TV news in a postmodern world...

This article might be of interest to some here.

 

>>> http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0403/heaton.html <<<

I've been reading this series and haven't been very impressed. I think it would be more accurately titled, "TV news in the Internet age."

 

There's a basic fallacy in this rejection of editorial control, which can be neatly illustrated by looking at the information on photo.net through the eyes of a complete newbie to photography. There's also a basic fallacy in the notion that news can be a conversation, which is neatly illustrated by posting a criticism of the war on terror on the Leica forum. ;-)

I thought it was an interesting article that brought up some good points. It has been a long time since I've bothered to look at any of the big network news shows on a regular basis, the reason being that they are so entirely predictable. I'm watch PBS less all the time too for the same reason - they have been giving way too much time to the official spokesman types.<br>    Something the article didn't mention which I think is interesting is the robotic editorial process pioneered by Google News. I think it produces some genuinely interesting diversity in a compact format. That I read every morning.

I think both editorial news and "conversation news" both can be

good. Editorial news are more static while conversations range

from the worst to extremely interesting. Honestly, I loved most of

the OT (political/news) threads in the leica forum before they

started to clamp down. Anyway, what is news? More

importantly, how do YOU qualify what credible news are?

 

Is it CNN because they are 24 hours and most resourceful?

Is it AFP, AP, Reuter because they are more raw?

Is it a specific personality i.e. columnist / pj s with a known point

of view?

Is it NPR or BBC because they are radio oriented and have less

corporate sponsers / influence

Is it national geographic because of their assignments are more

indepth from hindsight point of views?

Is it a some blogger because he's got no one to answer to?

 

Why do you trust your chosen sources and how

do you qualify / quantify credible news?

I'm convinced that for most people, credible news is news that corresponds to their pre-conceived views. Sad, but true.

Rather easier to identify what isn't credible; ie: Fox.

From the peanut gallery: When news only comes from one source, whether it's Fox or the

New York TImes or alternet.org, we're accepting a lot based on a little. Now I do believe

the Times and BBC are better than Fox, but then the New York Review of Books (Atlantic

Monthly, etc.) is better than either one, IMO, because the monthly articles tend to explore

the world as more than factual occurrences. (This isn't really fair to the TImes or BBC, but

I reckon anyone reading this far in the thread can see my point. We've also seen the Times

and BBC make fundamental errors in reporting even the "facts" of various events, i.e

Chinese spies in the US nuclear program, etc.) Whatever our primary sources of news,

when an issue/event is important/meaningful then the primary source should be a

<i>starting point </i> for a personal investigation, and the Internet makes this possible

because it provides easy access to news reports <u> and explicit analyses </u> from

multiple perspectives.

<br><br>

One example: Two years ago the US State Department, or a similar entity, issued its

annual report on human rights, and the Hong Kong newspapers carried that report

alongside a report from the CCP, or a similar entity, on human rights abuses in the USA. I

was teaching in Hong Kong at the time and the class had several excellent discussions

because we viewed both reports from multiple perspectives, and then these perspectives

were further refined, sharpened, extended, etc. through our discussions. Did we reach a

conclusion or agreement? No, thank god. Were personal perspectives and opinions

broadened? I think so. (very hard to assess.)

<BR><BR>

OK, too many words; my wine glass is empty and fingers are stiff from this atypical

participation. Sorry. I agree with Andrew that humans tend to <u> accept</u> "news"

that conforms with personal opinions; seldom do most of us bother to read articles or

columns which appear to conflict with personal beliefs. Nevertheless and fortunately,

change IS possible when individuals are willing to be open-minded, to investigate, to

consult, and when opportunities and motivation for such exploration exist.

<BR><BR>

Finally answering Leslie's question: Those writers and sources I really like - Paul Krugman,

Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Seymour Hersh, etc. - give me places to <u> start </u>

thinking and learning about the world. (Apologies for the north american references.)

Oops- no photography is included in these scribblings. Should we discuss Underexposed:

Censored Pictures and Hidden History instead? Excellent question - thanks for making

me think.

<BR><BR>

Don

Well I am really interested in HOW as opposed to WHAT. Yes, I

agree one should pick a incredble source as a point of departure

and go from there. It's silly arguing what's the truth. comments

like Fox is rightwing propanganda or NPR is leftest trash will not

get dialogues going anyway. It is the apathetic populace that

needs to be triggered in some way to generate long indepth

substantial change.

Hock your tv and throw away your radio. Thats the best news I can give you.