Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
My experience since posting the Whitewater Fatality story
has been sobering to say the least, and has brought up some real
discomfort and serious questions for me as to what exactly I am doing
here, and what Now Public and all of us are up to. Are we all just
playing at "journalism"? Do I, and most of the rest of us have any
idea what the responsibilities and repercussions of what we are doing
could be? Are the people building and running this website more
concerned about "hits", eyes to site, member growth, recognition for
their inventiveness amongst their web peers, free workers and building
a business that can be sold for big bucks, than they are about creating
a legitimate alternative/additive to mainstream journalism?
What was brought home very clearly for me, and for the first time, was that
what I say here can and does have a direct effect on the lives of other
people, real people, individuals, not big faceless groups, corporations or
institutions. How I construct my sentences, the words I choose, the
personal thoughts and speculations I allow to be posted can and do
impact others.
Existing only in this electronic medium, sitting
here in my office, never having met nor spoken directly to anyone else
at Now Public, removed completely from any direct human connection within this "community",
this whole exercise takes on a strange surreal quality, like playing a
video game. It isn't a game though.
I jump to post the story, partly
due to the fact that it is real news, but being willing to honestly
look at this in 20/20 hindsight, I do so also from an egotistical
desire to scoop all the other services, get that Breaking News Tag, a
painless bump to the top of the front page. I remember that this was
the way it was when I worked on that small daily many years ago but I
am uncomfortable with my motives now due to a significant difference.
In a "normal" commercial daily newsroom the competition revolves around
position, progress and promotion up through the ranks, professional
recognition and the greatest glaring difference, you are hired to do
this and paid for your services. This specific professional relationship
with a recognized established news business legitimates you and the
whole process.
Since we are mostly volunteers here at Now Public, the employee
and pay aspect is removed and I am left looking at my ego. Not a
pretty sight I might add! I know that many of my posts are due to a
strong desire to educate and make a difference in "big issues" facing
all of us today and I hope they actually accpomplish this, but this
story was about the death of a man, not a difference
in political opinion, and this man had a wife, family, friends and a
community. Real up close and personal flesh and blood people
profoundly affected by an irreversible and for some unbearable tragedy.
So here's the personal lesson for me about my handling of this story. It
is news, it is valid, and yet I was not connected to the people
involved, to the effect some of my musings in comments would have on
those left behind by this horrendous event, not really. In a newsroom I would
have had peers to check me and editors to advise me but here, in this
personal vacuum that is Now Public there was none of the traditional
interactions, checks and balances. This is a major structural flaw and
impediment to legitimacy for this site, all sites like it, and citizen
news itself.
That being said I take full responsibility for what
I now see was my cavalier behaviour, will never allow this lapse to
occur again, and hope this discussion and conversation will produce
value for others here, the site creators and those who are paid
employess of Now Public. I know we are in new territory and that no
one has all the clear answers. I also choose to believe that most here are honourable and caring human beings
What also became glaringly
apparent to me from this is that each of us here are on our own. Now
Public has taken the necessary steps to limit its exposure and to
protect itself legally from the repercussions of what appears on the
site, but what about us?
As a paid employee of a daily newspaper
I knew that I had the support of my employer providing I was breaking
no laws. I knew that the paper would assist me if the authorities
tried to force me to reveal my sources, and that I could count on legal
backing if the necessity arose.
We can count on no such support here! It's
really every man/woman for themselves. Should any report we file bring
us into the sites of angry litigious individuals or the authorities, I
expect there will be no professional 'circling of the wagons'. Though
Now Public gains financially from what I contribute, it bears no
responsibility whatsoever to support me, nor for anything original I
initiate other than the reproduction of someone elses photos, which
though spoken about is not policed effectively nor evenly on the site.
I am not angry about this, as I know that due to the very nature of
this format of wide open contributory citizen news, and the structure
of the site Now Public dare not, and cannot in real time take
responsibility for what contributors, who could be lying through the
teeth about who they are, post to the site.
This brings up more troubling questions as to the basic nature and structure of this kind of "journalism".
