Networked Journalism

Post your responses to the SuperMedia chapters here (by noon Tuesday). Focus particularly on chapter 2, but also discuss which of the book’s remaining chapters you chose to read—and provide a summary/analysis of it, for the benefit of those who read other chapters.


18 Responses to “Networked Journalism”

  1. 1 meerarajagopalan February 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    In chapter two I completely agree with the idea of journalists having to network. We do rely so much on our peers, even though we are also competing with our peers. We are all trying to be the first ones to “break a story,” but at the same time we generally help our fellow journalists when it comes down to it. I know I have helped out my peers when it comes to different tasks.

    Another thing I found interesting is the transformation of the media. It really is much cheaper now, especially as journalists learn more skills they are able to be more self-sufficient, doing most of the stories by them selves, with out a big crew around them.

    In chapter five they talk about how the increase in journalism should equal an increase in social and editorial value. I agree. Journalists should be able to adapt to their surroundings. Just because a journalists grew up in the city, does not mean they can only write for the city. Journalists must become chameleons . Journalists need to also be more creative, using the new technologies that emerge, expanding their horizons.

  2. 2 Amy Neyhard February 9, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    I think that Journalists have already been networking with viewers/readers in getting story ideas. I think that the level of working together that the book refers to is hard to imagine. Being a professional, yes most take suggestions by the public about what story to report on and sources to interview but the level of a back and forth continuous posts and input is going to be hard to do. Because most professionals are going to want to do things the way that they were taught and trained to do.

    I liked Jeff Jarvis’ comment of “the more that journalists act like citizens, the better journalism will become.” It is a good way of looking at it. We need to think like citizens to know what and how to report a story and what angle we need to take. The idea of a journalist becoming a facilitator rather than a gatekeeper is going to be a huge change. Will professionals be able to do this?

    Here is a question that I do have. The idea of people texting, wiki, blogging to newsrooms…how many people really do this? What age group is doing this? I don’t even know how to do any of this and where to begin to but people do do this.

    The agenda set by the public could become a problem. That’s why journalists still need to be gatekeepers. They need to facilitate what is being reported so that news doesn’t become a mess and hard to understand.

    In Chapter 4, it really focused on how terror is a “gesture of power, an image of defiance, a token of threat, intended to frighten, humiliate, and provoke.” Beckett suggests that we as journalists need to embrace freedom of speech in other countries and understand the issues and cultural norms in those countries. Beckett focuses on Muslim culture as the prime example. That reporters and people are scared about the country and do not learn about it. Which he suggests that all journalists do because of past mistakes of reported stories. Journalists were ignorant of the culture and therefore the stories were incomplete and had false accusations. For example, the case of Molly,(Her father was from Pakistan and her mother was Scottish. She chose on her own free will to go with her father during the divorce. The news reported it a kidnapping which also led to negative stories about the culture.) He says that ignorance about Muslims is what is causing bias in other countries.

  3. 3 Robert Rich February 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    First things first, I understand the importance of networked journalism, with professionals now teaming up with amateurs and sites like gaining ground. However, this reading actually made me think of something else. It’s clear that things need to be changed in journalism, so how about this: finally decide upon one single world and national news aggregator. I know that we’ve got the AP, but the New York Times and other big papers still often send out reporters on big stories. Why don’t we just let the AP or just let the Times handle these national stories, and then everybody can use those articles that get produced. That would allow newsrooms to keep all of their reporters at home and they can focus on delivering even more local and personalized content to their readers. I know this sounds simple, but it looks as though many news organizations still feel they have to send out a ton of reporters to big events, when there’s plenty of stuff they could be covering at home. Let a big organization report that national news, and you stay home and make your local coverage more comprehensive, more interactive and more interesting.

    The other chapter I read was chapter 4: Terror, Community and Networked Journalism. It was an interesting chapter that told of the importance of networked journalism in the ever-continuing “war on terror,” and spoke of how networks of different news organizations can use each and their coverage to understand the differences among cultures and use that to assist in their reporting. It really is an interesting concept, because for many news organizations in the US, covering events like the Danish cartoon saga featured much bias and ignorance, based on the misconceived notions we have of Islam and the Koran, and everything else regarding that situation and ethnic group. But by networking with other news organizations and analyzing their coverage, we can ensure that we don’t always print those same biases and can possibly make our coverage better.

