Hands up who thinks the media is a part of civil society. Yeah, right. My lecturer at business school brushed aside my protestations by asserting that, in his golden triangle of government, society and business, modern media could safely be considered to fall under business.
I think I need to canvas some web opinion on this. Links to follow.
2006/01/06
Current peave
So what do you do if you want to read magazine material published in the mid eighties, or before the Internet achieved critical mass, in other words. Amazingly frustrating to find that most of the non-mainstream stuff, which as published without any electronic systems, may never be ported to the web, even as bitmaps or micro-fiche.
I have an old set of fairly esoteric loud speakers [Ditton 110's, a sideline of Celestion], but the only info I can get about them is in hard copy magazines, where some mercenary soul, who teasingly publishes the contents of the magazines online, will scan pages for me at $5/page.
Aish.
I have an old set of fairly esoteric loud speakers [Ditton 110's, a sideline of Celestion], but the only info I can get about them is in hard copy magazines, where some mercenary soul, who teasingly publishes the contents of the magazines online, will scan pages for me at $5/page.
Aish.
Intellectual property crimes
I know nuuuthing about Google Video, but apparently its a repository for video clips (Flkr-ish, I suppose). Some tech blogger pointed me to this insane video about software piracy made in the nineties, but managing to look remarkably eigthies.
I don't think I believe in intellectual property. Maybe cause I've got nothing worth stealing. I genuinely can't think of any intellectual property I wouldn't gladly give away for the betterment of humankind.
Arguably very little tech journalism can claim to have benefited humankind, even indirectly.
Another thing you might notice on this blog is the wild and irresponsible speculation... maybe a backlash from being a journalist.
Sooo, I'm not sure what I make of the debate for digital rights, Internet privacy and human rights. Personally, I don't regard anything digital as secure or private or a "right". Maybe because I know too much about it. So credit card numbers, banking transactions, anonymity, secrecy, secure tunnels and encryption are all regarded as transparent to the net and it's users.
Instead, I place a certain amount of faith in being "Internet obscure", or not interesting enough to attract any attention. Like this blog, I am hoping that no five minutes of fame comes looking for me.
Arguably very little tech journalism can claim to have benefited humankind, even indirectly.
Another thing you might notice on this blog is the wild and irresponsible speculation... maybe a backlash from being a journalist.
Sooo, I'm not sure what I make of the debate for digital rights, Internet privacy and human rights. Personally, I don't regard anything digital as secure or private or a "right". Maybe because I know too much about it. So credit card numbers, banking transactions, anonymity, secrecy, secure tunnels and encryption are all regarded as transparent to the net and it's users.
Instead, I place a certain amount of faith in being "Internet obscure", or not interesting enough to attract any attention. Like this blog, I am hoping that no five minutes of fame comes looking for me.
First (past the) post
Still feeels very self conscious. This first post is partly motivated by an interesting brokkie I found on PressThink, about how bloggers are sometimes journalists. Especially poignant perhaps, as I plot my long overdue departure from that (ig)noble profession. Apathetic journalists should be shot and shouldn't be allowed to get sloppy (like me, for the last few years).
Although I take some consolation that my worst compares favourably with some journos best. All the more reason to quit while you're ahead.
Watch closely now as I quote without crediting... ah, freedom from the press.
Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over
Some excerpts:
They all sense it, what Tom Curley, the man who runs the Associated Press, called "a huge shift in the 'balance of power' in our world, from the content providers to the content consumers." If there is such a shift (and Curley didn't seem to be kidding) it means that professional journalism is no longer sovereign over territory it once easily controlled. Not sovereign doesn't mean you go away. It means your influence isn't singular anymore.
clip
Orville Schell, dean of the University of California at Berkeley's journalism school and a conference participant, told Business Week recently: "The Roman Empire that was mass media is breaking up, and we are entering an almost-feudal period where there will be many more centers of power and influence."
clip
If my terms make sense, and professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to public debate, this does not have to mean declining influence or reputation. It does not mean that prospects for the public service press are suddenly dim. It does, however, mean that the old political contract between news providers and news consumers will give way to something different, founded on what Curley correctly called a new "balance of power."
clip
This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.
Although I take some consolation that my worst compares favourably with some journos best. All the more reason to quit while you're ahead.
Watch closely now as I quote without crediting... ah, freedom from the press.
Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over
Some excerpts:
They all sense it, what Tom Curley, the man who runs the Associated Press, called "a huge shift in the 'balance of power' in our world, from the content providers to the content consumers." If there is such a shift (and Curley didn't seem to be kidding) it means that professional journalism is no longer sovereign over territory it once easily controlled. Not sovereign doesn't mean you go away. It means your influence isn't singular anymore.
clip
Orville Schell, dean of the University of California at Berkeley's journalism school and a conference participant, told Business Week recently: "The Roman Empire that was mass media is breaking up, and we are entering an almost-feudal period where there will be many more centers of power and influence."
clip
If my terms make sense, and professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to public debate, this does not have to mean declining influence or reputation. It does not mean that prospects for the public service press are suddenly dim. It does, however, mean that the old political contract between news providers and news consumers will give way to something different, founded on what Curley correctly called a new "balance of power."
clip
This was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)