Without some kind of real structure beyond this are we just playing a new kind
of electronic game, one that may have far reaching implications and consequences? I
have begun to set up a network of "sources" as I would if I was working
for a bona fide news organization, but can I actually in good
conscience use them? Can I expect them to give me tips and information
when by doing so they leave themselves wide open to exposure and
prosecution in this very litigious and politically volatile age? Am I
even provided with credible press identitification to support my
ability to really get in there and dig for a story? Of course not.
The structure again does not support this and would leave Now Public
liable. Will I actually go after real stories under the circumstances? The answer is of course NO.
So what we can expect to see here here will mainly be superficial fluff, copy
and cut and paste of other people's work? Some stories about "I saw
this happen", some photos of what happened, much self-stroking and
stroking of other contributors egos as we play at this cool new game?
But what of the potential in this new medium of real journalism?
I would appreciate hearing what everyone has to say about these questions.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (15)
at 14:29 on July 23rd, 2007
Moonwolf, you've just bumped your nose on a very hard wall.
I've had several of these very painful episodes over the years, including one that coincidentally also had to do with a rafting accident. It happened back in the '80's when I was a TV reporter for CBC, and was sent up north to the Chilco River where there had been an accident reported. I got to the accident site in a helicopter with my camera man but we arrived before the rescue crews had. All we had to offer was our condolences. It was horrible.
It is difficult when human suffering is the chief subject of a news story not to be anguished when grieving family and friends round on you. There's a sense that one has intruded into something that should have been left alone; that's when the tragedy becomes more than a video game, as you put it.
And you are right - professional journalists are paid to take lumps like the one you have just suffered.
But I would encourage you to sit back a bit and not be so hard on yourself. You had some sort of personal connection, which allowed you get the story out in a timely way.
And you did perform a public service, all your anguish notwithstanding: people need to know the risks that they take. The family has expressed some concern that the participants did not receive enough information to make an informed decision about the trip.
Bad things can happen. People need to know.
This reminds me to say this: a few weeks ago, in China, there had been an industrial accident at a construction site. Several workers were killed. The site manager was able to prevent workers from leaving the site for several hours; his notion was to keep the accident from becoming public. Imagine what kind of society we would have without citizens being able to report what they had encountered?
Be kind to yourself, Moonwolf.
at 15:04 on July 23rd, 2007
Thanks!
I needed that! I also know that it is healthy to ask myself the questions, but you are right and I will take your good advice.
at 04:44 on July 24th, 2007
Good questions to ask and many vaild points.While community vote can count, there is still a gatekeeper role required in society and that is a hard cal in a community driven website.
at 18:23 on July 24th, 2007
I agree with ANG and Matte that these are very serious and complicated issues, especially since the current socio-political state of affairs is dangerously punitive. And I also strongly agree that I would like to see some sober discourse on journalistic freedoms, protections and the responsibilities many of perhaps are unaware of as writers/reporters in this very new medium of citizen journalism.
I do not feel that you should beat yourself up because you reported a story as soon as you heard about it and trusted your sources. It happens to the best of them and the most professional thing to do in such a situation is to cop-on to your error and apologise if necessary. Following that, provided you were simply doing what a good reporter would do, (Observe-Document-report) in good faith, thee isn't much more you can do. Any professional in any industry is bound to get a dimension of their efforts off-kilter at some point. You're a human being and in this particular incident, there was a fatality and as expected, some level of grief experienced and expressed by family and friends of the individual at the centre of the piece.
I do not feel that this situation reflects negatively on you or about you. You are a reporter and you acted in accordance that paradigm. Your conscience, (and hey, I could very well be off-base here) is pained because you are equating your haste to get the story published as soon as possible with negligence towards the people involved. I see no malice on your part. And I really think you should give yourself a break, take a deep breath and move on to your next project. I find you a thoughtful and considerate presence on NowPublic and I would not like to see you not doing stories and commenting on this portal or anywhere else you post your work.