  4. 4 Justine February 9, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    I think Robert’s idea of sending only AP or Times to do major national stories is an attractive idea. It gets to be ridiculous when thousands of reporters are covering the same story (no creative angles are left on the big picture). This story from gawker awhile back reminded me of this concept but with photo journalists…

    However, I don’t think only one or two reporters or large newspapers should be sent to cover all national stories. Maybe news organizations could mix it up that way there wouldn’t be any one newspaper gaining the majority control. Bias and objectivity could be a problem with this strategy though. I think it’s a good idea to have more reporters cover localized “niche” stories that people are interested in. Most of the citizen media websites I looked at dealt with a community of news and most of it revolved around local stories and information that would pertain to the audience on a day to day basis.

    As for the idea of network journalism (from chapter 2)… I think it is inevitable. I agree with Beckett when he says “journalism must retain its core ethics and its vital skills” but it must adapt to survive. Now that citizens have the opportunity to blog, interact and contribute their own news to society, nothing is going to stop them. It’s in journalists’ best interest to pair with the audience to provide well rounded news. I think its funny how Beckett said in the past journalism was like a cult where members had their own rules, languages and customs. All the rules are out the door now with the internet’s capability. But still people rely on the major sites, NY times etc, to get their news because it’s trusted. When journalists network with citizens it must be done in a way that has regulations or “gate keeping” to keep fluff out of the news and give audiences real journalism.

    I’ve also started to read chapter 5, Networked Journalism in Action: Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy. It focuses on the idea that journalism is being reinvented and the new principles that come along with the public such as, extra diversity and editorial value. Beckett encourages Media Studies on how media had changed and affected our world and the way we communicate. It is a major aspect of our government, society and daily life.

  5. 5 Justine February 9, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    sorry the link is from Adrian Monck.. not gawker!

  6. 6 Kristin February 9, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    I do think we are starting to see this idea of “networked journalism” but there is still a lot to be done before the term truly takes off. But, we have to start somewhere! Like I have said before, I really think the problem is with getting the public involved. After looking at several of those citizen media sites it seems that the idea of having a few people in control of the community sites is still the norm. But this needs to change if networked journalism is going to work. The whole idea behind it is having amateurs and professionals BOTH contributing and in so many ways it seems that there are just not enough amateurs participating. Later on in the chapter there is a quote from Michael Oreskes that says journalists “interpret what our audiences do not have time to study and interpret..” So, I am wondering, if the general public is so busy with their jobs and lives, are they going to be willing to take the time to help contribute to journalism? I think one of the bigger problems is going to be showing the audience and teaching them this new idea of networked journalism in a way that makes it appealing and urgent enough for them to participate. Forcing the public to take responsibility is not going to be an easy task.

    I liked the bit on Jay Rosen’s and the way he describes it as journalism without the media. This is a new way of looking at it and stated in a way I have not seen before. He also says it is an attempt to see what “alternative fund raising might work,” which is absolutely a necessary step to take before diving off into something that might be completely unsuccessful and unappealing in the public’s eyes.

    I too read chapter four on terror and community. I think this is an important section to explore because it seems that at times the media definitely has a tough time reporting on conflicting groups with little or no bias. I especially liked the sentence in the beginning of the chapter that said, “The media has to give a voice to those hurt by terror and those driven to use it.” I rarely see an story about terrorist from the perspective of the ones driven to use it. Beckett argues that with networked journalism, separate communities will be able to come together to accurately cover and present all sides to issues on terror and security. This certainly will be an interesting idea to watch unfold.

  7. 7 Jill February 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    First, I wanted to say that the whole concept of Networked Journalism seems huge…put definately useful as we go forward in the industry. I kept going back to Jarvis’ definition, mainly a collaborative effort, between journalists and citizens. The established and the unestablished. I also noted that in Chapter 2 Beckett noted that shift gave journalists a new position. Journalists become sort of a middle man between citizen contribution and the established forms of media. The journalist uses his skills and techniques to give the story definition, but no longer is he or she the sole source of content.

    Beckett retouches on this theme in Chapter 5 about Media Literacy. He mentions how with all this information there need to people to shift through, judge and prioritize what is important. Basically, deciding what is at the top of the stack. However, with network journalism comes a responsiblity for editiorial diversity. I found this concept particulary interesting. Beckett argues that diversity of the readers is more complex that ethnicity or politics but instead the different ‘modes’ the public goes into. They shift from professional, personal, political, social, etc. With the new resource of the citizens, editorial content must reflect that. To do this the industry must engage in “openess…with new sources perspectives, and narratives.” Beckett suggest external links and other multimedia techniques to integrate views from more sources. Stories then become multilayer and not stagnate. He stipulates it might seem counterintuitive to classic standards of objectivity. However trying to cover everything with integration might cause inefficiency.

