In the "Beltway Blog", there is an interesting dialogue about "old media" and "new media." Using Jenkins, Johnson, and any other readings you feel helps you relate to this, I want you to "meet the press" and create a case for old media, new media, or both. Your response should take whatever form you feel allows you to step up and meet the press. It should NOT simply be a response--you can take a side to speak from (the press or the public) and create a voice based on that side. In other words, this shouldn't read like a normal blog response. It should have a clear, distinct voice, and it should sound like you are, in fact, "meeting the press."
What I'm looking for is for you to create an INFORMED case speaking from the voice of either the press or the public. This means evidence, evidence, evidence, and I want you using the readings from class. Per normal you should be responding to your peers as well.
**If you don't know what "meet the press" means...you didn't critically read the Beltway blog. =)
250-400 words.
Due: Monday, May 13 , 2013 by class time.
[Official Disclaimer: I am not sure if I am responding to this blog post correctly, but this is how I interpreted the prompt.]
ReplyDeleteAs a professional journalist who graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a journalism degree, I cringe upon thinking about the blogosphere’s growing popularity. It’s not the concept of the blog or even the concept of an emerging technological dependency that keeps me awake at night. Rather, it’s the thought of unskilled and unpaid civilians invading my journalist territory that frightens me. Regular Joes, such as Mayhill Fowler, transcend traditional media borders by gathering information and publishing it on their individual blogs. The ignorant public regard the information presented on blogs as reliable and trustworthy. They ignore the (lack of) credibility of a blogger’s content. Blogs have become, as James Poniewozik claims, the “new media.” I, the professional journalist, represent the “old media.”
Let me make a few things clear. I believe in the importance of sharing thoughts, information, and ideas, and I respect the “new media” for facilitating this process. Andrew Sullivan, a freelance writer and blogger, refers favorably to the interaction between Internet users via new media. The new media creates a previously nonexistent reader/writer dialogue where thoughts can be exchanged. A medium for exchanging thoughts produces “good ideas.” Steven Johnson claims that "good ideas may not want to be free, but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine. They want to reinvent themselves by crossing conceptual borders. They want to complete each other as much as they want to compete."
Unfortunately, the public has come to rely on the thoughts of a faceless blogger more so than of a professional journalist. We, the “old press,” must remain accountable to our audience. Our livelihoods rely on the quality of our work. The “new press,” on the other hand, must remain accountable to… no one.
So, let me introduce you to the press….
Hannah- I truly admire how you connect your ideas together and how it flows in a very smooth way. The direct quote from Johnson was used perfectly. I was confused when i read the prompt but i guess what Dr, KT meant by INFORMED case is that we choose sides and argue our way through it?
DeleteThank you Abdullaziz, I appreciate your complement and agree with your interpretation of the prompt.
DeleteHey,
DeleteI really like how official and real life you made your response. You truly grasped a unique voice and carried it out through the whole piece. You also did a great job weaving information into your response without it seeming awkward or simply placed. I often find it hard to place quotations in without it seeming awkward, but yours seems to flow extremely well.
Nice work!
-Dre
This Sunday:
ReplyDeleteProfessional and amateur journalists are facing off once again over the “old vs. new media” controversy. Sitting here with us this morning is legendary NBC reporter Katie Karick whose views on the issue just might surprise you.
--
KK:
For over 30 years now, I have been fortunate enough to make my living in the extraordinary field of journalism. When I began, media was just media. It wasn’t “new,” “old,” or anything else; it was simply a means of mass communication.
Now, I am well aware of the industry’s vast transformation in the past decade. Time and time again I have been asked what I’m going to do about all of it. Perhaps the better question is: What would I do without it? Technological advances have paved the way for incredible opportunities throughout journalistic media. We are hearing more stories, getting access to more viewpoints, and previously silent voices are being heard. This so-called “new media” is truly transforming the industry... for the better.
Media theorist Steven Johnson stated it extraordinarily well: “We are often better served by connecting ideas than we are protecting them.” The possibilities of the blogosphere, YouTube, and social media are endless, and I’m thrilled by their implications for the future of our world.
Journalists are being held accountable for their stories. Political transparency is increasing. We’re hearing from all sides of every issue, and that, is what I believe to be the key to a well functioning, democratic society.
Am I nervous about what it means to the financial aspects of traditional journalism? No. The media outlets of yesterday will remain the media outlets of the future. It may be a rocky transition, but they will make it. The New York Times’ circulation rose 40% last year, and the outlet is doing an incredible job balancing advertising, print, and online subscriptions. If others follow the example, they too will thrive.