Personally, I consider myself an unpaid, autonomous, independent journalist. I take it very seriously and I expect to be taken seriously by my readers. I have over the past 10 years managed to build up a a fairly wide and extremely diverse international readership that feels I bring attention to issues and causes that historically and traditionally been ignored or surpressed. This is my niche and I am very comfortable in it. But at times I also ask myself why I do what I do since this is obviously not simply a hobby and because I cannot be everywhere around the globe at once and in many cases than I care to mention, I must rely on the veracity of the information that comes across my monitor or phone. I check things as best as I can and that's all any of us can do. The times I have been incorrect I have admitted it, posted corections/retractions in a timely manner and re-checked my sources. As many of the other writers here who have a history of paid-journalism behind them I believe you knw that you did your best given the data you had availible to you at the time and you had no reason to doubt your source.
Sit, enjoy some milky chai and continue doing what you are doing. If anything, I honour your sense of responsibility for what you put into the public sphere. If the mainstream corporatised major media had your personal integrity perhaps the news would be more than just adverts in journalistic clothing.
Take care my friend. - The Angryindian
at 09:21 on July 25th, 2007
Thanks Angry,
I think in this evolving enquiry about the ethics of citizen journalism you are an example of what is possible for someone with a sense of social justice and a powerful commitment to honesty, integrity and informing the public such that they can better understand the mounting list of issues all modern humans face. You may, however be in the minority when it comes to pragmatism and principle.
You have built some protections in for yourself due to your profile and presence on the web but that is not the case for the thousands who want to contribute, and though you have done so I am concerned about you my friend. You are not a member of an association, nor affiliated or hired by a site or sites that would step up to the plate if you were attacked. You have great courage but no cover. Step on the wrong toe in this age of increasing government and corporate interference in our lives and who knows what the heck will happen? I know this won't stop you but should something happen your voice may be silenced. This new medium, due to it's lack of structure and clear well-defined statements of purpose and integrity provides no back-up. For real reporting and real whistleblowing to occur those that take it on need to know that someone has their back, someone with some clout. This may not be nice but in my opinion it is true.
As we both know good choices require real, uncoloured information and as we both know the "real" word often gets lost in mainstream media. Unfortunately reality most often gets completely drowned in a miasma of half truths, outright fabrications, propaganda and trivia in citizen journalism and will continue to do so unless some kind of code of ethics is brought to the practice.
You have spent 10 years building your credibility and reach, and yet the bulk of ordinary people still do not consider your work, nor citizen news delivery in general a viable portal onto reality in the world. They have no idea what web sources are credible and which are not, and many do not have the time or inclination to put in the hours that you and I have. So without already having a fairly deep education on current issues, politics, and history they do not have the tools or the time to sort through the deluge on the web and draw reasoned conclusions as to what sources are credible. Thus they just go back to the soundbites on MSNBC.
I am not suggesting that this new possibility of citizen journalism be hammered into a replica of the failed mainstream media, though we would be fools to write off the whole "media" experience, the victories and some of the lessons learned over the last century. Before profit and control became the sole purpose of media conglomerates smaller independent news sources provided a vital service and helped shape the world in which citizen journalism is now growing. They are like our parents in a way, with all that implies.
What I am suggesting is that some websites actually take on the challenge of creating a new level of integrity in this unexplored paradigm. In the "15 minutes of fame" "site du jour" environment on the internet many sites, possibly even most sites are nothing more than technical, intellectual challenges designed by showboats, and entrepreneurial efforts to position their creations to be bought by Google or Fox.
For the blogosphere and citizen news to become credible and something more than a bubbling slumgulleon of background discontent in society some structure needs to be applied. The question is what structure, as we do not want to replicate the glaring flaws of the vacuous behemoths that lumber about claiming to be credible news sources, and yet to become more than a fad we are going to have to dig down and get some roots. One thing about humans is that no matter what we must have structure. Problem is we most often just allow it to "show up" rather than consciously designing it and as such we are all paying the price for this folly in many realms.
I know that these questions are being asked by many in this "industry" and that there are good people involved here. My question in this particular forum is specifically, is Now Public such a principled instrument, or is it just another five year plan to get rich, and have the creators smiling faces plastered around the mainstream press as the latest web successes?
at 14:11 on July 25th, 2007
Some time in the future - either someone working on a doctoral dissertation about citizen journalism, or perhaps an archeologist digging through the digital remains of our civilization - is going to happen upon this conversation.