    In my opinion it is a value judgment. Would you rather have staff (non citizens) covering everything in stagnant, classic journalist ways? With possible inefficieny? Or would you rather go like Jarvis ‘cover what you do best, link the rest’. I would submit there is a problem with this last one. Yes it will get you editorial diversity, however you might be comprising editorial integrity when you are not invested for your own content.

  8. 8 ldechant February 10, 2009 at 1:39 am

    I think the idea of networked journalism is different, but I do not necessarily think it is something that will work if not executed correctly. Journalists dedicate every bit of their time to uncovering the story for the public, so citizens need to do equal work as well to keep informed and provide a well balanced story. It is scary to think that journalists will eventually become insignificant because non-journalists are reporting the news and not the other way around. It is also intimidating to think that my possible career and all my training might be insignificant. Yes we should network and use our sources, but should we allow our reporting to take a backstage to the citizens writing the stories, or should our stories be deemed more credible?

    I also decided to peruse chapter four on terror and community. This topic has always fascinated me, because how does one report on the news concerning the war without bias? How do we try to paint a fair an accurate picture of what is happening to the people being affected? Everyday citizens and journalists can work hand in hand in this scenario to help paint the picture of the affected, because they are the citizens of that particular region, who are witnessing what is going on daily.

  9. 9 Simrat Sharma February 10, 2009 at 9:09 am

    I agree with Robert and Justine about sending more reporters than needed at an event. After all, once a big story breaks, there are many different ways to handle it and report it to suit local/niche audiences. From the reading on Networked Journalism, one can see how stories like this could snowball into community discussion and forums for citizen-generated content.

    I had believed that the sentiment behind blogs was novel until I read about the similarity between today’s political blogs and the pamphlets of the early days. Individual voices, outside of the media system, always existed and have found ways to be heard. Beckett says that they had the same loose ties with classical objectivity and opinion. So this concept of citizen journalism that we are talking about has been a recurring factor in the annals of news. Today, the focus is shifting toward “ the process rather than the product,” according to Beckett.

    The shift of the balance of power between the media and consumer in networked journalism is also interesting. The old days when newspaper boys raced the streets to proclaim the generic headline of the day have changed to folksonomy culture where we determine the type of news that comes to us through feeds and emails. News is also “getting cheaper” which is great but then again, how do we sustain it? Beckett seems to think that the money lies in building consumer communities for news but any sort of community would have to be voluntary and engaging, making it difficult to separate from the free nature of the internet. The examples of networked journalism brought the Obama campaign to mind. Online communities and pamphlets helped foster large groups together for that cause as well. Similarly, the idea of using new media to benefit the working of NGOs was also interesting.

    I read Chapter 4 on terror, community and networked journalism. The greatest collaboration of professional and “amateur” reporters occurs during a crisis, after all. Photos from cell phones, text alerts and other sirens are usually raised by ordinary by standers to these calamities before the news vans roll in. In terms of diversity, the Western news media seem to be very helpless or ungraceful when it comes to dealing with Muslims. I have always found the gap between these two communities odd because I have grown up knowing Arabs as well as Americans. Most Muslims feel alienated in mainstream media and the challenge for reporters is to report objectively through a very strong bias in most cases. Moreover, people want to hear only certain stories about certain communities.

    The conflict in Palestine is a great example of the success of networked journalism because bloggers and reporters in the region join forces to give voice to these people locked away from the rest of the world.

  10. 10 Scott Richert February 10, 2009 at 9:54 am

    I first want to comment on what Robert said. I think that allowing one organization to take control of the reporting for major national news events might not be the best way to improve local reporting. I believe that the amount of content produced on a local level might increase in this scenario, the quality would decrease. If you have one organization vying for all the big stories, then every one who is worth their weight in peanuts is going to try work for them. That leaves nobody to cover the local stuff. I do think we shouldn’t flood a major event with reporters, but there is always more than one story anywhere, and if we allow one group to try to find all the angles, something will be missed.

