Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In Response to Rosen.
Jay Rosen in his article "Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press" argues that the Internet has slowly become the information platform of the masses. No longer does the mainstream media and journalist have a strangle hold on the flow of information. He addresses some of the reasons and for the most part I agree with him.
Rosen is correct in his assertion that journalist, who represent the media, have failed to realize that they are more in control of what is debated in society then they realize. Often, journalist and the media, which claim to be the voice of the people, representing the issues that are important to society, are unconsciously shaping the issues. Also, not only does access to the Internet allow for sharing of knowledge and information, it allows individuals to become the media as well.
Using Daniel Hallins diagram found in his book " The Uncensored War", Rosen describes to us how we practice journalism in America. The diagram represents three rings that have a inner sphere of consensus, the conventional wisdom or accepted views that most all of society agree upon. The middle is represented by a sphere of legitimate debate, the issues that are considered legitimate topics to be discussed and examined. And finally, the sphere of deviance, those topics and individuals that are marginalized and not discussed as acceptable counter-points to legitimate debate. Using the diagram in his example, Rosen writes " the closer they (media) think they are to the unquestioned core of consensus the more plausible it is to present a single view as the only view". By assigning the terms in which the debate is framed, journalist can show bias in what is debated. Rosen, refers to the 2nd Gulf War as an example of the media casting those who opposed the war as not having a legitimate argument, running counter to conventional wisdom, and therefore deviant opposition.
So how did the media start losing its credibility and the Internet become the information clearinghouse that it has become? First, as Daniel Hallins replies to a colleague" I also think that a strong independent press is undermined when the professionals in it fail to recognize that there's a politics to what they do...". By not recognizing their influence, either consciously or unconsciously, " big media" does not acknowledge the role it plays politically. As more of society connects to the Internet for their news and information, greater scrutiny is placed on the media to provide unbiased information. After all, there are literally thousands, if not millions, of websites and blogs for the population to turn to. And while they may not be the most authoritative of sites, if a individual feels at least the information presented is unbiased, then that person is more likely to trust that the information presented is closer to the true conventional wisdom then what is presented by the media.
Second, not only is the cost to get connected not as prohibitive to the masses, the tools of mass media have become more affordable such as digital cameras and camcorders to add images to words. One can now podcast out to millions of potential listeners. Those who are categorized as being deviant in their opinion or information can now connect to one another and share and organize thoughts and ideas that are not covered by mass media outlets. Using the tools of "big media" they can legitimize their argument to an audience that may have never considered or had the chance to consider an alternative view.
Third, a point that has not been made and I think is relevant is the fact that using the Internet is not a passive act like listening to the radio or watching t.v. Using the Internet for research requires the person to actively seek out the information they are looking for and then decide whether or not it's being presented as being closer to conventional wisdom or legitimate debate. Being active and analytical in the pursuit of knowledge, instead of just being fed information like a mother feeds a child, makes a better informed citizenry.
Whether or not the media can recognize their influence on policies in the public domain and how the Internet will ultimately determine their influence remains to be seen. While I agree that we should have a professional class of journalist to present information the advent of the Internet has empowered millions to research the information that is presented to reach out to those who think and are concerned by the same issues, to share their knowledge and their opinions. Because of the Internet, the sphere of consensus the media tries to portray may not reflect the conventional wisdom of the public. This,I believe, is the issue that the media must address or it will slowly lose more credibility and legitimacy, perhaps even becoming irrelevant in public policy altogether.
Rosen is correct in his assertion that journalist, who represent the media, have failed to realize that they are more in control of what is debated in society then they realize. Often, journalist and the media, which claim to be the voice of the people, representing the issues that are important to society, are unconsciously shaping the issues. Also, not only does access to the Internet allow for sharing of knowledge and information, it allows individuals to become the media as well.
Using Daniel Hallins diagram found in his book " The Uncensored War", Rosen describes to us how we practice journalism in America. The diagram represents three rings that have a inner sphere of consensus, the conventional wisdom or accepted views that most all of society agree upon. The middle is represented by a sphere of legitimate debate, the issues that are considered legitimate topics to be discussed and examined. And finally, the sphere of deviance, those topics and individuals that are marginalized and not discussed as acceptable counter-points to legitimate debate. Using the diagram in his example, Rosen writes " the closer they (media) think they are to the unquestioned core of consensus the more plausible it is to present a single view as the only view". By assigning the terms in which the debate is framed, journalist can show bias in what is debated. Rosen, refers to the 2nd Gulf War as an example of the media casting those who opposed the war as not having a legitimate argument, running counter to conventional wisdom, and therefore deviant opposition.
So how did the media start losing its credibility and the Internet become the information clearinghouse that it has become? First, as Daniel Hallins replies to a colleague" I also think that a strong independent press is undermined when the professionals in it fail to recognize that there's a politics to what they do...". By not recognizing their influence, either consciously or unconsciously, " big media" does not acknowledge the role it plays politically. As more of society connects to the Internet for their news and information, greater scrutiny is placed on the media to provide unbiased information. After all, there are literally thousands, if not millions, of websites and blogs for the population to turn to. And while they may not be the most authoritative of sites, if a individual feels at least the information presented is unbiased, then that person is more likely to trust that the information presented is closer to the true conventional wisdom then what is presented by the media.
Second, not only is the cost to get connected not as prohibitive to the masses, the tools of mass media have become more affordable such as digital cameras and camcorders to add images to words. One can now podcast out to millions of potential listeners. Those who are categorized as being deviant in their opinion or information can now connect to one another and share and organize thoughts and ideas that are not covered by mass media outlets. Using the tools of "big media" they can legitimize their argument to an audience that may have never considered or had the chance to consider an alternative view.
Third, a point that has not been made and I think is relevant is the fact that using the Internet is not a passive act like listening to the radio or watching t.v. Using the Internet for research requires the person to actively seek out the information they are looking for and then decide whether or not it's being presented as being closer to conventional wisdom or legitimate debate. Being active and analytical in the pursuit of knowledge, instead of just being fed information like a mother feeds a child, makes a better informed citizenry.
Whether or not the media can recognize their influence on policies in the public domain and how the Internet will ultimately determine their influence remains to be seen. While I agree that we should have a professional class of journalist to present information the advent of the Internet has empowered millions to research the information that is presented to reach out to those who think and are concerned by the same issues, to share their knowledge and their opinions. Because of the Internet, the sphere of consensus the media tries to portray may not reflect the conventional wisdom of the public. This,I believe, is the issue that the media must address or it will slowly lose more credibility and legitimacy, perhaps even becoming irrelevant in public policy altogether.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Post 1
This is my first post for English 102, so fun and exciting!! Now my peers can read my insane and random thoughts. I probably will be getting a visit from the DHS and FBI, lol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)