of Great American Newspapers was one of the most interesting since it touched a subject which always got me curious. I personally am a fan of the newspaper that one can touch rather than the online version and I do agree that in the near future there might be only an online version but I do feel that at least to some extent, the fault can be of the newspapers as well. Several newspapers and magazines set up their own website where people can access information for free. So why would someone want to spend money and buy the paper version when they can obtain the same information online on the website of the same paper? The article concerning the Guardian was also very interesting and true in my opinion. However out of the four great pieces of advice I personally feel that the most important is the one regarding the fact that the work is free so it should be fun for people. I would be definitely eager to do something free but fun and transforming the process in a sort of videogame is also a very productive way of doing so. Sunlightfoundation.org was a pretty cool website to visit, but my favorite part was the Poligraft especially the part stating that you can “Simply paste the URL or text of a news article, blog post or press release and Poligraft will create an enhanced view of the people, organizations and relationships described within it.” I found the article on Julian Assange really interesting and after reading it, it got me into a research mode on the subject to search for additional info on Wikileaks. In regards to Assange’s person I am firmly against what he has done and what he represents but from a legal perspective I feel that he cannot be deprived of the title of journalist. While intelligence professionals, military personnel and other related government officials to a certain extent have to keep government secrets to themselves and must swear to protect them and not reveal classified information, a regular person especially not a citizen of the United States isn’t in my opinion subject to such regulation. Emanuele 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney's The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers, is a candid reminder on the sad state of real journalism in an age when media corporations are concerned more with the bottom line than cutting-edge journalism. I think that it is important to understand how we choose to receive our daily news in order to better clarify the roadblocks for journalists today. For me, I prefer to view headline news on the internet instead of a newspaper because I can easily access news stories with a click of a button as well as cycle through any relevant photos. Many of the stories are succinct and straight to the point and cnn.com is my website of choice. I may augment the daily headlines with cable news television programming, or even explore the internet for interesting blogs if I have the time. All of this may consume 1-2 hours of my time each day and I am not sure most Americans have this time. If the main concern by the authors is to reboot truly comprehensive and compelling journalism that covers gaps in current reporting, they must also understand that the only engine for achieving such a goal is to increase the consumer demand for such reporting. While pumping government dollars into subsidizing news organizations or providing newspaper tax credits to individuals may moderately expand viewership (and financially prop the journalistic craft), the goal should be to analyze behaviors, time, consumer trends and find ways to convince a consumer base that news is much more than headlines and TV viewership. --Jimmyh 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


@BlakeGeno, I also don't think you're crazy...:) I agree with you on various points, one of which is what makes a journalist and how within the past decade, the concept of “citizen” and “professional” journalism are now one in the same again. Although, I have to counter to another and say I don't think we should just let these old media outlets die off and say good riddance; there has to be a strategic middle ground. However, I do believe there should have been a quicker adaptation/crossover of news/media outlets to digital. I think if newspapers in particular would have made that shift a lot sooner, or at least were a bit more aggressive to gain additional revenue streams in the online space, perhaps we might not have seen such an overall struggle to adapt (unless major attempts were made and I’m not aware of). It seems as if there were very slow movements or a somewhat resistance to new and online media. Also, this statement is very true, “regrettably the loud discussion of the collapse of journalism has been far stronger in describing the symptoms than in providing remedies.” I went to a conference recently where a panel of journalists discussed “Democratizing the Conversation: The Future of Brand Journalism in Social Media” and how moving into the digital sphere is absolutely essential for brands, companies, and news to stay relevant and maintain that connection with consumers/readers/viewers. The focus was centered on social media but they brought up some interesting points such as how social media is effective at giving journalism more transparency, or how even traditional newspaper URL’s are slowly diminishing, the thoughts of pure journalism are washing away, or more recently how we have the ability to start a blog or launch a website and if you’re savvy enough and put out great relevant content you will get a major following. To your point re: the solution or “bailout” portion of the piece and although they offered some interesting suggestions, I agree many of them are a bit convoluted or slightly flawed. However we have to start somewhere and I did like the idea to create tax credits as they stated and that the “the essential component for the immediate stimulus should be an exponential expansion of funding for public and community broadcasting, with the requirement that most of the funds be used for journalism, especially at the local level, and that all programming be available for free online.” I think that statement is key. I also thought it was quite interesting that "other democracies outspend the United States by whopping margins per capita on public media: Canada sixteen times more; Germany twenty times more; Japan forty-three times more; Britain sixty times more; Finland and Denmark seventy-five times more. These investments have produced dramatically more detailed and incisive international reporting, as well as programming to serve young people, women, linguistic and ethnic minorities and regions that might otherwise be neglected by for-profit media.” Curious to see what those margins look like now (since the article came out in 2009) and how the US can scale to better allocate resources/funding to public media. With last year’s vote of the House to cut NPR’s $90 million annual federal funding and how representatives claimed that the “object of the bill is to get NPR out of taxpayer’s pockets” (give me a break), it doesn’t seem like we’re heading into the right direction.[House Votes To Cut NPR Funding]

I also enjoyed reading the Executive Summary from the Media Re:public overview, and the articles on crowdsourcing lessons from the Guardian, Wikileaks, and Bloggers vs. Journalists. Great readings this week!

