- Filter by:
- All
High: 29° / Low: 13° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
City Pages has an interesting interview with Craig Newmark, which is essentially a follow-up to a bombastic editorial in the SF Bay Gaurdian about Craigslist killing journalism. Downplaying what has become known as "citizen journalism," Newmark says, "There's no substitute for professional-level writing and fact-checking and editing." Indeed. Meanwhile in the same issue, some other chump takes a similiar (though perhaps more boosterish) stab at challenging the media industry, adding parenthetically, "MNspeak.com was started on the principle that if you can aggregate people's thoughts and perceptions, you can create a valuable news source." So it leads to the question: can a site like this do journalism? Or are we all just cranks yelling at each other?
[Deep apologies for the self-link.]
Probably a bit of both.
A site like this can absolutely do journalism.
The blimp episode is a great example.
Frankly the discussion on FF Realty is another. (started with a story-- grew with people telling their own experiences-- finally the founder chimed in)
And the FBI investigation into mortgage fraud.
All three are journalistic stories that had their genesis here.
But I come here for the cranks yelling at each other.
This would be akin to Barry Bonds saying that softball players degrade baseball.
When people ask me about MNspeak's ability to perform acts of journalism, I sometimes cite the blimp coverage (a story we owned) or the publishing of the first Lindsay Lohan PHC pics. Before Emily even says it, certainly, this isn't the apex of journalism, but it is information that people talk about.
However, I've started to rethink those examples. Now, I'm pretty sure that more recent threads about neighborhoods or about familiar people around town are much better examples. It's hard to call those threads "journalism" in the traditional sense -- no lede, no editing, etc. But they are journalism in the purest sense: giving people valuable information, and offering an environment to discuss it.
News as conversation.
With so much consumer content being generated by new media and emerging technologies, we really have to begin a whole process of redefining function.
there's a difference between talking about something that's already been reported versus going out, finding sources, doing all the legwork, and finally writing the story.
I think this site is good for, as Rex said, culture stories as conversation. But I think there's a diferrence between the two.
Not to be disagreeable, but I think it's the other way around. All stories start as conversation, and there are dozens of ideas first discussed here that later showed up in print. I do think you're right about the difference between the two, but I'm not able to put my finger on it.
Here's a quote from Andy Warhol's The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (1975) that I've been obsessed with lately:
"I'm confused about who the news belongs to. I always have it in my head that if your name's in the news, then the news should be paying you. Because it's your news and they're taking it and selling it as their product. But then they always say that they're helping you, and that's true too, but still, if people didn't give the news their news, and if everybody kept their news to themselves, the news wouldn't have any news. So I guess you should pay each other. But I haven't figured it out fully yet."
Just think about it -- when reporters take pieces of your life and present it as news, shouldn't you be able to deliver that message?
In a sense, someone posting a great deli to go to for lunch is a function of journalism. It's about sharing experience or knowledge that someone deems useful.
I imagine someone will come up with a new word to better define what happens here. Journalism is such a tainted word, and it brings all sorts of baggage. Unfiltered, unedited, content sharing is what happens here. I think.
I agree, rex. As a former journalist, it has been my experience that all stories begin as a conversation... they progress as a conversation... and they end with more conversation -- assuming they are well executed.
That SF Guardian editorial was pretty bad. Jeff Jarvis had a pretty good takedown:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/02/02/playing-the-walmart-card/
But we're not talking about just profiles of individuals or culture stories. News is about more than human-interest stories or conversations among a certain privileged subculture found here. (And before we start a heated debate, admit it, that's what we are.) News is also about what's not happening, what's not being discussed yet, what needs to be discussed. It's about more than what's happening in our neighborhoods.
point well made
I believe the "what is news" story was broke here.
Yep, I agree completely that news is more than profiles and individuals. But I guess what I'm asking is: can the principle of, say, finding a good deli be applied to, say, crime in North Minneapolis?
Typically, the phrase you'll hear journalists invoke is "leg work." And as a recovering journalist, I think that's completely valid. But stop and think about it -- what if you didn't need to do "leg work" because the sources showed up to respond for you? I know -- that's purely utopian, not everyone will show up; however, a bunch of people you didn't expect will also show up.
The blimp example was fascinating to me because people on this site actually did leg work -- they called McLaughlin's campaign, they called Oprah's publicist, they followed the blimp around town. That absolutely fascinates me, and I'd be the happiest boy on the internet if we could figure out how to do that to bigger stories.
It's too hard to peel ourselves away from this site to do any leg work.
That's a good point. :)
And I also wonder if we should even be bothering to aspire to something else.
I guess it depends on how you define "journalism." I personally define it as a learned craft, where trained professionals collect, vet/filter, synthesize and redistribute information.
I see this site and others like it as aggregators and redistributors of information. The key difference that separates this from "journalism," in my mind, is the vetting/filtering part. In the MnSpeak model, that's left up to the (ostensibly non-journalistically-trained) audience.