Either way, it's going to be hard for anyone curious about this phenomenon to dismiss it, or dismiss the sincerity of those who have been on its vanguard.
These conversations are critically important because I think they reflect a natural progression in the development of user-generated news. We're now going beyond the 'fun' of being forward observers, and have begun the process of critically thinking about the consequences, the processes.
Matt E has for a long time been engaging us at NowPublic in these considerations and it's good to see him around, prodding us on. And now we have others enjoined. Angry, it's great to hear your thinking on this stuff, and to see you engaging others.
We're just in the boost phase of this project and I am delighted to have colleagues like all of you who have commented here in the newsroom.
at 19:12 on July 24th, 2007
Interesting the term journalist. This isa professional title, not one to be bandied about and used by 'writers' and bloggers. Journalist is a title that comes through serving the equivalent of an apprenticeship -over a number of years.
This teaches news values, law, ethics, etc.
I ask contributors, PLEASE do not fall into the trap, unless you are a qualified journalist, of calling yourself one. Citizen journalism is a myth. Citizen reporting is still drawing a long bow.... Citizen opinion/observation/contribution is what it is.
Unless there is a focussed shift to implementing basic journalistic standards, NP will remain something OTHER than a journalism site with the reinforcement, support (moral, standards and legal) that a true news organisation affords its participants.
What it will remain is a site where all manner of detritus flows through, plaigerism is rife, unsupported reporting, aimless 'highlighting' of mainstream old news without any form of additional contribution or story development...
So NP is NOT a site that deals in journalism in any form or shape. It
is a depository of everything else but....admittedly there are a very few
journalists who contribute, and good stuff at that for the often brief time they stay and yes there are
some great on-the spot images/videos. So by accepting this you accept
whatever weakness and benefits youas a user of the site perceive.
To Moonwolfe - your original concerns are valid, it is just important to understand the playing field and the rues that apply
at 07:58 on July 25th, 2007
So let me get this straight, only those deemed worthy of sauntering the sacred halls of establishment newsmedia have the privilege of defining themselves as a "journalist"?
I suppose that leaves me out then. But the odd thing is that my readers would not agree. In the past I have been recognised as a notable Native American "newsblogger" by the Canadian Aboriginal Peoples Television Network specifically because they regarded my reportage on First Nations issues to be objective and non-partisan. The U.S. Army representative at the Pentagon has also responded to my coverage of the Pat Tillman affair, something I doubt they would do if I were just a "blogger." I am recognised by new online communities such as the AfroSpear as someone that calls attention to the "unreportable" issues and causes that matter to the rest of us. Not to mention the political websites that list me as an information source.
And as I mentioned earlier, I maintain an international readership. And many of my readers are not Aboriginals. They read me to get stories and perspectives they simply will not find in mainstream corporate news. So while I may not recieve a wage cheque from an "approved" news agency and my apprenticeship was earned on the front line of my direct-action experience as an Indigenist and Human Rights activist. If you want to call my writing information and activity articles for our hand-outs propaganda, so be it. At the time, I was praised by regional activists as the sole voice of reality on what was really happening on the streets of NYC during the late 80's in regards to the threat posed by organised gangs of White racist neo-Nazi thugs. ABC producers seemed to think, they found out about the violence through my news-sheets that were distributed by activists running off copies to give out. I never recieved any credit for this, but it was understood that it was my efforts that helped expose a very serious issue. And by extension, it was also a basis for what has become a worldwide movement, SHARP: Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice.
Not bad for a "blogger," no? - The Angryindian
at 12:58 on July 25th, 2007
You make a larger difference than you know!
I have a friend in Australia that is setting up to take on the Howard government in their abysmal behaviour towards the aboriginals and the problems they face in their communities. I will have her contact you. She is a powerhouse with great connections and I'm sure your expertise and connections could help her with that vital cause.
at 12:59 on July 25th, 2007
as an add-on to the reply below:
Her online handle is Juledu and I have requested she join Now Public, as well as directing her to your blog.
at 13:50 on July 25th, 2007
without reading all responses deeply, yes unless you have done the professional training then you should not call yourself a journalist. Training brings into awareness many aspects that may not have previously been included in a writers arena of consideration.