Some thoughts:

Re: Wikileaks/Pennenberg - Great article and the definitions of a journalist/journalism; I believe the crux of the piece is this question/statement: “What constitutes ‘legitimate newsgathering activities’? How do you differentiate between what WikiLeaks does and what the New York Times does? The Times, like other news outlets, often relies on sources passing on confidential - even classified - information that it makes public, and it has published a series of articles based on the documents that WikiLeaks procured.” Can’t wait for our discussion on Wikileaks! I can go on for hours about this…

Re: Media Re:public – Great intro and particularly liked how it establishes the exploration of the impact of new media structures, providing the key issues of news media environments and possible responses to those challenges. Does anyone have any thoughts on these?

Re: Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over – Thought this quote was interesting and to me refers to the whole concept of what I was mentioning previously about media outlets crossing over to digital and the dire effects of that hesitancy: "'I live in Winston-Salem,' begins a blog post from Jan 13, which I submit as material for the conference. Jon Lowder writes: I have the Winston-Salem Journal delivered every morning. But I don’t feel like I know anyone there. The paper doesn’t have a 'voice,' at least not one that I can hear. The closest thing to its voice is the editor’s column in the op-ed section. Jon Lowder admitted that one reason the Journal seemed so voice-less to him was the juxtaposition with the Greensboro News-Record, which had begun to reach him from the next town over through weblogs he read. (There are five and he subscribes to them all.) These he received via the wire service of the blog world, known as RSS, a truly disruptive technology for the news business. I hear from the N&R several times every day, all via their blogs. I hear from the Journal in the morning and that’s it… As a result I know more about Greensboro’s city council than I do about Winston-Salem’s. So for now I’d say that the N&R is my hometown paper. It’s not too late for the Journal, but they better act fast or it will be. I’d love to write the editor and share some ideas… anybody have a name for me?"

I also suggest clicking on the link after the words “news business” that leads to an article titled, “Content Will be More Important than its Container.” Great read and in line with a lot of what’s being discussed.

Re: Four Crowdsourcing Lessons from the Guardian - Fascinating piece on how the Guardian was able to successfully keep up with or essentially surpass their competitors when they had their journalists on the job of outing the “country’s biggest political scandal of the decade” for a month and the Guardian was able to complete the task in less than a week for little to no cost. Also taps into the notions of gamification and how it can take your product/brand/media outlet to a whole other level and when it’s fun and engaging, simple, and not too complicated, it can be integrated as part of the narrative/story and have a big positive effect. Great lessons for the NPO sector to take heed as well.JennLopez 22:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


I think that citizen-led media is a good thing for journalism and news consumers. I don't think it will entirely replace old media, and I hope it doesn't because I'm sure the people who don't have access to the internet will be left out, among other reasons. Also, many news stories found on social media, blogs, etc, were originally reported by traditional media outlets. While an influx of ordinary citizens producing news may lead to some lower quality news stories, I don't think the news will end up as an "infinite stream of unreliable chatter." The new media phenomenon is helping to transform old media into a more "participatory and collaborative" reporting venture. (CJR) New media has caused old media to restructure and innovate, and that is always a good thing. With so many sources of news (blogs, traditional news outlets, social media), many different agendas can be heard/read/viewed. Additionally, new media has the ability to report on small stories that would otherwise be overlooked and aren't usually reported in old media outlets.

Americans are more politically engaged than citizens of other Western/developed countries already, and citizen-led media is a natural step in the direction of higher political engagement. I don't think that "too much news" will lead to a more polarized society, but it may lead to more misinformation. However, there has always been misinformation in the news and I don't see this new form of alternative citizen-led media causing a larger gap between real news and misinformation. Neither old media or new media are immune to scandals, either. Traditional journalists are hailed as superior to ordinary citizens because they can monitor and police news stories better, picking out facts from falsehoods. The Guardian article offers a good example of the other side of the coin. In response to "The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers," I think government subsidies should not be used in the news industry and I don't think that is a sustainable option for newspapers. Aberg 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Like many others seem to have, I really enjoyed the Death of the American Newspaper article. I was initially skeptical about the suggestion that government subsidize newspapers, and I still feel like it would be basically politically impossible considering how consistent a conservative Republican move it is recently to criticize most media as a bought and paid for lackey of the Democrats. But, then there was the point that:

"Currently the government spends less than $450 million annually on public media. (To put matters in perspective, it spends several times that much on Pentagon public relations designed, among other things, to encourage favorable press coverage of the wars that the vast majority of Americans oppose.)"