I believe that there is room for all of us-- amateurs, prospectives, and professionals-- within the field of journalism. Discounting and disregarding new media would mean taking ourselves ten steps backward. Technology is a beautiful thing, and it will only lift us upwards.
I like how you pointed out that journalists are now accountable for what they write. It really shows that nowadays people are never really too far away, and that the steaks are greater now that every journalist is realizing what they write exists forever.
DeleteEmily- Wonderful job on this blog post. I really enjoyed the perspective you chose to write from, a person of high standing in the media as an "old" journalist, who is open to the idea of continuing and advocating for "new media." The statement that you included from the Johnson reading flowed perfectly with the rest of your blog. It summed up the point you intended Karick to make perfectly. Not only did it incorporate the ideal that the media cannot thrive without multiple perspectives and views, but it also supports your point that the two forms of media should be interwoven. Neither could survive without the other, therefore it is important to connect our ideas rather than protect them.
DeleteThanks! A lot of my studies here at DU revolve around media, and I think the profs and instructors here do a really good job at making us love both old and new sources.
DeleteNice response to the blog!! You were creative and convincing! You're correct in saying "discounting and disregarding new media would mean taking ourselves ten steps backward." New media indeed is emerging, but that doesn't mean we can't embrace it in a positive way. New media and old media will find a way to complement each other. "It may be a rocky transition," like you state in paragraph 6, but that doesn't discredit the importance of utilizing both types of media.
ReplyDeleteFYI: This comment was meant for Emily Krebs's blog post, but I accidentally posted it in the wrong spot. Oops
DeleteThanks, Hannah!
DeleteA community is like nature; it always finds a way. But unlike nature sometimes the community finds a way to blow holes in the framework it has lived by for decades. The community, or as we have begun to call ourselves “The People”, have decided it is about time to rise up against the editing of personality and allow the writer to once again reclaim their thrown against journalists everywhere.
ReplyDeleteSo what if The People are not paid, we care not for varying countries’ currency for our currency is; information. Technology advancements and the Internet have called upon any twelve your old with cell phone to take action against these journalists by adding their two cents. For example, you may be in the business of trying to assemble a crib (or something), so long as the information Google provides is correct, why question who submits it? You are now the owner of an assembled crib and all you did was type “crib x assembly” into Google or youtube and followed the directions provided.
Today’s information based world puts anyone trying to do something new in touch with somebody who has done it before. Wikipedia also supports this due to the amount of users, editors and knowledge seekers worldwide. Say some star wars fanatic wants to make a clay Yoda head. He now has that option because Google or Bing linked his quandary to Instructables.com that showed him step by step how to make this specialized, “unique”, model.
If you care so much as to question my claims feel free Google them. Don’t use bing… I don’t know how I feel about Bing. Anyway one Google will probably link you to a blog or webpage or something with cool images explaining everything surrounding the issue.
Paul- I thought your blog post was really entertaining. I didn't realize someone wrote on the side of the bloggers too (I really just chose that side b/c I thought everyone so far had chosen the journalist side). Okay but what I noticed about your blog is that I heard a distinct voice... I actually heard many distinct voices. Whether you intended to or not, I thought it was entertaining how you started as a very formal old time character saying things such as "reclaim their thrown" and "we care not for varying countries' currency". Then, you ended sounding more like a typical modern day kid saying "feel free to google them" and your small rant about "don't use bing..."
DeleteNice blog post overall!
I like the way you approached this assignment. You have a very strong voice in your writing and that's a good thing to have. I didn't think about Google as much when writing my blog but that whole example makes a lot of sense. New media really is anything and everything you post into a search bar. Nice job.
DeleteMany of my journalist friends are complaining about how bloggers and users of the Internet are getting to the information before they do. They view them as amateurs with no skills in communicating information and with methods that are messy and unprofessional and yet, they are losing in the “war” of journalism against them. As a journalist, I like to think of myself as a person who tends to keep up with modern technology and keep track of what new methods are there in the field of journalism.
ReplyDeleteWhile my friends are complaining and losing their jobs, I’m trying to keep up with those bloggers and users of social media to get accurate information and do my job better. It might be harder because I try to make it professional enough for the usual standards but that no excuse for a journalist.
An intelligent thinker named Steven Johnson one said, “We are often better served by connecting ideas than we are protecting them.” This relates to my insight on new media. We don’t see journalists using the “feathers and ink on paper” method to communicate information anymore. The world is evolving and we have to evolve with it. I’m not saying that we ditch all our principles and methods of “old media” as journalists but it is our duty to use “new media” as how Johnson mentions, it will serve us better.
Even though I visit those blogger website once in a while, I don’t entirely trust them. What I think would be best is that journalists should use methods of new media in a professional way in order to defeat those amateurs in the war of journalism.