Maybe call oneself an engineer, dentist or whatever as well if you have put up a cubby house or pulled a very wobbly tooth from a child's mouth...;)
The WWW has no impact on the definition - training is training....sure one can be an excellent writer, and excellent researcher, etc but the ability to use the term legitimately is still linked to mainstream training and will be for the forseeable future (and I do not include correspondence courses either!)
at 16:46 on July 25th, 2007
I'm not denying the competence nor professional attitude of several contributors, including others not named.
Yes they do great work.
Just getting a discussion going ;)
We could also debate the term Media - as in 'crowd powered media' . The title changed from 'crowd powered news' after I challenged the application of the term news...
Should we be submitting short comic films as well on this site - does that meet the term 'media'?
Ideally I'd like to see NP shift it's theme to a more accurate one - 'views on events', 'views on the news' etc
What do you think? (PS it is a shame the system has removed the ability to email other members as well - what does THAT imply?)
at 17:06 on July 25th, 2007
I've tried telling someone about the email ...
Basically I don't have any committment to NP - I'm just a bitter and twisted ex early editor totally frustrated by the way NP is going .... your original comments on this thread are very pertinent - don't be lulled by false assurances.... and keep pushing - you might be able to do what I failed to do.
at 18:52 on July 25th, 2007
feel free to email me if you'd like - me200548 AT hotmail Dot com
at 19:13 on July 25th, 2007
One thing that is very clear to me is that, love it or loathe it, people are figuring out that they now have the tools that once held only by the pros (as it were), and the means of transmission as well. Blogging as we know it is ten years old, really, and people are just now figuring out what they can do with the medium. The corollary of that is citizen journalism: Untrained, unedited (for the most part), but they're still gonna be out there doing it, and that's basically how it's going to be. NowPublic (and that includes you!) is at the very front of this movement, so the very best we can do is to lead by example. angryindian is an excellent example of this, as is violatedrights. Both use the means at their disposal to pursue subjects they're passionate about.
Active though I am on the site in an editorial capacity, my real role here is not is to facilitate the proper use of these tools. That also involves letting 'em play: sometimes folks have to see what not to do in order to see what is actually possible.
(A huge chunk of the junk content that folks try to foist on us never escapes my talons, by the way, and the percentage of spam has actually gone down vis-a-vis our growing membership, which is something that we can be proud of-- it ain't perfect yet, but the future is more Star Wars than Star Trek, right?)
at 11:16 on July 26th, 2007
Thanks for jumping in Jordan.
In my opinion, some of what you say is true and some of it is just plain flippant
Basically what I hear you say is, "Hey we're new, the whole situation is new, don't expect too much, and well it's the wild wild west out here and when in Rome, but trust us.
I agree there needs to be a high level of openness and flexibility, but in my opinion unbridled access-integrity=trash, an ocean of babble, in which good ideas, solutions for what ails us and credible dialogue may drown, and one in which people will eventually tire of swimming in a sea of hate, feces and empty packaging. It would be a real shame to see the potential for social value of this new medium lost on a drunken bet made by frontier entrepreneurs and gunslingers.
So basically if I may say so, there are two schools of thought on this.
One is yahoo! let's go! hands off, unrestrained, whatever happens, let's just see where it goes, as long as we don't get sued and NP rides the crest of the wave to........???
If this, by the way, is the real goal of NP then why not just say so? The silence on this issue is deafening. I don't even have a problem with that choice as it is NP's to make, but it would be honest to be clear with the volunteers here if that is indeed the case, then they get to choose based on their principles whether they want to be associated with NP or not. What should we the volunteers who fuel your business conclude when the company which claims to be in the communication business, and it's paid employess never answer tough questions directly, don't fulfill on promises they make, and don't explain why, meet most enquiries with silence, or do a bit of a song and dance with trite phrases and some writing razzle dazzle by way of an answer? Again I digress.
The second school of thought might be to begin the process of engaging the participants, even at our lowly level in an open enquiry as to how we can create this amazing new tool, such that it may be relied upon by those seeking credibilityand real information, and is built upon solid commitments to integrity and social responsibility, in a form which fosters openess and evolution.
