Greetings Economists,
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
Yeah. Problem is most people don't want to listen to radio
programmed by amateurs. It's largely unbearable, except for the
occasional bit of unintentional comedy. Actual event over the WBAI
airwaves a few years ago: "Let's listen to the Harlem Boys'
Choir...I think this is the Harlem Boys' Choir, but the tape isn't
labeled. Let's see.....Oh, no, sorry, that wasn't the Harlem Boys'
Choir." Etc.
Doyle;
The problem of people listening, that is massive audiences for a
single show (not necessarily one person show), is that it confines
listeners to what is being presented rather than treating information
as highly variable and the variable content is a value in and of
itself. Let's take Wikipedia which is totally volunteer, it vets it's
content by an elaborate editing criteria or protocol. The key issue
being that it surpassed commercial endeavors and is more a used source
than encyclopedias of yore, because the variable amateur content
actually is more value producing than the commercial efforts. But for
now these are isolated reference points in a debate about what is a
networking really going to do in the long run.
The erosion to the internet of mass audiences is undeniable on network
television. The means of applying standards as you refer above is
likely to be with us for a long time no matter whether we are talking
networked information or old media. But standards imply a means to
achieve results in either context, not so much that networks can't
provide standards. The gradual shift from watching tv to being in
front of computer monitor drawing kids away from TV strikes me as a
validation that more networked (interactive information) experiences
are more compelling.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
