Writing about Jeff Jarvis and Arianna Huffington is turning into a pattern for this blogger.
But Huffington is doing great things and Jarvis is paying a close eye. Jarvis says Huffington is "saving journalism." That sounds a tad bit sensational, but I think it's true to an extent. Investigative journalism is what's missing.
Jarvis said he believes that a few generous contributions will fund quality journalism, which will benefit everyone. I'm not sure. His theory certainly makes sense. I like to think that people are willing to pay for high-quality news coverage, but trying to make people pay simply might not work. For every one Web site that charges for content, a reader can find five or more sites that deliver similar content for free. If the online media industry can find something along the lines of iTunes, something that's easy and accessible, then it might be possible.
Here's Jarvis' story.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Yes!
HuffPo gets funding for investigative journalism. This is EXACTLY what we need. It's coming straight from donors and not big corporations. The topic is going to be the economy, naturally. (H/t Jeff Jarvis). Ariana will get the most talented journalists to do this, and so now armed with the proper funding and the right personnel, I eagerly await the product.
Obama embraces bloggers, from Politico. This is the kind of transparency we need from the federal government.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Amy Goodman
It's sickening to think that independent journalists in the U.S. are being arrested for simply doing their jobs. Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! was arrested at the 2008 Republican National Convention for investigating the unwarranted arrests of two other Democracy Now! people.
Meanwhile, you'd never see these stories in the New York Times or on ABC News. Mainstream media just simply watch as independent journalists are mistreated, and it's disgusting. That's why more access is needed. Somebody has to protect dissenters. People should be allowed to disagree. That's why America is a democracy, so people don't have to be afraid to express opinions that may contradict the mainstream.
Finally, read a Q&A with Goodman at The Ithacan Online. Goodman will speak Tuesday at Ithaca's State Theatre.
Meanwhile, you'd never see these stories in the New York Times or on ABC News. Mainstream media just simply watch as independent journalists are mistreated, and it's disgusting. That's why more access is needed. Somebody has to protect dissenters. People should be allowed to disagree. That's why America is a democracy, so people don't have to be afraid to express opinions that may contradict the mainstream.
Finally, read a Q&A with Goodman at The Ithacan Online. Goodman will speak Tuesday at Ithaca's State Theatre.
The problem with rules
While rules are undoubtedly vital to having order in society, sometimes they create more disorder instead of restoring order.
There's been a recent discussion about blogger access in Minnesota. Media access in general is crucial, especially with a new president and the country's recession. When any journalist is denied access, it shows a lack of transparency and a desire to keep something hidden from the public. The media will often be told it's about security, even though it usually isn't.
Bloggers can be journalists. But anyone can be a blogger. A 5-year-old can sit down at a computer with Internet access, create an account at blogspot.com and write a few sentences about the toy he or she just got for Christmas or frustration with parents. Believe it or not, that's a blog. Therefore, letting in all bloggers to a state capitol or Congressional meetings could cause problems.
There needs to be some kind of standard that a blogger would have to meet in order to get access. But it needs to be fair, so critics won't be excluded. Bloggers are often less afraid of asking the tough questions that mainstream media wouldn't even dare thinking to ask. I'm not sure what the standard should be, but I think there should be one. Readership should certainly be a significant factor. The standards have to be measurable to ensure fairness.
There's been a recent discussion about blogger access in Minnesota. Media access in general is crucial, especially with a new president and the country's recession. When any journalist is denied access, it shows a lack of transparency and a desire to keep something hidden from the public. The media will often be told it's about security, even though it usually isn't.
Bloggers can be journalists. But anyone can be a blogger. A 5-year-old can sit down at a computer with Internet access, create an account at blogspot.com and write a few sentences about the toy he or she just got for Christmas or frustration with parents. Believe it or not, that's a blog. Therefore, letting in all bloggers to a state capitol or Congressional meetings could cause problems.
There needs to be some kind of standard that a blogger would have to meet in order to get access. But it needs to be fair, so critics won't be excluded. Bloggers are often less afraid of asking the tough questions that mainstream media wouldn't even dare thinking to ask. I'm not sure what the standard should be, but I think there should be one. Readership should certainly be a significant factor. The standards have to be measurable to ensure fairness.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Berkeley Barb
Looking back on the '60s always evokes powerful memories. Even for me, even though I wasn't even born yet. But with the newspaper industry in a sharp decline, I can't help but think about how essential newspapers once were.
