Jeff,
This all sounds nice and dandy (re: “I am most optimistic about the fate of journalism”)… but I’m wondering if anything worries you? Assume all the promise of the “new journalism” comes true, would there be anything essential missing?
Delia
(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/11/11/edit-me/#comment-193457)
re: “I chose to concentrate instead on the opportunities”
Jeff,
Well… it’s hard to critique your stuff if it’s not *supposed* to be balanced… The way I see it, this “new journalism” can certainly do a much better job of giving people what they want and getting them to participate at a level previously impossible.
But would that be enough to fulfill the traditional function of journalism? To at least STRIVE to give a *balanced view* of what’s going on around us and thus act as one of the prongs of democracy? Unless you think that peoples’ aggregate special interests would necessarily lead there (and I see no good reason to believe that), that is the essential thing that would be lost (and it’s no small thing).
And what happens if the “old journalism” collapses before a functioning new one (however insufficient) takes over? (quite possible…) That’s why I don’t think that “accelerating” the process (“exploding” things before their time) is such a good idea…
But if you are *expected* to be the CHEERLEADER… you are certainly doing a fine job at that!
Delia
(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/11/11/edit-me/#comment-195206)
This all sounds nice and dandy (re: “I am most optimistic about the fate of journalism”)… but I’m wondering if anything worries you? Assume all the promise of the “new journalism” comes true, would there be anything essential missing?
Delia
(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/11/11/edit-me/#comment-193457)
re: “I chose to concentrate instead on the opportunities”
Jeff,
Well… it’s hard to critique your stuff if it’s not *supposed* to be balanced… The way I see it, this “new journalism” can certainly do a much better job of giving people what they want and getting them to participate at a level previously impossible.
But would that be enough to fulfill the traditional function of journalism? To at least STRIVE to give a *balanced view* of what’s going on around us and thus act as one of the prongs of democracy? Unless you think that peoples’ aggregate special interests would necessarily lead there (and I see no good reason to believe that), that is the essential thing that would be lost (and it’s no small thing).
And what happens if the “old journalism” collapses before a functioning new one (however insufficient) takes over? (quite possible…) That’s why I don’t think that “accelerating” the process (“exploding” things before their time) is such a good idea…
But if you are *expected* to be the CHEERLEADER… you are certainly doing a fine job at that!
Delia
(http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/11/11/edit-me/#comment-195206)
No comments:
Post a Comment