Welcome to Journalism 505, the Journalism and Society Seminar for University of Montana’s School of Journalism graduate students.
What is the media landscape in today’s digital world? What is journalism today, who is a journalist, and who decides? And what about credibility? In a world where we are members of many virtual communities, what meaning does “community” have for us?
This is an article I saw Sunday night and is pertinent to last class, our work in Jour and Society, and the future of journalism. It concerns the citizen journalist, the censoring of Web sites, the journalistic use of the cell phone, and the dangers of rogue journalism.
NYT Hed: Russia Claims Its Sphere of Influence in the World
Que tal, y’all?
I just wanted to drop a quick response to one of the points of discussion made during the second half of Thursday’s class. I think there is a lot to the idea that the notion of a one- way media is rapidly changing, and want to expound on one point in particular. Whereas the ‘one to many’ approach is giving way to a structure better defined as ‘many to many’, I couldn’t help but try to conceive how this structure will continue to evolve. Media consumption habits are evolving, and the nature of this new trend is evident in the impulsive ‘surfing’ so aptly described in the book ‘If It Catches My Eye’, whose title seems to suggest the short attention span of many web users.
Given the ubiquitous influence of Google and their relentless efforts to analyze, classify and disseminate information based on complex algorithms I cannot hope to understand, I am intrigued by the idea of ‘many to one’. What I mean is that, based upon individual surfing habits, in this case referring to the blogs and information sites each person visits on a routine basis, is it not possible that the ‘many’ sources of the web could be altered and refined to suit individual tastes? And in the wake of this specialized content is it not reasonable to assume that advertising could be tailored to each user? Such a mix of commerce and truth just might force me to reconsider my position on the threat/liberation continuum.
The times sure a-changin’, but I don’t think this is what Dylan conceived of when he penned the anthemic tune back in ’64. Follow this link to a piece about the federally sponsored home invasion raids in Minneapolis that occurred over the weekend.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/
This is a Glenn Greenwald article, and as it says in the link, it is an opinion piece, but I still feel it relates JOUR 505. What is the role of journalism in society, particularly our democratic society that supposedly values freedom of expression and dissent? If law-abiding citizens are having their homes raided and property seized, what awaits journalists who vocally disagree with the government? I have looked at a few other sources, but have not been able to find much coverage of this issue, which only seems to reinforce the notion that the mainstream media is more or less a dog without teeth. The reluctance of the networks and cable news to seriously examine such issues will only feed the popularity of blogs and other alternative sources of media.
I found this website from The Society of Professional Journalist, and thought that it was kind of interesting. This page has the Code of Ethics for journalists. I thought it would fit in with all our classes. I also thought since we are going to cover ethics in this class, it might be fun to look at. It could provide some guidence as well. Enjoy and let me know what you think.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
I found Jeff Jarvis’ article on buzzmachine.com today pretty interesting. In the article he talks about the media coverage of the political conventions, and how he thinks that, basically it’s crazy. I found his comparison of the political journalists to the paparazzi waiting for Britney Spears outside of a burger joint particularly amusing. It also made me think about the “many to many” discussion when he mentions the fact that the press is sort of nonessential at these political functions because anything we want to watch we can find for ourselves on the web.
(Also let me know if I used the apostrophe incorrectly in his name my AP style book is at home!) 🙂
For those of you who don’t have “We the Media” yet (and that would include me since I return the 2004 edition to the bookstore but have yet to receive the most recent edition), I found that all of it is available online, by chapter.
[url]http://oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/[/url]
I’m hoping the url code will make it a direct link but I don’t know if this site allows that. Guess I’ll find out.
Anyway, I was able to get to it directly from home. But I asked the librarian and she says sometimes the password popup will appear and you just enter your UM sign-in and password. I think this is very nice of the author and I still intend on keeping my book, but obviously this can cut into sales.
I posted a comment a couple of hours ago and it’s not visible. Did it not go through or does it take a day to verify the person?
I guess it didn’t go through.
Here’s basically what I tried to post.
For those of you who do not have the book, “We the Media”, or do not have the most current version, it is available online here:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/
It’s organized by chapter in Adobe format.
Okay, my post didn’t appear again. I wonder if it is because of the website address I include.
One more try and I’m going to feel really silly if these all appear a day from now.
The book “We the Media” is available on line. I’m not going to post the website in recognizable form.
Type in “oreilly dot com slash catalog slash wemedia slash book slash”. Do not include the www before orielly. Hopefully this post will be added as a comment. The other two went into the ether.
I liked the article from Jeff Javis. I disagree that politics shouldn’t recieve so much time. I feel that it is important to be informed, but by listening to what the candidates have to say. I do agree with him that we shouldn’t have to have someone interpert what is going on for us, or tell us what to believe. We aren’t watching a football game. He has great passion for what he writes about and I like that. Thanks for the line Cate!
(I think you needed an S after the ‘, but I could be wrong.)