That really brought me around to that way of thinking. If the government is willing to spend that kind of money on PR it really would be hard to justify not supporting a crucial part of our nation, an effective free press. That said it's still political suicide for any Democrat, and politically impossible for any Republican. On Assange, I really enjoyed how carefully he fit into most of the legal definitions of "reporter" that would protect him from prosecution. That said, from a more personal point of view, I see a real difference between what he did with the information and what, for example, The New York Times did with it. He simply dumped it all out there with no regard for the possible damage to be caused. Times reporters debated how to protect individuals named in the leaked reports, and in many cases redacted names. I'm not sure how I feel about what he did (I can see both sides of the argument and in the end I probably come down more in support of the sort of openness he committed to) but I do know that, despite the legal definitions, it does not seem like a reporter to just dump information out there. My support for government subsidies for print newspapers is largely based on the concept that a strong and responsible media is a necessary pillar in a democracy/republic; Assange may have been brave, but he was not necessarily responsible. AlexLE 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On the Death of the American Newspaper article, it made me wonder why the newspapers did not quickly switch over to the digital format, since media was obviously going that way, and just bring their advertisers with them. Others make money by having sponsors pay to advertise on their website, so why not one of those newspapers? They are so famous! Why wouldn’t their normal clients want to keep advertising through them? Can’t that still work in their favor? I do agree that there is a place for professional journalists who have the time and ability to report well on events that most people wouldn’t be able to. A good reporter is definitely a talented person in many ways. At the same time, I don’t feel that the field can be left only to those skilled individuals and the companies which hire them. The fact that the internet has opened avenues for anyone to be a reporter or commentator is a valuable tool to modern society. The article might not be eloquent, but facts and opinions can be heard which beforehand might not have been. This is a valuable new element. I think we need both things, and there are ways to make them work together. I found Media Re:public to be quite a thorough work on the state of media and the change it is going through. I learned a lot, and felt that the four broad areas it focused on helped me to understand much more what is going on in these times of flux and change. This era of new media brings pros and cons, but I believe that, with prudence, we can get the best out of the old media style and mix it with the new, getting the taking advantage of both. About Wiki-leaks, why is it illegal, unethical, etc. for Wiki-leaks to publish some of the information it did, but not looked down on if a major newspaper did the same or similar? What is the difference, where is the line drawn, and why? I don’t think it is right to just spill out information haphazardly when it can hurt or endanger people. There are times for secrecy, but all too often secrecy is used as an excuse to hide the deeds of those who should be exposed for the public’s good. The pot frequently calls the kettle black. @BlakeGeno, I don't think you are crazy. It is good to express what you think and not hold back, or you risk not saying what needs to be said. I do think that the "old media" has some valuable attributes which can be brought over to mix with the positive aspects of the new. There is something to be said for responsible journalism, and journalists are supposed to follow a code of ethics. In real life, they are paid by commercial agencies, and those high ethics don't always play out, but if we can, while revolutionizing things, preserve that aspect, we could gain something valuable, and use the talents of those professional journalists. Not everyone can do that job, but we need to give room to everyone who has something to say, at the same time. It's my opinion.Mike 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Julian Assange took full advantage of the lack of structure that defines journalism. Due to the fact that there is no clear definition of “journalist,” is it up to the law to define/qualify individuals who claim to be journalists on a case-by-case basis? According to the article, The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers, journalism is a public good. How can we begin to define roles and responsibilities without knowing the proper definitions of public good and journalism? This should be a good debate in class tonight. --Hds5 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In "Death and Life..." I feel there are two different discussions going on that both need to be addressed. Where they intersect is the middle ground answer for what has happened to any failing newspaper. One, they did not switch over quick enough to digital versions to at least keep advertising spread to the same level they had on the print. Second, news has converged with social media and is being distributed by an increasing share of non journalists. However, as increasing as this share is, I still believe it's small to the respected field of traditional outlets. The selection of news has increased and the market is more competitive. I think this is the biggest factor. As someone who is very technologically invested, I still receive the WSJ in paper and prefer it that way. Brendanlong 21:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The version of a next generation of journalism presented in "Death and Life..." was not exactly something I saw as problematic or as disorganized as the authors. In my view, the elimination of papers and the growth of independent bloggers, reporters and users who provide content is a step forward. It is hard for me to agree that most local papers were unbiased or great champions of keeping local government under close scrutiny. As demonstrated by the Arab Spring, the same level of government scrutiny, if not more, may be applied now that so many people are empowered with the ability to share facts. Cfleming27 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


I raised a question regarding Andy's presentation on media/journalism and the legal issues involved. My question was: Considering the protection to internet providers that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides, how would this be applied to news websites. Under the understanding of the section, the website provider is protected from the legal implications of the information posted on the site by users. But through the websites of news services, it seems as though the information is being endorsed by the website itself. I'm curious to know if the journal/periodical is exempt, as the law states, or if they are liable for the content considering it is coming from their own employees. This is further thrown into confusion when bloggers are separated from mainstream media. It's even further thrown into confusion when bloggers of established media sites are separated from journalists, or if there really is a difference. It seems as though that those media sites are exempt, however I don't know. Andy, can you sort this out for me? Nthib 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Links from Class

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=New_and_Old_Media,_Participation,_and_Information&oldid=138"