Comments on: New media vs. old media

By: Leland Anslinger

Leland Anslinger — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:00:34 +0000

Why have you removed my post? It was very helpful information and i promise atleast one person found it helpful unlike the rest of the comments on this website. I'll post it again. Fed up with getting low numbers of useless traffic for your site? Well i wish to share with you a fresh underground tactic that makes me personally $900 each day on 100% AUTOPILOT. I could be here all day and going into detail but why dont you simply check their site out? There is really a excellent video that explains everything. So if your serious about making easy hard cash this is the site for you. Auto Traffic Avalanche

By: Marshall

Marshall — Sun, 04 May 2008 15:24:27 +0000

Jon

Good call on Schorno’s entry. I think she is spot on. Thanks for the reference. See – smart, shepherd, well-intentioned!

By: Jon Becker

Jon Becker — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:57:54 +0000

In case you hadn’t seen it, here’s Sarah Schorno’s (Huffington Post) take on the Costas Now piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-schorno/bob-costas-just-doesnt-ge_b_99662.html

Agreed.

By: khandor

khandor — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:51:52 +0000

Jon & Marshall,

I agree with the thrust of both of your entries, re: the expression of our ideas and, in general, good blogs … funny thing is … so, too, might Buzz Bissinger, IMHO.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:09:13 +0000

Khandor
Jon states well what I would believe. I don’t consider myself a journalist at all. Actually I would mostly call myself an opinionated loud mouth that likes discussion and debate. If a world hung on my accuracy and delivery of information, it would not be long until we were in ruin. On the other hand, I think we need to ask the questions, and the answers need to be considered among the concepts of reliability, intent, and reputation. If you want an opinion, I think I can rate high across that board. If you want information on the political front, I would fall low in at least one if not all three areas.

I believe there is a place for both true journalism, which I don’t believe blogging is, and the stuff we are doing here. I’m sure I ruffled a few feathers there, but I will say again that this is closer to coffehouse talk than reporting or journalism. My researching of any topic is either slim or non-existent, for example, and I believe that would be downright fraudulent in the journalism field.

Are we professional and appropriate here? Yes. Is it productive? Yes. Are all sites so? No. At the same time, IMHO (I’ll start adding the H now too, Jon – thanks) this is a good outlet for us to discuss, share, and advance our thinking – individually and collectively. Now take that concept to those that want to rip on professional athletes, politicians, etc. Can I say the same thing? Sadly, not even close.

By: Jon Becker

Jon Becker — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:55:17 +0000

Khandor, I think the overwhelming majority of bloggers don’t consider themselves journalists nor do they care about such titles. I think they see an opportunity to “publish” their ideas and want to add their voice to the world of information…no more, no less. My point continues to be that what matters is whether or not young people are learning how to judge published material. In other words, I don’t think it’s the credentials of the source that matters as much as it is the credibility and legitimacy of the information that’s published. Many educators have condemned Wikipedia because they can’t imagine that a global collaboration of potentially uncredentialed people could put together a legitimate source of information. But, in fact, Wikipedia has turned out to be more reliable and more accurate than printed encyclopedias published by supposedly legitimate and credible professionals. Digital and information literacy, IMHO, is THE real collection of 21st Century skills and dispositions that our children need to possess.

By: khandor

khandor — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:47:04 +0000

Marshall,

Thanks very much for your kind acknowledgment.

A follow-up question …

Do you think it’s only Buzz equating ‘Journalism’ with ‘Blogs’? … and then feeling threatened.

Or, might it be a two-way cut? … with “Bloggers” equating what they/we do with ‘Journalism’ to pose a ‘threat’ to those like Buzz.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:57:50 +0000

Khandor – I think you’ve got it there. First, I’ve enoyed this exchange – lots of good information with a few opinions for good measure. IMO, however, it boils down to Buzz wants to equate journalism and blogs, therefore they threaten him. I am in total agreement with Buzz that this is not the type of journalism that we would want to be considered as researched and globally encompassing. However, it is like the conversations at the local coffeshop, bar, street corner, in which none of the participants are deeply educated, researched, or informed. The key here is that we don’t expect them to be. The transcripts that Buzz reads are produced by people that we should consider lightly is all I am saying.

By: khandor

khandor — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:45:47 +0000

Justin,

IMO, Buzz would have little to no concern over our specific exchange of ‘information’, to this point.

Neither of us have …

i) Used any profane words … yet;
ii) Defamed any real life person;
iii) Linked to any pornography;
iv) Put up a picture which intends to embarass or bring ridicule to the person(s) in it;
v) Made unsavory references to private doings of others which are wholly unsubstantiated and would best be described as gossip/rumour-mongering;
vi) Conducted ourselves in a vile, disrespectful or mean-spirited way, either, toward one another or anyone else;
vii) Have made claims or statements of fact, under the shroud of anonymity, which we would not dare to make while standing in the town square where we live … without wearing a balaclava;
viii) Permitted others to create material for display on our website which we then ‘publish’ for profit or titillation (or both), but then disavow responsibility for;
ix) etc.

IMO what Buzz is railing against is the shift to lawlessness, anarchy, crudeness and intentional cruelty which is all to often associated with not just the internet but the (de-)evolving values in our different societies (whether technologically-based or not) around the world.

Shorter, snappier, less well researched, less well made, and increasingly hurtful ‘information’ is what I think Buzz finds offensive.

By: Justin B.

Justin B. — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:04:15 +0000

By society I did not mean there cannot be human connections on the Web. Sorry if I led you to that conclusion. I don’t want to get into an extended diatribe about my definition of society … mostly because I am not sure if I have one … but suffice to say that multiple types of activities can happen on the net. The net can provide information (largely what blogs do), it can serve as a medium for human interaction (message boards, comments sections) and it can do other things …. Anyway, all of this put together is shrinking the world and moving information around quicker and between larger and larger groups of people. You and I Khandor are talking about a new piece of information provided to us by Jon and we are having a discussion on about the nature of the Net and its relationship to a democracy. That’s healthy in a democracy. This discussion would not have happened 15 years ago. That more and more of us are talking about more and more things is a healthy part of a democracy. That is all I meant to say.