Ernie : Lots to deal with for me, with another U of O lecture to prepare by Friday. But let me at least reply to the Arianna Huffington essay for now. I'll try to discuss other issues that would require homework I don't have time for at the moment, over the weekend. I agree with your overview and general opinions of her and the H Post. And also with your favorable opinion of this particular article. However, this is not to say that there aren't a few problems with it. First, what about the skills and motivation of non-professionals ? Granted, amateurs can do all sorts of neat things. But "can" is not the same as "will," and sometimes what amateurs produce is, well, garbage. We all have seen sites ( blogs, usually ) where content is really bad stuff, not worth reading. How, then, do you keep a site --like an online "newspaper"-- free from drivel and horse poop ? I don't see any answer to this important question in her essay. Also, what about motivation ? Free expression is OK but is it enough ? Hopefully some day ( still an unrealized dream ) I'll have my own version of a news site up and running. And, yes, as editor I would want other writers. I won't be able to do it all on my own. But damned if I plan to be indiscriminate about who writes for the "RCPost" I'd want people who share common values even if we disagree about any number of specific issues. The idea would be to persuade multitudes of the rightness of a cause through the vehicle of good -solid- journalism. Actually the HPost does this already, promoting its own values. My gripe is that she presents her case AS IF her values are unarguable and anyone who sees things differently is not being objective and therefore can be ignored with impunity. My preference is to be out front about such things. I belong to a free speech group here in Oregon. This is fine and dandy in many ways, but I don't want an online journal which I edit to feature advocacy of hard Right politics or its Left wing counterpart. Report on the far Right and far Left ? Of course, but primarily to criticize such views. Just as, with all due respect and acknowledgement of commonalities, there should be criticism of Libertarians and Greens and the Constitution Party. Long and short of it, Huffington didn't "thread the needle." Too much is left hanging in mid air. Pardon these mixed metaphors, but to try and express a certain amount of discomfort. The main point is the need for an articulated philosophy as a sort of constitution for a newspaper . To write for the journal it would be expected that people would agree whole heartedly with a statement of principles. There should be clearly described sense of purpose, objectives, etc, something to believe in. Something WORTH believing in. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 12/1/2009 11:20:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
She's not exactly one of my favorite people, but I think she completely nailed it on this issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/journalism-2009-desperate_b _374642.html?view=print Thoughtful, balanced, and snarky, all at the same time. :-) The whole article is worth a read, but here's some choice bits below. -- Ernie P. > Let's be honest, while promiscuity is not good in relationships, it's great for those looking for news and information. Trying to deny news consumers as wide a range of options and viewpoints as possible seems shortsighted -- and ultimately self-defeating. This is a Golden Age for news consumers who can surf the net, use search engines, access the best stories from around the world, and be able to comment, interact, and form communities. The value of having the world of information at your fingertips is beyond dispute. > So it's time for traditional media companies to stop whining and face the fact that far too many of them, lulled by a lack of competition and years of pretax profits of 20 percent or more, put cash flow above journalism and badly misread the web when it arrived on the scene. The focus was on consolidation, cost-cutting, and pleasing Wall Street -- not modernization and pleasing their readers. > > They were asleep at the wheel, missed the writing on the wall, let the train leave the station, let the ship sail -- pick your metaphor -- and quickly found themselves on the wrong side of the disruptive innovation the Internet and new media represent. And now they want to call timeout, ask for a do-over, start changing the rules, lobby the government to bail them out, and attack the new media for being... well, new. And different. And transformational. Suddenly it's all about thievery and parasites and intestines. > Free content is not without problems. But it's here to stay, and publishers need to come to terms with that and figure out how to make it work for them. > > And all across the country, passionate entrepreneurs are doing just that, experimenting with new and creative revenue models. TechDirt.com is monetizing its engaged and highly informed community by turning them into focus-groups-for-hire. ProPublica is using a not-for-profit model to produce impact investigative journalism. And there are many different powerful local journalism models, including Voice of San Diego, which supports its award-winning local journalism with a combination of advertising and public radio-style contributions from foundations and users. > As much as I love newspapers -- and fully expect them to survive -- the future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers. Indeed, the future of journalism is to be found, at least partly, in the rapidly growing number of people who connect with the news in a whole new way. > > At the Huffington Post, and at the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, we deeply value the role of professional reporters and editors, and have dozens of them on payroll. And we think the value of editors will only increase as the constant stream of information coming at us continues to swell -- making trusted guides and curators more and more essential to keeping us from being swept away. > > But there is no denying that thousands and thousands of other people want in on the process and have much to contribute to it. And that number will only continue to grow. To deride the value of their contributions is to completely misunderstand the world we live in. > > And the sooner we all embrace that world, the sooner we'll be able to stop the name calling, put aside the increasingly desperate metaphors and increasingly desperate revenue models, and focus on what really matters: ensuring that in the future, journalism will not only survive, but be strengthened and thrive. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