Newspapers have always been the backbone of journalism. Even now, bloggers often link to newspaper articles, and radio and TV news stations have always picked up the daily regional paper to figure out which stories to air on their show. Everybody's so excited about Twitter, but the quality, in-depth, investigative news reporting is done in newspapers and then moved somewhere else.
In the '60s, the Berkeley Barb was the battleground for counterculture vs. the government. The paper held those in power accountable for their actions and was not afraid to speak out against injustice.
Now, basically every newspaper has a website, rightfully so, but so many newspapers and other media outlets feel they need to have a Twitter account. The problem now is the focus on getting it first, as opposed to getting it right. Speed is important, but content should not be compromised. Journalists need to get back into the issues and focus on in-depth reporting. Maybe that will save newspapers.
**
Feeling nostalgic for the Berkeley Barb? See pdfs of old issues here. Read more of my thoughts on the Barb here.
Newspapers have always been the backbone of journalism. Even now, bloggers often link to newspaper articles, and radio and TV news stations have always picked up the daily regional paper to figure out which stories to air on their show. Everybody's so excited about Twitter, but the quality, in-depth, investigative news reporting is done in newspapers and then moved somewhere else.
In the '60s, the Berkeley Barb was the battleground for counterculture vs. the government. The paper held those in power accountable for their actions and was not afraid to speak out against injustice.
Now, basically every newspaper has a website, rightfully so, but so many newspapers and other media outlets feel they need to have a Twitter account. The problem now is the focus on getting it first, as opposed to getting it right. Speed is important, but content should not be compromised. Journalists need to get back into the issues and focus on in-depth reporting. Maybe that will save newspapers.
**
Feeling nostalgic for the Berkeley Barb? See pdfs of old issues here. Read more of my thoughts on the Barb here.
The other side
It's easy to talk to people when you agree with them. When Democrats talk to Democrats and when Republicans talk to conservatives, everybody gets along. However, these "one-sided" discussions don't foster much debate.
And so, after spending half a semester in a class taught by a leftist, it was refreshing to hear someone from the right weigh in on independent media. Mark Finkelstein is originally from NewsBusters, which is a media watch group seeking to expose liberal media bias. Now he's got his own blog.
I had met Mark several months earlier, and his visit to Ithaca College's Covering the Election class showed two sides that came from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, engaging us in a back-and-forth debate.
This time around, I asked Mark what he thought about Jon Stewart's takedown of CNBC's Jim Cramer. He said Stewart picked on Cramer because of an anti-Obama comment. While it's true that Cramer wasn't the only one giving an audience bad information about the stock market, SOMEONE needed to be called out. CNBC was an easy pick because, for one, its a TV station. Sure, the Wall Street Journal made some mistakes, but it's much more appealing to show a video clip than it is to point at a newspaper.
What Stewart did wasn't exactly journalism, but it wasn't entirely satire either. More importantly, he sent out a valuable message, that we can't be afraid to hold people accountable, and that we need to foster debate.
And so, after spending half a semester in a class taught by a leftist, it was refreshing to hear someone from the right weigh in on independent media. Mark Finkelstein is originally from NewsBusters, which is a media watch group seeking to expose liberal media bias. Now he's got his own blog.
I had met Mark several months earlier, and his visit to Ithaca College's Covering the Election class showed two sides that came from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, engaging us in a back-and-forth debate.
This time around, I asked Mark what he thought about Jon Stewart's takedown of CNBC's Jim Cramer. He said Stewart picked on Cramer because of an anti-Obama comment. While it's true that Cramer wasn't the only one giving an audience bad information about the stock market, SOMEONE needed to be called out. CNBC was an easy pick because, for one, its a TV station. Sure, the Wall Street Journal made some mistakes, but it's much more appealing to show a video clip than it is to point at a newspaper.
What Stewart did wasn't exactly journalism, but it wasn't entirely satire either. More importantly, he sent out a valuable message, that we can't be afraid to hold people accountable, and that we need to foster debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)