I can cut people open on my kitchen table -- that doesn't make me a surgeon nor does it make my kitchen an operating room.
I'm definitely an old-skool thinker in that I believe there will always be a place (OK, maybe not "always" but definitely for many years to come) for the oligarchical form of journalism -- where institutions are established as trusted distributors of information which has been gathered from a variety of sources, analyzed and synthesized into a product which one could call "truth." ("What is truth?" -- that's another thread...)
There is also a place for forums like this, where information and opinions are exchanged without regard for the publisher's identity or credentials for making whatever statements they make. Where readers do their own analysis and synthesis of the information presented. But that's not journalism, at least not to me. That's just a form of publishing.
-d
(Probably just a *little* bitter since I was schooled as a journalist. The whole idea of "community journalism" is kind of a non-sequitur to me. "Community Publishing" is a better name for it in my opinion.)
I dunno. You take two stories -- one extensively reported here by a MNspeak contributor and another fully reported in the Strib by a reporter. Let's say they provide the same information. You mean one of those is journalism and the other isn't? That rubs me wrong.
(That example has certainly happened here before too, either as a collective or as an individual. It doesn't happen daily, but it happens.)
Dave, I hear you. I feel the same way at times. I think that while we should not equate the two things, we can find definite value in both. All this aggregating and blog "stuff" is based on the overtly postmodern concept that therre is no distinction between "high" and "low" art, so to speak. I find it difficult to break from my elitist training and accept this completely. Yet, where we be today without artists and professionals who challenged thhis distinction? I for one, will not challenge it, but I will accept value in both. Like I said yesterday, anything that helps to keep me informed is a definite plus. BUT everyone needs editing!
Jarvis uses the phrase "acts of journalism." I've found myself using it more and more lately.
I think this is the best thing to have happened to journalism - at last the community (whom the journalists are supposed to be representing) can better keep journalists on their toes. Comments made on an article are no longer relegated to the selective "Letters to the Editor" page, and we can glean a better sense of how truthful a news piece is by the comments. The "ostensibly non-journalistically-trained audience" can actually may actually surprise you, DaveM, as to how on top of things they really are.
Often journalists are egoists who "own" a story, and the story or the reporting is more about the reporter than it is the actual story or the people in it. THAT rubs me the wrong way. And people not owning their own story, people who are at the mercy of the reporter, is often a strange relationship that rarely gets exlpored.
The journalist will tell you that if everyone owned their own story, then not much would be revealed, because journalists believe they are critical thinkers whose job and duty it is to uncover the cracks. This could be true in some circumstances. But I think the initial reaction against "citizen journalism" is one based on ego and nothing else, e.g, "I am a trained professional, you are not."
That said, I still think there are differences between talking about a deli and reporting on crime in Minneapolis. And, yes, part of it has to do with training, though I don't think it's conventional education as much as it is having the ability to do the job full-time and learn from mistakes. It IS more than just leg work. It's learning what works and what doesn't, it's learning how to find the sources, ask the right questions, find the real story.
The idea that we need journalistically-trained professionals filtering information and deciding what the public needs to be informed of seems more than a little outdated to me. A good quote from that Jeff Jarvis post:
"No, the problem is that the internet kills middlemen and newspapers are middlemen, in terms of commerce, news, and community. The internet enables direct connections. At every presentation I give to media companies today, I include this simple quote from Craig himself: Get out of the way. Thats what he does: He creates functionality and lets people use it as they wish. Media was in the business of getting in the way. But no more. "
No, there's no difference in that instance because of the process. I wasn't around for the example people are citing here, but it sounds like someone did actual reporting -- meaning that they went and gathered facts and reported them. That's a lot different from what I see going on here on most threads... where people are just tossing out comments and one really has no basis to know where their information is coming from.
Now, if the Strib story reports one factoid and MNSpeak posted a contradictory factoid, whom do you believe? Whose "journalism" do you trust? Everyone has to make their own decision on that. Very broadly speaking, I would probably be more inclined to trust an institutional source than some random, anonymous poster on a Web site, depending on the type of information I'm looking for.
If, on the other hand, I was a long-time participant and had some knowledge over time of the MNSpeak poster's track record for accuracy, their credentials, etc. -- in other words, if they had gained my trust over time, I might have a harder time deciding whom to believe. The New York Times didn't just decide that they were "the newspaper of record." They earned the right to call themselves that over many decades. (Some would say they've since lost that right -- but again -- that's another thread.)
And there are instances where it just depends on the nature of the information sought. If I'm looking to find out what the hot club in town is, I'm more likely to get the information I believe to be "true" from MNSpeak than the StarTribune or, god forbid, Mpls-StPaul magazine. But keep in mind that in that example, "truth" is really a collective opinion, not a fact.