"but the future is more Star Wars than Star Trek, right?" What the heck does that mean?
I'll take a shot in the dark and guess that you may be referring to the overall tone and slant of each series, although the obtuse nature of the statement makes it anybody's guess.
Pesrsonally I'll go with a future based on Star Trek rather than Star Wars. It bodes better for the survival of the species.
at 16:06 on July 26th, 2007
I should have explained my analogy better... in Star Trek, the future is depicted as straight out of the box, with no evidence of assembly or evolution. Everything Just Works like in a computer advert, and somewhere there's a T-Mobile/Rogers/Optus/DoCoMo mobile phone kiosk that stocks tricorders. In Star Wars, all the tech is visibly cobbled together, all broken panels and exposed wiring, and many of the creatures cannot understand one another... (I'm referring to the 1970's-1980's trilogy, the only three that matter, but that's another story).
As for what NowPublic's ultimate goal is, I honestly don't know. It began as a sort of clearing-house for mobile phone pics (originally the name of the company was Blue Here Now), and it has evolved rather far beyond that.
The way I see it, and this is what attracted me here in the first place (I was a wrangler prior to working here), was that NP was like that egg game I loved as a child: you build a contraption out of string, tinfoil and tape, creating a vehicle that will allow an egg to be dropped from a ladder and land unbroken. However, the person dropping the egg can drop it however he or she wants. I found that game very frustrating and very addictive at the same time.
It's frustrating when I show up at six in the morning and am presented with a bunch of bogus stuff like weight-loss adds or whatever, or some spammer whose user icon was a woman's gyrating bum (I'm not making that up, and, anyone reading this, don't even think of trying it) or random rants in the "politics" section. It's addictive when someone sends in a story written in English-as-a-third language along with crazy photos of a storm that's raging outside their window that CNN can't even get close to, or even when one local dude in Vancouver posted a story about how a water park opened during a rainstorm.
As you say, though, 'wolf, without integrity, each post loses value, and that's where we, and by "we" I mean all of us, come in... We have to lead by example, because, try as we might, we will not all turn into professional journos. I, for one, lack the fundamental ability to control my snark. Others may lack the ability to take perfect photos or whatever. Looking back, though, we also see how media has changed from back in the day until now: Even Edward R Murrow's journalism would be considered TMZ compared to the hyper-local, hyperdetailed coverage circa the Civil War: in Amusing ourselves to Death, Neil Postman discusses how incredibly involved the political debates were, with the primary face-offs lasting all-day meal breaks for the audience and everything. Now we've got a few questions on YouTube. The benefit of the former is really obvious. The benefit of the latter is less so; however, there's something to be said for being able to get involved, even at an inexpert level. On the other hand, we're part of the first-ever tech generation that can talk back to the boxes that talk to us. I love it. And it's frustrating sometimes when I can't be heard over everyone else!
So if I don't directly answer your question, it's because my answer just keeps changing, but you asked fair and square, so here goes: for now I do this because it makes me feel potent in a world that just seems determined to marginalize me.
Our founders founded NP because they figured (as history bears out) that early and diligent innovators in media tend to do better than their followers, and if it were just about money we'd have all gone to law school. As to where the wave will crash, I deeply hope it's not against the rocks, since I don't have my resumé in order.
at 16:34 on July 26th, 2007
That reply is an articulate gem and I am not being facetious!
Thanks for sharing some of who you are in all this talk.
I agree with you and feel the same way, like a 58 year old kid in a candy store. Problem is the packaging is way too new for me to figure which is frustrating and fascinating. Second problem is I have to eat more than candy or we all know the results.
Potency in a marginalizing world, on that I totally concur, but with the provisio of not just potency for the sake of it but hand in hand with use the Force Luke, speak up and make a difference. Potency and power were a very frustrated Hitler's big goals when he was a nobody as I recall.
I had no idea where NP came from and that is very interesting indeed, and the point about being lawyers is also well taken also but doesn't preclude a desire for wealth and recognition.
I think I am actually experiencing comradeship with a disembodied photograph which occasionally spews an electronic rendition of type onto a screen. Might be weird but hey! I'm up for just about anything in this brave new world, but want to help the world have time for the scenario to play out.