Interesting approach to the blog, taking on the perspective of a journalist. I like the "feathers and ink on paper" part to explain how media is evolving and the argument you made from there. You concluded though in a defiant proclamation of war, it seems, on old media. Seems like a quick turnaround from the acceptance of new media's influence on old media. Is that just keeping up the "angry journalist" character?
DeleteI'm not sure that this style really matches the sort of professionalism a journalist would have. The phrase "defeat those amateurs" kinda takes away from the high and mighty feel of traditionalists. BUT, your idea about using new media to boost the old is pretty cool. A lot of famous (and very traditional!) journalists like Anderson Cooper are all over Twitter and social media. I think some of these giants share your idea!
DeleteAs a blogger for the Huffington Post, I think this uproar about new and old media, the scare of good vs. bad reporting, and the new “amateur” media steeling the jobs of the poor victims apart of the old media is preposterous. We continue to make faster and easier ways to receive information, such as blogs, which should be a good thing, but we continue to drag our feet as a nation. As Johnson said, “It is one of the great truisms of our time that we live in an age of technological acceleration”.
ReplyDeleteNews delivery methods have gone from word of mouth, to daily newspapers, to television, to Internet. Information has become increasingly accessible and in shorter and shorter periods of time. The movement towards blogs does the same thing by allowing people, who don’t have to step through regulations and follow time-consuming rules, to deliver news faster.
Moreover, blogs get a bad reputation for being considered “bad” reporting or biased reporting. When the public reads a blog, at least they know that it is coming from a source bound by no restrictions of a supposedly “unbiased” news station. Nowadays, the “old” media continues to let strong biases seep into their reports while still reassuring the public that they are unbiased. Granted there are a lot of bad blogs out there, but there are bad cases of news stations as well.
Jenkins examines the fundamentals of “collective knowledge” in ch.1 of his book. Collective knowledge is when a community of people shares their individual knowledge with each other in order to try to master all knowledge, such as the idea of blogs. Jenkins states that while this is a good tactic, “communities must closely scrutinize any information that is going to become part of their shared knowledge”. As a blogger, I know that my work is already constantly scrutinized. I don’t believe people scrutinize the facts stated on official news stations enough though. Some people just expect what is said on “credited” news stations to automatically be true. Maybe if people got more of their information from sources that they felt the urge to verify, we might actually have a more informed public.
Soon, the News available to the general public will be collected by the general public. It will be even more uncensored, unrestricted and will know no bounds. It is time to catch up with our rapidly evolving world… and meet the press.
To set up my argument, I will define some terms from the “Beltway Blog:” old media is news in the traditional reporting sense, through newspaper, television, etc. (essentially by paid reporters), while new media is the news that is published via social media sites, blogs and other non-traditional forms (mainly by individuals not paid for their reporting). While some of the news reported differs, both old and new media generally report on similar issues, only with varying affiliations. And so, as old and new media essentially tell the same story, only from multiple sides, I will make a case for just “media.” In the spirit of Steven Johnson and his book “Where Good Ideas Come From,” media is transitioning to a collaborative effort (a mesh of old and new) and this shift should be embraced, not used to further polarize the media. Johnson said that “good ideas may not want to be free, but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine.” Today, when there is such a difference in reporting on each issue, based on the source (FOX vs CNN, etc.), the best ideas will only come from a combination of every story, eliminating any bias and hearing all sides of an issue. I understand “meeting the press” as a call to action, to make the effort to force this meshing of old and new media to create just one “media.” To the press, old media sources would scoff at this notion, as it would entirely change the practice of reporting as we know it today. But from the perspective of the public, this is only the best option. If the purpose of the media is to inform the public, shouldn’t the public actually be informed – completely?
ReplyDeleteMore and more “bloggers” are coming forward with their opinion on the discussion over “old media” and “new media.” We talked with a blogger to get their view on the current issues facing the blogging world.
ReplyDeleteFor years “professional” journalists have looked down upon members of the blogosphere. Apparently our more casual form of relaying news and our perspectives is not a valid way to express opinion. The traditional journalists are not only upset with how we display our information, but the fact that we do it for free.
However, major transformations have been made in the way our world communicates. Media is largely shared through online sources rather than through print. Is this a bad thing? Ask the millions of people who are now able to easily access information in an efficient and effective way. Yes, we may not be professionals and we may not exhibit the elements characteristic of “old media” but without our methods of conveying certain ideas to the public, certain perspectives would not be represented.
The possibilities for spreading news to an audience are endless. People of all ages are better able to access information and become more involved and aware of political, social, cultural, and global issues.