But this is a far different situation than, say, the real estate thread the other day. When people post (potentially defamatory) comments about a real estate developer, they have no basis for credibility. They're anonymous. They could be the developer's competitor for all I know. But if I read an investigative piece in the Strib alleging wrongdoing by said developer, I'm more inclined to view that information as factual, because the information was gathered, analyzed, synthesized and redistributed by a group of trained, identifiable professionals.
Not to be too obvious, but essentially, the difference between what happens here and what happens there ("there" being traditional news sources) is exactly the difference between dialogue and monologue.
And it seems to me, as primarily a reader here, the people that fail on this platform are the people who get monologue-y and cannot further/sustain effective dialogue.
Alternately, the people who fail on a traditional news platform are the people who lack a singular, informed, authoritative voice and depend too heavily on other people speaking up to fill in the gaps.
The question then becomes, I guess, is talking or listening or both more authentic, and which platform most effectively integrates them all?
DaveM: I think I'm with ya. But let's take that real estate example, which indeed is a delicate one. The potentially-defamed guy showed up in the comemnts today, left his number, and told anyone who has a problem with his developments to call him.
In some way, isn't that even more important than what a newspaper could do? Or, at the very least, it's interesting that communication/publishing happens like this.
(I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm no blog apologist, and that I think good journalism is crucial to democracy. I'm just speculating on possibilities.)
Dave, I hear you. I feel the same way at times. I think that while we should not equate the two things, we can find definite value in both. All this aggregating and blog "stuff" is based on the overtly postmodern concept that therre is no distinction between "high" and "low" art, so to speak.
Oh, definitely. There's absolutely value in both. I guess all I'm saying is that "journalism" is a small subset of the larger universe of "content publishing," and most of what appears here does not fit my personal definition of "journalism." MNSpeak is about distribution of information -- some of it is journalistic and some isn't. There's no value judgement implied.
"Journalism" is a process done by journalists. Do you have to have a degree and a portfolio and a little notepad to be a journalist? Of course not -- duh. But neither can you just publish something on a Web site and assume it's "journalism."
Wow, I had started putting together my post much, much earlier in the day but my real life office beckoned and it sat far too long before being finished and sent...
...and completely missed its window of relevency. Forgive.
"journalism" is a small subset of the larger universe of "content publishing,"
I think this is a good way to look at it. And, rex, I think what we need to focus on is how to add to that... how mnspeak, as well as other sources, can help to fill the gaps in the larger universe of "content publishing"
DaveM: I think I'm with ya. But let's take that real estate example, which indeed is a delicate one. The potentially-defamed guy showed up in the comemnts today, left his number, and told anyone who has a problem with his developments to call him.
In some way, isn't that even more important than what a newspaper could do?
Yes, indeed. It's way cool. If a MNSpeaker actually contacted the writer, verified it was indeed the guy, checked the information that had been posted by other commenters and wrote a report about the entire situation, that'd be pretty darned close to journalism in my mind.
Again, for me journalism involves gathering, analyzing and making informed decisions about what and how to present information. MNSpeak is a free-for-all (again... good!) in which the onus is on the reader to analyze and synthesize.
In summation:
MNSpeak = good
"Journalism" = good
MNSpeak = occasionally, but not always "journalism"
Here's another thing: I'm extremely interested in this notion of trust. Dave is more likely to trust a daily paper for certain kinds of information, and this site for others. I trust some commenters, not others. Other people might only trust their mothers. Whatever...
But what I find interesting (or what I hypothesize) is that media literacy has risen exponentially since the advance of blogs. So even the example of the potentially-defamed real estate broker gets called into question -- I mean, did anyone read the one or two comments and immediately decide, "I'll never buy a condo from that guy"? I doubt it. Nor did anyone read the Times story and say, "I"m going buy a condo from that guy!"
It seems as though we've developed keen sensors to decipher information. And it's why we get so friggin upset when our sensors don't work -- whether that's James Frey or WMD.
(Can anyone tell I'm trying to write a book on this topic.)
But I come here for the cranks yelling at each other.
We prefer to be called "Bloggian-Americans" these days.
I compeletely agree with Dave M. His points are very important for those who rely primarily on sites like this for "news." Sites like this allow for a new and accessible kind of community forum, which can be very illuminating. But as someone who recently went through something that was covered by myriad local media (to address Warhol's point of it being "our" news), I have to stump for the notion of trained, objective news media (i.e. traditional journalists). While I didn't agree with every reporter's coverage, and certainly wasn't happy with all of it, in every case there was an attempt at recounting the objective facts. The importance of this attempt at objectivity is paramount. It's maddening as a news subject, because one wants everyone to see one's "side" of the story, but I can't be so vain as to suggest that I know the whole story, even as a participant/subject.