    I enjoyed the readings in chapter 2. I really like the way this guy writes. It is very conversational and easy to read. I also like his idea of networked journalism. Connecting professional and amateur reports in order to allow collaboration is a very interesting concept. I believe that the more people we have reporting something, the more we can fully examine a story. As UT journalism professor Bill Minutaglio once told me, “The only way to tell the whole story is to become immersed in it.” In this day however, it is nearly impossible to immerse yourself in a story (unless you are writing for a magazine and have all kinds of time). Therefore, with this new collaboration of pro and amateurs, we can finally achieve every angle that breaking news has to offer.

    For my other chapter, I, like every one else read chapter 4. I think it is really interesting to link terror with networked journalism, but when you think about it it is true. The amateurs are already there when things happen. Everyone has a phone or a computer or a camera, and information spreads much faster when the people who witness an event can use these things to their full potential.

  11. 11 Rachel February 10, 2009 at 10:27 am

    There was a lot to process in Chapter 2. I liked the in depth analysis of what networked journalism actually is; we’ve been talking about it in class, but I like having an actual definition to draw from.

    When I was going back through Chapter 2 to comment on it, I noticed I had only highlighted two sentences. The first is on page 66: “I am convinced that the Networked Journalist who deliberately uses that new technology in the creation and dissemination of their material and who engages with the public most fully and directly will be the journalist whose work lives longest.” I think as a student of journalism, one of the greatest fears seems to be that journalism will just sort of fade into obscurity. How can you compete with thousands of news sources and blogs on the web from all over the world? How can you make your stories of importance to the reader? How can you show the audience that what you are reporting on is important to them? Using the new technology to your benefit and really understanding how networked journalism works can definitely help journalism stay relevant in the modern world.

    The second passage I highlighted is on page 72: “However, one interesting study showed that the early adopting, social networking generation still trust old media more, they just don’t use it.” I would say that is a major revelation. How can we get them to use the old media? I guess the answer would be to have the old media become more networked and accessible to this generation. I would be interested to know how many tips and photos and comments a day a newspaper receives. Even just the Statesman, to see how much the community is already participating in the news. We are learning that networked journalism is the answer to many of the questions, but there seems to be little information on what is actually working right now. Everyone is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

    In Chapter 3, Beckett discusses how politics is being affected by networked journalism. One of the more interesting sections was how YouTube may be swaying voters, but not necessarily through debates or political promises. One example is of Senator George Allen’s racist gaffe to a person from the opposing side who was filming the rally and then posted it to YouTube. As a young person, I would be more likely to view the YouTube video than I would be to comb through all of the articles written about him, and I would probably be swayed in my vote because of it. Though it’s not political, how many people have listened to Christian Bale’s tirade and thus had their opinion of him changed? The internet and citizen journalism makes it harder for politicians (and anyone in the public eye) to just hide behind the old ways of doing things.

  12. 12 Lauren Oakley February 10, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Networked journalism is an important element to the future and fate of our profession on so many levels. If we don’t want professional journalism to die, then we have to team up with citizen journalists and co evolve together to deliver the news so they do not take our jobs, readership, and SALARY. Networking with sources, peers and even competitors will result in a solid story rather than struggling to complete a story on your own by scrounging up sources when you can gather one from simply calling one of your contacts and asking. Sometimes journalists are so consumed with the competitive nature of the industry, that they forget to network and utilize their peers for stories.

    I think a solution to increase readership all around is to finally determine one news aggregator for world and national news, like Robert said, and to continue incorporating practices of network journalism.

    I worked for a small newspaper over Christmas, and after really becoming in touch with readers, most of them said they would read the newspaper more if their kids were in it or if it was relative to the community and local interests. So, a month before working there, the newspaper ran into a big controversy with the community about the decision on not printing Obama’s victory on Nov. 5 anywhere in the paper and replacing it with a county commissioner’s race instead.

    Here is the story for more info:

    I do not support the publisher’s African American comment by the way, just for the record.

    So in the case of not reporting Obama’s victory, a historical moment worldwide, is this right or wrong since it was a small local newspaper focusing on local news rather than national news, to NOT print Obama’s victory? I can just get a visual of some poor elderly lady walking out in her yard on Nov. 5 to fetch her Terrell Tribune and not knowing who won the presidential election because it wasn’t printed and she doesn’t believe in TV or radio. I don’t know.