So I guess what Angry says is pertinent, "Where to now?"
If this outfit has no vision or mission statement maybe it could have? If you don't know where it's going these direction indicators have not been articulated by the owners.
All I'm saying is maybe it's time to consider NP going from growth just because it can to a vision and mission statement. Cancer grows just because it can and nobody really thinks that's very cool.
Why don't you broker a powow with Mr. Brody and any other 'powers that be' and some of the Wranglers who have spoken up. Maybe it's time and hey, if you never ask the answer is always no.
at 09:45 on July 26th, 2007
I'm just happy to see this discussion appearing somewhere at all. The real question as mentioned by I would think all of us here is, "where to now?" Jordan is quite right that this is only ten years old, if that, and now people with no access to media representation have the power, if they can get access to a PC, to raise news, issues and causes previously suppressed by the mainstream. So to some degree as with everything else we discuss here, the establishment media is going to have to adapt or die.
I qualify this opinion based on how fast major media swamped the podcasting world. My show was one of the first 1000 podcasts and before I knew it, APPLE decided to marginalise podcasts to "accepted" media they deemed worth promoting. Of course this does not prevent anyone with the means to produce and distribute content, but the lockdown imposed on "legitimate" media has restricted mainstream podcasting to primarily White, middle-to-right wing and religious programmes that initially lampooned the new medium.
Matte, I fully understand your concerns. If I had a dime for every European who tells me of a mythical great-great Cherokee princess grandmother I would have that new used car Ms. Angryindian would like purchase and spare change for a newer notebook. But at some point the system is going to have to change. It never has had a problem co-opting paradigms from others and calling it their own. I'm not calling for tit-for-tat, just a re-definition with ample amounts of discourse on the rules of engagement for this new medium built on the foundations of what has come before. I'm not an anti-intellectual Pol Pot. I can conceive of other options and we need not throw out the child with the bath water.
My 2 shekels.
at 11:34 on July 26th, 2007
I'll see your two and raise you three. :))
Thanks for your well thought out addition to this.
It is really the "discourse" that matters to me.
True discourse requires honest intention and concern for one another.
As Marshal MacLuhan said "The medium is the message." So what message are we building into this medium?
That's the question I keep asking.
"the establishment media is going to have to adapt or die." Absolutely true and they have the vested interest, structure, viewers/readers/listeners, the money, and the connections to do just that and you know they will throw everything they have at it. If we allow our arrogance to drive this all they have to do is pluck the low hanging fruit, the "Good Stuff", wait, and let the whole "movement" drown in its own shit, unless we are willing to produce something that will stand the test of credibility and time, and holds up under ethical scrutiny.
So far many are not making the grade.
at 09:46 on July 26th, 2007
I'm just happy to see this discussion appearing somewhere at all. The real question as mentioned by I would think all of us here is, "where to now?" Jordan is quite right that this is only ten years old, if that, and now people with no access to media representation have the power, if they can get access to a PC, to raise news, issues and causes previously suppressed by the mainstream. So to some degree as with everything else we discuss here, the establishment media is going to have to adapt or die.
I qualify this opinion based on how fast major media swamped the podcasting world. My show was one of the first 1000 podcasts and before I knew it, APPLE decided to marginalise podcasts to "accepted" media they deemed worth promoting. Of course this does not prevent anyone with the means to produce and distribute content, but the lockdown imposed on "legitimate" media has restricted mainstream podcasting to primarily White, middle-to-right wing and religious programmes that initially lampooned the new medium.
Matte, I fully understand your concerns. If I had a dime for every European who tells me of a mythical great-great Cherokee princess grandmother I would have that new used car Ms. Angryindian would like purchase and spare change for a newer notebook. But at some point the system is going to have to change.
It never has had a problem co-opting paradigms from others and calling it their own. I'm not calling for tit-for-tat, just a re-definition with ample amounts of discourse on the rules of engagement for this new medium built on the foundations of what has come before. I'm not an anti-intellectual Pol Pot. I can conceive of other options and we need not throw out the child with the bath water.
My 2 shekels.