information and opinion...
and Jay appears to be concerned more with information than with opinion:"It’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in." (end of first paragraph) [my emphasis]
seems like a roundabout way of saying yes we do want you to be objective (that's the threshold for having a chance to make it...)
... give the objective assessment first (the facts etc.), then give your opinion... (if you must:)... -- my take on it...
re: "Bring the scattered facts together in one place so that we have a view of them we didn’t have before. Conduct an original act of reporting and tell us what you found. Interview someone (or multiple someones) whose knowledge and perspective adds to our understanding. Witness a campaign event and report what happened, making sense of it for those who weren’t there. Provide an overview of an episode in the news and the range of reactions to it by linking to those reactions and to the best accounts you can find online. (Then express your own attitude.)" [my emphasis] (answer to first question)
Delia
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
(Facebook) more control...
MORE:
Dan, I’m wondering if a non-profit that would let the users to (collectively) own the aggregated data could work. I mean, why *aren’t* there any projects like this? You’d think people would flock to something like that if the had the option. D.
....
Jon, I’m wondering if requests for friends status could be pre screened by various criteria to get them to a manageable number. For instance, it might help a lot if you could decide that for people you haven’t met in real life and who aren’t involved in the same things you are, you will only consider those who live close enough to meet in person. Or if you could set a certain number a day/week and had exclusion criteria to be applied until you got the number you had in mind. D.
Dan, I’m wondering if a non-profit that would let the users to (collectively) own the aggregated data could work. I mean, why *aren’t* there any projects like this? You’d think people would flock to something like that if the had the option. D.
....
Jon, I’m wondering if requests for friends status could be pre screened by various criteria to get them to a manageable number. For instance, it might help a lot if you could decide that for people you haven’t met in real life and who aren’t involved in the same things you are, you will only consider those who live close enough to meet in person. Or if you could set a certain number a day/week and had exclusion criteria to be applied until you got the number you had in mind. D.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
to lie or to dissemble...
re:” Rare is the case in which someone truly calls a lie what it is. Words like “dissemble” or expressions like “apparently at odds with what others have said” — when a blatant lie has been told — are routinely used to paper over the reality.”
Dan, I’m wondering if they do that (well, NOT to that… not call a lie a lie) for fear of legal repercussions.
Delia
P.S. Jon Stewart has it easier… he can always say it was a joke, a parody etc. But if the same things would be printed in a “serious newspaper” for instance… wouldn’t lawsuits be flying? D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/24/lies-from-top-media-people-ho-hum/#comment-150964)
Dan's reply:
http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/24/lies-from-top-media-people-ho-hum/#comment-150968
Dan, I’m wondering if they do that (well, NOT to that… not call a lie a lie) for fear of legal repercussions.
Delia
P.S. Jon Stewart has it easier… he can always say it was a joke, a parody etc. But if the same things would be printed in a “serious newspaper” for instance… wouldn’t lawsuits be flying? D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/24/lies-from-top-media-people-ho-hum/#comment-150964)
Dan's reply:
http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/24/lies-from-top-media-people-ho-hum/#comment-150968
Sunday, July 22, 2007
maybe somebody can help?
I'm looking for somebody with Dan Gillmor's easy going personality and Jay Rosen's kind of topics -- any suggestion? let me know... thanks! D.
taking a look at other blogs...
MyDD... (I initially wondered if that was the bra size...:): not bad but they make you register to post -- too much hassle.... D.
Alright! I'm going to break with tradition...
and just post my comments on this blog (I still like Jay's projects, I was just getting tired of his pissed off knee jerk reactions to my comments)
asking people to *strive* for objectivity (and the fact that it did get pretty close to it) is what made Wikipedia succesful (it would have been a useless collection of dubious material otherwise): this is what Jay doesn't seem to get about his project -- that he severily handicaps it if he doesn't establish such a goal -- (would it still fall short of that goal? absolutely... but that's not the point -- the point is that you get a much better, much more useful product if you do have this goal than if you don't...)
Delia
re: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48753
asking people to *strive* for objectivity (and the fact that it did get pretty close to it) is what made Wikipedia succesful (it would have been a useless collection of dubious material otherwise): this is what Jay doesn't seem to get about his project -- that he severily handicaps it if he doesn't establish such a goal -- (would it still fall short of that goal? absolutely... but that's not the point -- the point is that you get a much better, much more useful product if you do have this goal than if you don't...)