    I also began to read Chapter 3 on networked journalism and the importance of reporting politics. Reporting politics is the most important function of journalism. Journalism serves as a checks and balances for society on democracy and government. Beckett addresses the fact that network journalism is changing society’s view on politics with the power of reporting politics on blogs, YouTube and other innovations connected with the internet. Beckett also emphasizes on civic engagement in Networked Political Journalism and how the news media is becoming involved in political forums of social networking sites by adapting to the evolution of political conversation.

  13. 13 oliviafong February 10, 2009 at 11:34 am

    I agree with Rich’s idea that we should leave it up to the big news agencies like AP, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal to cover national and international news. Local news agencies can make much better use of their time and resources by reporting on things going on in their own area or on how national and international happenings affect their hometowns specifically. News, then, would be much more streamlined. However, I could see how having just a handful of editors having that much power being pretty dangerous. It seems dangerous for just a few select editors to be the interpreters and gatekeepers of important news.

    I agree with Simrat that in times of crisis, professional journalists seem much willing to collaborate with citizen journalists because they seem to have the scoop. Again, though, I see the danger on relying too heavily on them, as ordinary citizens are not really trained to look at the whole picture, make sure they get the facts straight before reporting, an view situations through an objective lens. Using their unique perspectives on situations is important, of course, but making reports based on unverified information during times of heightened fear is probably not always a good idea.

  14. 14 samanthadeavin February 10, 2009 at 11:43 am

    I agree with Scott in that the conversational tone of Beckett’s book makes it really easy to read and understand – while time has not yet permitted it, I am eager to read this book in its entirety.

    I found chapter 2 and its focus on network journalism very interesting, and came away from it with the understanding that network journalism is essentially the coupling of traditional jounralistic practice and the emerging forms of citizen journalism. The fact that they meet somewhere in between makes me think that in terms of trustworthiness and maximum exposure and involvement, network journalism, as Beckett predicts, IS the way to ‘save’ journalism.

    I also really liked the way that Beckett proposed that the business of network journalism is an opportunity. This positive approach to changes to journalism in the face of new media was refreshing, and I believe very true. If we look at this as an exciting new chapter in journalism, and position ourselves at the forefront of this change, we are the ones best equipped to take advantage of and benefit from these new opportunities.

    In regards to the comments posted above about the possibility of one news aggregator, I think that in theory this is a logical and ‘easy’ way out. However, I think that Beckett makes a valid point as to the reasons this would never work. On page 76 he explains that ‘The consumer was always King but now they can choose their Kingdom too’. Beckett outlines choice as an essential aspect of the media, and as such, I think an overwhelming amount of media sources will prevail over a single aggregator.

    The other chapter I chose to look at was chapter 5, which spoke about editorial diversity and media literacy. In a nutshell, Beckett argues that editorial diversity in the form of story lines as well as those reporting the stories are crucial to the longevity of good journalism. He also outlines network journalism as the best avenue through which to achieve this. In this chapter Beckett also argues that increased and improved media literacy is essential in sustaining journalism. Through increased education in ‘new media’, and the re-orientation of all institutions approach to the media, it will enable all citizens to be part of the new news production process.

  15. 15 Sarah Lacy February 10, 2009 at 11:45 am

    Networked journalism makes complete sense when you look at the evolution of communication and the evolution of the media. As new technologies are created, the communication systems that came before are changed. The Internet and networked journalism just take the rudimentary processes that journalists already have to a new level. Journalists have always worked with others (sources, contacts in their beats, etc.). Some of the restraints that used to be present in journalism are now lifted with the Internet and web 2.0, therefore, a more complete network can develop. Journalists can now have a dialogue with more people.

    By talking about the evolution of journalism I think it is important to realize how often all of the articles and pieces we have read emphasize the recent phenomenon that we call journalism. The concept was not even developed until basically the 19th century and did not become what we know today until the 20th century. It is a new phenomenon that is not grounded in tradition. It is constantly changing and will continue to change.

    In class we always talk about how the audience is now an interactive part of the process. I thought that the example given by Beckett about The Fort Myers News Press asking the readers to sift through FEMA data was a great idea. It is putting the source right out there for the public. The public dictated what was relevant. The work of many people helped to accomplish more than that of a few reporters trying to do that same work on their own. Novel ideas such as this one should be employed to expand network journalism.

    In addition to Chapter 2, I also read the chapter on networked journalism and politics. It was interesting to read the section on how networked journalism is influencing politics in Africa. Beckett describes the “digital divide” that is present in these developing countries and how networked journalism can be seen on the more basic level of cell phones. We tend to focus on the United States and Western media, but the Internet and networking are affecting the entire world. Taking all areas into account can give us a better idea of the impact new technology will have on the media.