Also, by increasing the information that is presented on an issue to more than just CNN, FOX, MSNBC, multiple views and opinions can be represented. In an article by Steven Johnson he states, “A city that was ten times larger than its neighbor wasn’t ten times more innovative; it was seventeen times more innovative” (Johnson 10). This is evidence that it is imperative to put stock into bloggers’ posts and other online papers because then more of the population can share their opinions. If we overlook the small people and only pay attention to “old media” or those from the big news networks, that is not a Democratic society. We need to accept the new forms of media so that we can truly allow our democracy to thrive.
I am a journalist, however many might not consider me one. I am a blogger, and am apart of the new wave of Journalism, “the new media”. My medium is the internet, which allows for everyone to see it. “New media” is enabling writers all around the world to share experiences and report news with an honest, down to earth fashion. Most bloggers don’t get paid, or as much as those writing in the newspaper, therefore they have no reason not to tell the truth. When working for a newspaper journalist need to report interesting stories, or make boring or dull stories seem exciting and if they are not able to do this they could get fired. Therefore old journalists, in some cases, are more likely to tell white lies to capture their audience. But with blogs people are just simply sharing information, which is easily accessible for the public.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, those that taught me the skills I have today about writing and reporting, believe that the a rise in bloggers will lead to a lack of trust and credibility in journalists. Old journalists are scared and question, “If sources stop trusting us, reporters asked, how will we do our jobs?” (Poniewozik 3). For in the past in order to get a story out to the public it had to be reviewed, now you can write anything and publish it yourself for everyone and anyone to read. In my opinion this jus expands journalism to a whole new level. If we try to ignore or disclaim “new media” we will be setting ourselves back. The internet is the way of the new and ignoring it will not change that reality. Old journalists need to realize that blogging is now an acceptable mean for reporting, and the sooner they can understand that the sooner they will be able to produce what he media wants. My hope is that eventually “we'll also stop arbitrarily dividing "real" from "amateur" journalists and simply distinguish good reporting from bad, informed opinion from hot air, information from stenography” (Poniewozik 3). Yes, new media is different from old media, however this is jus the natural evolution of the activity, transitioning is always confusing and difficult, however it is a necessary step to take to improve and expand journalism as a whole.
As a person who loves to share his opinion, I can't help but to support the movement that is blogging. It is part of the “new media” and a centerpiece of that wave. Blogging, posting videos to YouTube, and any other number of ways the interment can be used to get information across is a good thing for media as a whole. It is a free way to share information, although it may not be from the most credible source, it can be the springboard that sends a consumer to deeper and more intelligent sources on the particular topic. For example in our research paper, we need both academic and popular sources. Why not treat today’s media in the same fashion? Using both new and old media to achieve the most well rounded argument for a subject.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking mostly about the importance of free information and blogging in the last paragraph, I also can’t stress the importance of old media as well. Old media is made up of well-educated experts whose life work is to give us news in the best way possible. Sure we have the CNN, Fox News, MSNBC dilemma where they all have some bias’ but the news reports they give are still the best available because of the skill behind the reports.
The point I’m getting at is this, we are in a time now where information spread like wildfire, a video can go viral in a matter of hours and a scandal can be on every channel by the end of the day. We need to use both sources of media in order to meet the press in today’s day and age. If we don’t use all the resources at our disposal, why have them there at all?
Another day and another night of blogging…
ReplyDeleteTonight we have the article by James Poniewozik speaking on the matter of “new” vs “old” media and which is stronger. As the years have gone on, more and more journalists are feeling threatened as unconventional “new” forms of media. These new forms of media like Blogging and Youtube are supposedly putting good “old” media in danger. What danger? As Darwin informed us all, we either adapt or we die. We and our forms of new media have adapted such that more people will see this blog post before people see any newspaper article on this topic.
If “old” forms of media expect to keep up, they are going to need to adapt. To show their ideas and beliefs in the same manner as we bloggers are vloggers are able to do the same thing sitting at our desk on a Saturday night. But still do they need to criticize us so much? Is there something wrong with finding an easier way to do something difficult? We have new technology being created every day, we are capable of so much more by sitting at our desk then most journalists are going to work.
One key point is something mentioned by Steven Johnson, he mentioned that good ideas come from small hunches being mixed and mingled from many different people communicating and making something better. His finished his video stating how all these new forms of communication aren’t harming us, they are helping us. They are allowing people with some small idea to communicate with others half way around the world who also have a small idea on a similar topic. By communicating we both better ourselves and those around us. If we are ever going to make better new ideas we need to communicate. That is what “new” is able to do so easily. Whether it be by commenting on a blog, responding to a youtube video, we are able to mix together millions of ideas in a fraction of a second and a couple different clicks of a button.
Can “old” media do the same? Adapt or die, we have already adapted, now it is your move.