The story was also discussed here and in other "community forums." What resulted was, in at least some cases, rants from a bunch of people who didn't really know anything about the situation at hand. I don't begrudge anyone the right to their opinion, but in no way should people understand such opinions to be fact-based. That's what reporters are for.
Furthermore, as Dave suggests, "truth" and experience are often at odds. In my case, I was sure that I understood the situation completely, and that I was "right." But it spiraled into a Rashomon-like situation in which the news subjects had totally contradictory stories, each one insisting theirs to be "true." Again, we need trained professionals to sort these elements out as best as they can.
I think news is what happened. Just write a recap of what happened. That's it. I don't need interpretation or analysis, I just want to know what happened at _________________. Give me the facts and details and I'll interpret and analyze for myself. That's all I ask from the media and I trust you to be able to do it without screwing up. If you do, you've lost me (attn: traditional media).
:)
I absolutely agree with you Emily. I think what I'm trying to speculate is whether something else can -- or will, or should -- emerge.
You have to believe that 10 people are smarter than one person, so if there were a way (a big if) to aggregate the 10 people's thoughts into a "story", we'd be better off as a culture.
Like Warhol, "I haven't figured it out fully yet."
It seems as though we've developed keen sensors to decipher information.
Define "we." I would argue (with absolutely no facts to back myself up, just a personal hunch) that the splintering of information sources tends to cause many consumers to gravitate toward the source(s) that reinforce a pre-existing notion of truth. In the same way that people believe the Bible to be literal fact, there are plenty of people who believe the reporting on Fox News to be literal fact, and don't have any reason to or interest in questioning the validity of the source.
I suggest that there is a segment (perhaps the majority) of the population who prefer to be told what to think, do and believe... rather than participating in any sort of process to reach their own conclusion. Places like MNSpeak are for people who are already predisposed to critical thinking.
Rex,
How do you surmise that blogs have raised media literacy? And "fisking" doesn't count as literacy in this case. At least I hope.
You have to believe that 10 people are smarter than one person, so if there were a way (a big if) to aggregate the 10 people's thoughts into a "story", we'd be better off as a culture.
But isn't that exactly what a reporter does (or at least should do) through the interview process? And through working with editors, colleagues, etcetera?
Sure, but the hypothesis is: what if there were 10 reporters? Or 100 reporters?
I don't want to muddle the example though -- I think it's a good one that was very well reported, especially since I didn't understand what the hell was going on until Deborah Rybak and Paul Demko wrote about it in detail. It certainly required good old-fashioned reporting, and I definitely ain't the messenger delivering the death of that.
Maybe I'm wrong about this media literacy thing. But a part of me thinks that kids publishing on MySpace -- no matter how trivial the content -- is a good thing. And their seemingly instant parsing of Google News data is astonishing -- not just their knowledge gathering, but their ability to establish accurate trust measures. It all seems to advance their understanding of communication and publishing, conversation and broadcasting.
My speculation is that the next generation will be less about "reading" and more about "writing" and "rewriting" information. But again, maybe I'm wrong.
DaveM, you raise a great point that is true in many facets of life...many people are content being sheep. Unfortunately (in some cases) traditional media depends on this; offering content to the lowest common denominator. This is what has driven many people to this site and others like it. I hope however that this segmentation doesn't continue. I would like to see the two sides come together; where traditional outlets can disseminate top down, and the community can disseminate laterally or bottom up.
That's an interesting point, Rex. I guess I would say that people are becoming more adept at self-promotion. But then again, perhaps self-promotion is a form of media literacy, even if it means only understanding and responding to purely inane stories. News viewing and newspaper circ. numbers don't necessarily reflect a new media literacy, however. And certain news orgs, like the Strib, for example, have resorted to trying to reach a new audience via human-interest and "lifestyle" stories. Again--it's about ME and my lifestyle. If it doesn't touch me, it doesn't matter. But maybe that's the media literacy you mean?
But a part of me thinks that kids publishing on MySpace -- no matter how trivial the content -- is a good thing.
I'd like to second that. Post-colonization, post-revolution, post-war, or whenever - citizens are always communicating their skepticism to one another. Post-Information Age, we are once again redefining what it means to be skeptical. Whether it's MySpace, Google News, here, or anywhere - processing information can only lead to ultimately being informed.
Yes, well....
A little bit, yeah, but there's an easy way to twist it as positive rather than negative. But to continue with the negative, I have this phrase I've been using which will appall some people here, but here it is anyway: "the reality tv star is the embedded reporter of tomorrow." Try to read it symbolically: the notion is that people themselves are implicated in the stories that are told about them.
This, of course, has gargantuan implications for "objectivity" and "impartiality" -- there's no hiding from it. But I also think it's the future, and will likely have unforseen positive effects, as, I think, the evolution of documentary in recent years has started to suggest.