Delia
re: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48753
Friday, July 20, 2007
Partisan?
the more, the merrier... according to Jay...
(I can't seem to stay off his toes so I'm going to take a good long break...)
Jay,
I think what he really meant to ask was do you expect your project in general (and the individual bits and pieces of it) to be "partisan"? Not in the crudest form (you are saying that "wouldn't make the cut") but...if you are telling people ... hey! don't even bother trying to be objective (that's not something we care about), it's hard to see how you could avoid that outcome...
Delia
P.S. Since you don't appear to want to address this issue at all in the context of your project, will readers be expected to just read between the lines and figure out who's pitching for what team and how much weight if any they should give to what they are saying? D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48746)
Jay,
I don't know what your problem is, again... Why are you so touchy? (I seems like I can't say anything without setting you off...)
I should be able to point out things I see problems with and get a relaxed answer -- whether I'm right or wrong... And I don't think I'm wrong on this one.
Yes, you did say those things but what does that really mean when it comes down to the quality of the product and what people will be reading and be able to get out of it?
The one thing that made sense out of your rant was :"As to whether contributors will be discouraged from presenting their account in an 'objective' manner" --> of course they will be! if you aren't even asking them to at least *attempt* to be objective... (you are telling them it's fine either way...)
And don't forget what your project is about: an election! If you are so naive not to realize that even under the best intentions most people would find it extremely difficult to be objective, keep dreaming... Or maybe you just don't give a hoot... I don't know...
Either way, good luck with your project and with a couple of others! (I've had enough for a good long while)
Delia
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48750)
(I can't seem to stay off his toes so I'm going to take a good long break...)
Jay,
I think what he really meant to ask was do you expect your project in general (and the individual bits and pieces of it) to be "partisan"? Not in the crudest form (you are saying that "wouldn't make the cut") but...if you are telling people ... hey! don't even bother trying to be objective (that's not something we care about), it's hard to see how you could avoid that outcome...
Delia
P.S. Since you don't appear to want to address this issue at all in the context of your project, will readers be expected to just read between the lines and figure out who's pitching for what team and how much weight if any they should give to what they are saying? D.
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48746)
Jay,
I don't know what your problem is, again... Why are you so touchy? (I seems like I can't say anything without setting you off...)
I should be able to point out things I see problems with and get a relaxed answer -- whether I'm right or wrong... And I don't think I'm wrong on this one.
Yes, you did say those things but what does that really mean when it comes down to the quality of the product and what people will be reading and be able to get out of it?
The one thing that made sense out of your rant was :"As to whether contributors will be discouraged from presenting their account in an 'objective' manner" --> of course they will be! if you aren't even asking them to at least *attempt* to be objective... (you are telling them it's fine either way...)
And don't forget what your project is about: an election! If you are so naive not to realize that even under the best intentions most people would find it extremely difficult to be objective, keep dreaming... Or maybe you just don't give a hoot... I don't know...
Either way, good luck with your project and with a couple of others! (I've had enough for a good long while)
Delia
(http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2007/07/20/az_otb.html#comment48750)
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
who's a publisher on the web?
Jon, that’s a *publisher* on the web in your view? I could have sworn that was the definition of a censor … (re: “The person with the ability to remove content”) D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150836)
re: ” But when it comes down to a question of authority, they have the sole ability to remove content”
well… not necessarily, at least it doesn’t seem so to me: the ability to remove content seems to be *additional* to the basic function of a publisher on the web: say I used software that allowed me to post on my blog but not to remove any content (no deletions, no alterations) — would that make me NOT a publisher? D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150838)
Jon, I just came up with that example to make it clear why I didn’t find your definition for a publisher on the web to be accurate. But it’s no big deal to me… (just a theoretical issue…) Good luck with PONAR! D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150840)
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150836)
re: ” But when it comes down to a question of authority, they have the sole ability to remove content”
well… not necessarily, at least it doesn’t seem so to me: the ability to remove content seems to be *additional* to the basic function of a publisher on the web: say I used software that allowed me to post on my blog but not to remove any content (no deletions, no alterations) — would that make me NOT a publisher? D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150838)
Jon, I just came up with that example to make it clear why I didn’t find your definition for a publisher on the web to be accurate. But it’s no big deal to me… (just a theoretical issue…) Good luck with PONAR! D.
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/07/02/why-wikipedia-news-works/#comment-150840)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)