Showing posts with label new media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new media. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Whats to defend?

We Want the Washington Post to Be More Than an Official Echo Chamber

Washington Post reporter Paul Kane proffered what blogger Matthew Yglesias aptly called a "full-throated defense of journalism-as-stenography." Kane had been criticized by Media Matters that he had quoted Sen. Olympia Snowe (R.-Maine) as saying that Barack Obama's use of the filibuster-avoiding budget reconciliation tool would make it "infinitely more difficult to bridge the partisan divide" without noting that Snowe had backed budget reconciliation when it was used by George W. Bush. Asked in a WashingtonPost.com chat to defend himself against this criticism, Kane responded:

I'm sorry, what’s to defend?

Someone tell Media Matters to get over themselves and their overblown ego of righteousness. We reported what Olympia Snowe said. That’s what she said. That’s what Republicans are saying. I really don’t know what you want of us. We are not opinion writers whose job is to play some sorta gotcha game with lawmakers.

It's a little dismaying that we have to explain this to professional journalists, but what we want them to do is to examine official claims and put them in context. It's not clear why society would need the kind of institution that Kane thinks he works for; if we want to find out what Olympia Snowe said, we can sign up for her RSS feed.

There is a place for Journalism, and the decline in newspapers is concerning, it is a trade that is in very great need.  But there is also a place for bloggers and media watch groups... to keep the journalists who still have a job in line...

 

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Friday, April 10, 2009

The Debate Over Online News:

 It's the Consumer, Stupid

Watching media execs talk about building walled gardens around content reminds me of watching Detroit execs ten years ago spend billions lobbying the government for fuel efficiency loopholes and trying to convince consumers that gas-guzzling SUVs were the cars of the future.

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Wasn't it about taxation without representation?

This is a hoot.


I'm going to be taking photo's for the blog, might try to get an interview or two, at the event in Henry County.

Though it seems weird to connect Liberty and Obedience so directly...

Didn't communist always say that we had to adhere to the doctrine no matter how painful and in spite of all consequences?

Conservatives keep saying things in ways that remind me of Communists I always used to debate. I'm still working on a more coherent explanation of that...

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Monday, January 26, 2009

was darwin wrong?

Darwin : The Genius of evolution
Its not a surprise that Darwin was wrong and in fact he was wrong at many places but he cant be blamed for all those as he did not have any knowledge about the science of microbiology and molecular evolution at that time.

But keep in mind ,the two biggest ideas in Natural selection and common descent survived all the tests for more than a century, speaks volumes about the brilliant man and his insights on subject.

Graham Lawton’s article “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life “ talks about horizontal gene transfers in bacteria and consequences of that on tree of life. The article somewhat justify such a headline ,which talks about some very valid points that Darwin didnot and could not know , but definitely these things doesn’t go against the theory of Darwin but just fills in the gaps occurring in tree of life.

and back to my theme for the day...
But with such a strong headline tilts the balance more in favor of headline than the real content. To be honest most people read just the headline and few lines than the whole article. So i believe that editors should be more careful in selecting the titles especially on subjects like evolution which can send wrong signals to students

interesting point to the quandry of post industrial new media information overload

Coturnix
Very few readers will read your article. But everyone will see the cover.

Very few people will read this post to the end, especially the links on the bottom that really contain the meat of the argument. But everyone will see this post title in their feeds.

Graham, you know print is swiftly dying and that journalism is moving to the Web, don't you? Do you understand that this means that in a year or two you will have to come here and play with the Big Boys? Do you understand that all the silly comments you plastered all over the blogs will be remembered? And if not remembered, easy to find - this blog has bigger Google juice than The New Scientist, you know?

Do you understand that in your future transition to online journalism you will have to abandon all the lies you were taught in J-school? That you will need to upgrade your journalistic ethics in order to match the higher ethics of the blogosphere?