As a "journalist", I've been trying to combine the collaborative approach into my regular reporting. I posted something here awhile ago talking about a story I was doing that night. Andrea posted this: "You should reference their response at the end of the Enterprise of Technology Report at the end of the audit by Legislative Auditor."
Because of her input, I was able to include that information in my story, and link to the entire report on my blog. How crazy is that? I see that as the future. Viewers helping to guide the so-called professional journalists... a network of sources who collaborate to form a better, more complete, more accurate story.
My point exactly, jderusha! The dialogue aids the story.. the dialogue aids the journalist. And we can all be a part of that dialogue. But most of us want the luxury of the journalistic account.. at some point.
Yeah, a source is a source, whether it was obtained via a blog or a phone call or running into someone on the street. New media have hopefully expanded opportunities for 'ordinary people' to contribute to the journalistic process. But the process itself has not changed.
To Rex's earlier point about reading vs. writing -- what if everyone's writing and no one is reading? What happens to the information?
As a "journalist", I've been trying to combine the collaborative approach into my regular reporting.
That's a lot easier to stomach than the straight-up "dialog as journalism" idea that's being thrown around here. It's nice to think about utopian dreams of online, collab-driven journalism, but the accountability issues are too serious for something like mnspeak to supplant something like the Strib. When the two work together--the old guard publishes the story, and the new tears it apart online--is when MNspeak really cooks with gas.
Another thing of note (at least I think so) is that, to an extent, MNSpeak and sites like it are somewhat regressive. Remember, journalism as we know it hasn't been around for that long. This forum isn't really all that far removed from the town hall forum of old -- where news came directly from word of mouth. It's similar to what Steven Clift has been talking about for years via e-democracy.
I suspect "rewriting" might be the best term here, since it implies both reading and writing.
I happen to be someone who thinks we don't have a shortage of information. We've got way too much. But we seem to have a shortage of good information -- and worse, it's become more difficult to find it. Thankfully, I think we're developing filters (that's probably the best thing we do here) to ferret it out though.
I think mnspeak has hit the point in it's evolution in which the "community" of users are starting to self edit and self manage each other. This happens in the life of most online communities, be it message boards, mmorpgs, or any other example. The cream always rises to the top. There are probably a few filters that could be implemented at this point which would better serve the quality of content, but that would be to automate any process that is currently manual.
You mean like "rate this post/comment"? And then sifting the higher-rated items to the top? I've thought about that, but I don't think we've hit that mass yet.
It's nice to think about utopian dreams of online, collab-driven journalism, but the accountability issues are too serious for something like mnspeak to supplant something like the Strib.
Chuck: Are you thinking of something like Digg.com?
There are also legal concerns about collaborate journalism sites: will courts hold the site operator/owner responsible for libelous or slanderous comments? We'll have to see where that lands. If so.. it may shut down the whole idea of those sites.
You mean like "rate this post/comment"? And then sifting the higher-rated items to the top? I've thought about that, but I don't think we've hit that mass yet.
Sometimes I feel that gets underutilized. I agree the mass is a bit on the low side for this. I mean, mnspeak is a business, it sells ads, and if you can streamline certain tasks that require enormous amounts of time and energy, you can focus on other initiatives. Unfortantely, the Industry mag person thinks that mnspeak didn't want to make money, so I'm guessing you gave up the rights for some spinners on the Mustang, and a bottle of Maker's Mark.
cranks
The Digg model is pure filters, almost no content. Newsvine is proabably a better example, right?
But even Newsvine lacks some sort of punch for me. I feel what makes MNspeak work is that we share something in common -- location. Newsvine still feels like a random group of people. Perhaps that will change (the whole idea is to segment audience to their desires), but so far it lacks... personality?
But Chuck's exactly right -- reporters and citizens exchanging emails isn't a big vision. I think we're suggesting something more utopian/dystopian (depending on your perspective), more along the conceptual lines of Wikinews. (And again, I want to be clear that there are tons of pitfalls here. I'm not a propagandist about this.)
As far as the marketplace for new media here, I couldn't disagree more the the Industry dude. There are always new possibilities -- news publications to invent, ways to streamline what others do, ways to improve upon a concept. Actually, The Rake is an excellent example of this (I've said it before I ever met Tom, so I have no problem saying it again). Who would've thought there was a niche that existed between CP and MSP Mag -- and not just a niche, but perhaps an even bigger culture.
But that's a different topic, and I'm pretty sure I've worn everyone out by now. This is more than I've ever typed in one day here. Thanks for interacting!
There are also legal concerns about collaborate journalism sites: will courts hold the site operator/owner responsible for libelous or slanderous comments?
There are a few pieces of case law on this.
Roughly summarizing the details: there was one major case in which the defendant was found to be just a "distributor" of the content since the comments were not moderated in any way -- and hence was found not liable.
In a second major case, the defendant (Prodigy) was found liable because they exercised editorial control and were hence considered a "publisher" of the content.