  16. 16 Michele Pierini February 10, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Networked journalism is everywhere on the web. With readers contributing more and more to news sites, there needs to be a greater level of interactivity and new ways of packaging material.

    I agree with Jeff Jarvis about how it would be cool to see blog posts from the sources themselves. It’s nice to read a well written account featuring the people involved, but it’s even better to get a first hand account.

    News media appealing to the public for content is good for them, because they get a lot more perspective on certain topics and events. But I am not looking forward to the day when the only material used is shitty videos random people captured on their phones. Like Jay Rosen said, a lot of media that citizens put out there is 1% high quality, 10% acceptable and the rest is crap.

    If networked journalism is used as another way of putting editors, writers and readers all on the same level, it reminds me more of communistic journalism. Where everyone takes part equally and everyone has invested ownership in the entity, but the material belongs to the collective not to any individual.

    Chapter 4 was interesting. Networked journalism could give a group like the Muslims a chance to change their perceived image. I actually watched a British drama about some suicide bombers. It was well done, but extremely tragic, as if there was no way for the people involved in the bombing to escape their fate. Like it would have happened anyway because they were Muslim and that’s what Muslims do.

  17. 17 stephenkeller February 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    I disagree with Rob, one entity handling all national news is an extremely bad idea. Competition breeds excellence. The best works in the history of mankind were created out of a desire to be the best. Without a competitor there would be no consequence for missing a story or motivation for getting the story as quickly as possible.

    And honestly would you trust all national news to the White House press corps?

    Also, there could be an issue that the AP decides not to cover, yet is still an important issue to certain communities.

    I was disturbed by the diagram on page 56-57. The hypothetical fire story revolved entirely around user submitted content (don’t get me wrong user submitted content can be helpful and important, but in moderation).

    “Journalists connected to new network of information and opinion based on Wiki and deliberative online polling exercise.” Doesn’t that sound like a fancy way of saying the reporter kept his lazy ass in the newsroom, waiting for people to do his job for him.

    User-submitted content will be an increasingly crucial aspect of packaging, and should be utilized by all newsrooms. I think the CNN/YouTube debate, highlighted in chapter 3, showed that a great product can come out of reader/viewer content. But that outside can never truly replace the importance of having a reporter in the field.

    Citizens don’t fact check or strive to get every detail perfectly accurate (I’m not saying they do this on purpose, but their sources could simply be hear-say). They also times can’t get access into certain areas that professional journalists can. The Austin Fire Department has a great open relationship with reporters/photographers, and understand the importance of “getting the shot” (just as long as we stay out of the way).

    At the West Campus fire at the Sandpiper apartments, fire officials let us into the affected rooms to document the aftermath. Yesterday, I was out with my camera and stumbled across a AFD training exercise. After taking a few pictures and talking with one of the instructors, they invited me into the property to get a observe/shoot the training. At one point, I was in an attic with about five recruits and one instructor while they learned importance of ventilation, or sucking out the smoke before you actually face the fire. The only way in was through a 15 foot ladder. Later, I found myself on top of a fire truck shooting ladder exercises.

    This got off topic but the point I’m trying to make is that through a long time of building trust, journalists have gained that intimate access.

  18. 18 Christina G February 10, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    After reading Chapter 2 of Super Media, and thinking about networked journalism, I am wondering how much of the feeling that we need to get the public more involved in the news is less about openness and transparency than the massive hole in the wallets of print newspapers. I am worried that if the newspapers find a way to get that core group of news consumers described in the book as the ones who usually would write letter to the editors and be locally involved in politics back involved in (somehow financing) newspapers again, then these idealistic notions of inclusivity will vanish. I’m a little nervous about this.
    Secondly, I read Chapter 5 on Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy. I’m particularly attracted to the idea of media studies programs instructing students on how to be effective citizen journalists. That would be great! Imagine if every undergraduate in the United States, or even every states high school curriculum included a class on citizen journalism. Also, Beckett’s comments on net neutrality not being absolutely neutral were interesting. He said we should find ways to maximize our connectivity anyway, and is still in favor of net neutrality, something he establishes in Chapter 2.
    Finally, this book could be greatly condensed with some editing. I thought it was needlessly wordy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Twitter feed

Blog Stats

  • 33,323 hits
February 2009
« Jan   Mar »

What I'm reading


%d bloggers like this: