In an article titled The Fall and Fall of Blogging Debate in Britain, fellow Samizdatista Jackie Danicki puts the boot in (though in a quite measured way) regarding ‘expert’ views on the nature of blogging and how it relates to journalism. She attended a high profile event at the London School of Economics called The Fall and Fall of Journalism and was clearly deeply unimpressed with what she heard. Read the whole thing.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Understanding blogging… or notMarch 2nd, 2005 |
 2 comments to Understanding blogging… or not |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I copy here a comment I posted on Jackie’s blog:
What must be stressed about professional journalists is that they never are, and cannot be, experts in the fields they report on.
Whenevr I read some newspaper article on a subject that I have good personal knowledge of – it always strikes me how inaccurate, superficial, false (and mostly biased) the report is. Yet on other topics, of which I know nothing, I necessarily accept the reporting as more or less true, though it probably isn’t.
Newspapers filter the news through the eyes and the understanding of people (journalists) which are mostly of mediocre intellect and knowledge.
This isn’t a fault or an error, this is the nature of the beast, it cannot be otherwise.
The Blogosphere is a vast reservoir or store for information of all types. You are more likely to find good and accurate information here than in newspapers, though you need to search, filter, evaluate, invest an effort in getting at it.
I wanted to post how journalism should change if it were to be considered a public service but I couldn’t think of a way to support journalism through government funding that wouldn’t lead to either bias and control by the funding agency or rampant abuse and out of control spending.
I don’t disagree that having a someone reporting on what’s going on is critical but, as usual, the market is the best way to regulate and support journalism.
All the handwringing in the world won’t change how blogs will change journalism. I hope they hurry up and get with the program and figure out how they can provide a service in a world where blogs exist.
Personally, were I a reporter, I would be cultivating a number of expert bloggers in different areas to help me write articles on those areas. Many would probably do it for reciprocal links.
Bolie IV