In a third major case, the defendant (AOL) successfully argued that an ISP is protected from defamation claims related to content posted via the ISP by a third party. The writer of the linked summary says this effectively negated the earlier Prodigy ruling, but I'm not sure I buy that. It seems to be kind of apples and oranges to me. But I'm not a lawyer, nor have I bothered to research the matter any further.
-d
PS: The kind of weird part: I did a quickie google search and all of the sources I'm finding (granted, I spent a total of three minutes looking) are still referring to these cases -- the latest of which was decided ten years ago.
I'll be interested to see the outcome of the housing discrimination lawsuit against Craigslist.
And locally, the lawsuit against Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
I'll take bets with anyone that both of those get dismissed.
If you think about it, it's remarkable the paucity of lawsuits in this area in the past five years. But I think the reason is simple: due diligence. If you feel that something slanderous has been said about you and you contact the site's publisher (which should be your first course of action), the site will usually remove the potentially-slanderous material. It's that simple -- and it makes me surprisingly impressed with America that this is mostly working, and we can keep the lawyers at home.
DaveM -- What did the courts decide about the Napster case? (I can't remember if Napster was actually found guilty or if they just gave up.) Based on precedent of the cases you mentioned, I would have thought that there would have been no case against Napster, but that's not how it worked out. I would research, but I'm supposed to be working...
Napster was found guilty of copyright infringement (which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with citizen journalism, other than that they both involve the pipes of the internet).
What did the courts decide about the Napster case?
There was a defamation action against Napster?
(I'm supposed to be working too... )
Sorry, I was referring to the Napster case because it involved "the pipes of the internet", not because it was a defamation case, which it wasn't. Thanks for the answer, Rex!
But, if Napster was found guilty of copyright infringement, and Napster didn't exercise any content control (or did they?) couldn't a website be found guilty of defamation, even if the site exercised no editorial control?
Napster had in house servers that hosted a lot of the music passed through. It didn't help that massive amounts of copyright infringing work was found on company computers either.
I think the first answer is: completely different cases. One is first ammendment, the other is copyright infringement.
Now wandering more into speculation, I think the second answer is: the notion of "moderating vs. not moderating" is already an old one. It hasn't been challenged recently, but if it ever does, I think most lawyers agree that the discrepancy is as flimsy as the legal status of "reporter". (Again, that's speculation, but it's based upon following these things pretty closely.)
To me, the interesting outstanding legal cases are the Apple/Think Secret one (freedom of speech) and the Google/APP one (copyright).
Completely different cases for this example, true. However, it's worth mentioning that there are more than a few defendents in copyright cases who have argued First Amendment rights.
Like me!
But, if Napster was found guilty of copyright infringement, and Napster didn't exercise any content control (or did they?) couldn't a website be found guilty of defamation, even if the site exercised no editorial control?
There's a commonality in that all of the cases involve the distribution of content via the Internet. But the cases I mentioned are defamation actions, whereas Napster was a copyright battle. Two entirely different torts, and therefore completely unrelated as far as the courts are concerned.
-d
Honestly, I think most of the time this site is just cranks yelling at each other. Many of the regulars are incredibly cynical and smug and their responses to opinions that differ from theirs are dripping with distain. I was sucked into this site for a while but I've grown tired of all the snotty bickering and blatant posing and hardly look at it anymore. And rarely have I seen a post that isn't simply linking to someone else's journalism. This site is a message board -- it ain't all that.
This is a mine field just waiting to be stepped in...and I just want to warn you all that I'm sitting by a pool in Florida. It's 80 degrees and I've had most of a bottle of wine for lunch.
What that caveat, I want to say that I think the main function of a good journalist is to make sense of a story for a reader. Doing that requires an incredible sense of curiousity and dedication to the principle that you don't tell just part of a story and that you do make your opinion known. The myth of journalistic objectivity is just that--a myth.
The whole story does not necessarily mean that you give both sides of a complex story equal weight, or give both sides the opportunity to comment on everything. What you get then is the he said/she said crap that passes for journalism in most media.
For example, I heard a story last week on MPR about a proposed factory farm. The opponents said it would stink. The proponents said it wouldn't stink. The "reporter" said, essentially, "The opponents said it will stink. The proponents say it won't stink." That was it.
What the reporter should have done was go to some equivalent factory farms, got out of his car and sniffed, and then said "These things stink." or "These things don't stink." What we were left with, and what we're too often left with by journalists, is a "balanced" story which leaves us no closer to the truth than we were before we heard anything about it. Balance is not truth.
Unfortunately, Fox and the other pseudo practitioners of "journalism" have succeeded in positioning the other media (read liberal media) as biased because Fox is the one who says they are "Fair and Balanced." Letting both sides tell their story, when one is demonstrably wrong, is bad journalism. So you get media who are afraid to really go after the truth as they see it for fear of being labeled as biased...and even worse, losing ratings or circulation. You also get media who just step out of the fray altogether (or nearly so) like the current incarnation of the Strib, that gives loads of space to crap and precious little to investigation. But, that's the demographic game all mass media have to play.
When you do get the increasingly rare reporting on serious issues, it's not real reporting. It's just letting both sides tell their story instead of the reporter digging out the story on his own. This lazy reporting frequently involves letting one side's bullshit go unquestioned. These are stenographers masquerading as journalists, as Imbecile noted here a while back.
Probably the most dangerous of these in recent memory was Judith Miller of the NY Times, who probably did more to destroy the credibility of that paper than Jason Blair ever thought of doing. She believed every thing she was told by Cheney et. al. about weapons of mass destruction, and printed stories saying there were WMD in Iraq. When challenged on WMD, then, the administration could say, "The NY Times said there were weapons." Shit, Miller was complicit in starting a war for God's sake because she didn't see weapons for herself, yet reported as if she had...or had talked to people who had actually seen them. Pretty easy question to ask, really: "You say there are WMD. Have you seen them?" Reporting what people say, without attribution, is a load when you don't even bother to ask yourself "Why are people telling me this? What's their motivation?"
So lazy unprofessional journalists are everywhere...but so are the good ones...and they are the ones who tell the truth as they see it, literally, and not just what someone says.
Ok, back to vacation.
I used to read the Strib for local news. I wanted to know what was happening in the city in which I work and live. However, it does a very poor job of that since the change. (Not that it was ever great...) Now, I come here. I get a filter from various news sources, that is true. But these are more varied than the Strib. So, while there is a lot of people just yelling at each other, there is a valid function that is happening here that is being lost in the local papers. That is, the local flavor. The Strib and the PiPress are owned by huge conglomerates. They aggregate news from the same sources to save money. Thus, all we get for local flavor are the hacks! The Kerstins and the Colemans. The only way to get an idea about what is important to the locals is to find out what the locals are talking about. This doesn't happen in the traditional media anymore. So, if this (MNSpeak and other new forms of information desemination) kills them, it is their own fault!
starting a war for God's sake
that's funny!
That's COMPLICIT in starting a war, Spaceman. This administration is nothing if not adept at media manipulation for their own propaganda purposes, e.g. the Swift Boaters, whose claims were easily disproven (and were by the NY Times and Washington Post) and yet were widely distributed in the name of Fox's "balance." I could go on, but...
Still sporting that Kerry / Edwards sticker on the Volvo, TBartel?
Sigh.
No, no, TBartel, the phrase is just one big loaded pun. I, literally, thought it was funny.
On a serious note, I don't believe it is a problem of not digging deep enough, I think it is a problem of people already having defined their 'truth' and hearing what they want to believe. Miller wasn't hoodwinked by the White House (how was she supposed to see the WMD herself anyway?); she asked an 'authority' questions already knowing what the answers would be and then reported them.
The same is true for this site, Fox News, or someone's blog: we're just talking, laying down our truths. The only way this is a 'valuable news site' is to find what other peoples' versions of the truth are, and then see how ours fits in. It is a very rare moment that people on this site that have different viewpoints will say, "yes, I see your facts appear to be in order; I'm going to rethink my position." Instead, we have this. But this is the same for FOX News, or blog X as well.
I've yet to read the whole slew of postings yet, but plan to, as I'm totally fascinated by the conversation ... and think it's important.
A question: Can someone show me something really, truly journalistic that Jeff Jarvis has done, or at least enabled? Best I can tell he, like Gillmor, saw a chance to become an impresario of "citizen journalism" or We Media or whatever. They're long on ideas, but to me, way short on execution.
Sure, they've perfromed a major service by spreading the mantra: Our audience knows more than we do. But beyond that? What?
If you're interested, check out what we're doing at MPR: www.mpr.org/publicinsight. It works, and at its best it combines the best of MNSpeak with the best of journalism (vetting, synthesizing, etc).
Hey Andrew, good to see you!
As Calacanis has pointed out recently (rather visciously, methinks), Jarvis indeed has not done any official Citizen J projects himself. I'm not sure that disqualifies him from anything though -- his monstrously successful blog is full of good info and he's a very lucid commentator in person and on tv. Additionally, he also founded my favorite magazine (Entertainment Weekly) and has worked with places like NYtimes.com and About.com on new media strategy. And he's working a Citizen J company right now, so maybe that'll put some proof into the pudding.
(Here's an example from Blogumentary of Jarvis talking.)
Maybe we can look at this lumped into a larger segment of the broader DIY movement.
a site like this can do journalism. with the fluidity of knowledge and ideas its better in the sense that its interactive, we are the ones involved and providing the journalism, and just that it is so fluid, but of course a professional news source is better in the sense that their journalists have the ability to go places and inside stories that non-journalists sometimes can't, and i suppose they have more validity. i think this is a news source, just a post modern one.
why did this thread just come back from february??
I think what you are doing is great!! diet ever pill slim [url=http://dietmaster.psend.com]diet ever pill slim[/url] http://dietmaster.psend.com
Just visiting your site, as we will be getting a student from contagem, brazil on the 12th of August to live with us for highschool. free us cellular audiovox ringtone, [url=http://www.weblog.ro/Freeuscellularringtone/]free us cellular audiovox ringtone[/url] Thanks! http://www.weblog.ro/Freeuscellularringtone/
Just visiting your site, as we will be getting a student from contagem, brazil on the 12th of August to live with us for highschool. bobby darin mack the knife lyric, [url=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mack-the-knife]bobby darin mack the knife lyric[/url] Thanks! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mack-the-knife
Just visiting your site, as we will be getting a student from contagem, brazil on the 12th of August to live with us for highschool. belkin blue tooth gps receiver, [url=http://www.freewebs.com/bluetooth-gps/]belkin blue tooth gps receiver[/url] Thanks! http://www.freewebs.com/bluetooth-gps/
You have come a long way! it will be great to have you here! Awesome book. 06 accessory custom dodge ram [url=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dodge-ram-accessory]06 accessory custom dodge ram[/url] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dodge-ram-accessory
Just visiting your site, as we will be getting a student from contagem, brazil on the 12th of August to live with us for highschool. cheap diamond stud earring, [url=http://studear.balder.prohosting.com/]cheap diamond stud earring[/url] Thanks! http://studear.balder.prohosting.com/
You have come a long way! it will be great to have you here! Awesome book. hard rock hotel and casino [url= http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Casino-hard-hotel-rock/]hard rock hotel and casino[/url] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Casino-hard-hotel-rock/
I would like to encourage author to continue working to bring more exciting books. casino cherokee cherokee harrahs hotel nc [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-cherokee-harrahs/]casino cherokee cherokee harrahs hotel nc[/url] Greetings! http://www.freewebs.com/casino-cherokee-harrahs/
You have come a long way! it will be great to have you here! Awesome book. comforter daybed laura set [url=http://www.freewebs.com/comforter-daybed-set/]comforter daybed laura set[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/comforter-daybed-set/
Great book. I just want to say what a fantastic thing you are doing! Good luck! iowa loan student [url=http://www.freeushosting.com/users/student/]iowa loan student[/url] http://www.freeushosting.com/users/student/
I think what you are doing is great!! nickle slot [url=http://nickle-slot.pbwiki.com]nickle slot[/url] http://nickle-slot.pbwiki.com
So sorry for the time I missed in my life not reading books. wynn hotel las vegas nevada [url=http://hotel-wegas.pbwiki.com]wynn hotel las vegas nevada[/url] http://hotel-wegas.pbwiki.com
So sorry for the time I missed in my life not reading books. 2dplay free game online [url=http://2dfreegame.bbfunpro.com/]2dplay free game online[/url] http://2dfreegame.bbfunpro.com/
So sorry for the time I missed in my life not reading books. sauder furniture outlet [url=http://sauderfurniture.bbfunpro.com]sauder furniture outlet[/url] http://sauderfurniture.bbfunpro.com
I think what you are doing is great!! gain spyware [url=http://litenames.co.uk/spywarebegone/]gain spyware[/url] http://litenames.co.uk/spywarebegone/
hello makakas http://www.mnspeak.com/mnspeak/archive/post-1408.cfm
MinnPost tells of a forthcoming Minnesota Writers Hall of Fame (albiet a virtual one, as it will exist only online). We can guess that Fitzgerald and Sinclair Lewis will be on it. Garrison Keillor will undoubtedly also make the cut. Who else? Judith …
Susannah Schouweiler at MnArtists discusses recent cuts in City Pages, including laying off the A-List editor and one of the two food writers, as well as the recent announcement that Quinton Skinner's theater beat is being cut by half. With all these…
Mine would have to be Augie Garcia's lost classic "Be My Guest" about the River Road Club in Mendota, although I have also always been partial to The Replacement's "Skyway." What are your favorites?…
Afterglide locates a very odd Craigslist offer.Breaking Down says Minnesota is not a state for drivers.The Deets enjoys some fine local fried food.Overheard examines the value of Timberwolves tickets.…
According to Star Tribune columnist Pat Reusse, on Joe Soucheray's KSTP show (reported here), Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad is dead at age 93. If anyone hears any more about this, please comment. [Update: Star Tribune confirms.]…
The Strib does a story on salaries for the local arts community, and reveals that Guthrie Artistic Director Joe Dowling pulled in $682,229 in salary and benefits last year: Even discounting a one-time bonus of $100,000, his compensation surpassed tha…