RE: journalism and cluetrain
Feb 11, 2004 14:59 PST
And Roy ends with: " Yet commercial publishing and broadcasting seem to just
go on and on...". AND, this chain of discussion sure looks to me like a
six-pack blog -- sentiments and all. A six-pack of beer sure sounds good,
right about now!
From: Roy J. Tellason [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cluetrain] journalism and cluetrain
On Wednesday 11 February 2004 03:34 pm, you wrote:
| ||I would say more than listening. Media broadcast, even print, in the|
sense that they collect and then report, with the understanding that
they know what's best. In a world where readers don't have any other
means of communication, this unfortunate power arrangement is somewhat
inevitable. But in a world where you and I and anybody with a modem and
a question can learn a lot of things the single reporter or even the
newspaper staff cannot, that power arrangement is not only
paternalistic, it's broken. It's no longer appropriate from any
standpoint to assume that journalists, and I am one, have access to the
news and others don't. So why are they in the position they are?
The same could be said about a lot of what passes for political systems
| ||And how do we correct the impasse they create?
Seems to me that they're a whole lot less relevant than they used to be,
though there are still a lot of people who find it easier to just pick up a
paper or turn on the tv than to fire up a computer and search the info out.
| ||I don't want to fight newspapers or other media, I want to help them find
What do you see as their role, then, in a newer context as compared to
it's traditionally been?
| ||I think you can make a very similar argument re newspapers as you can re|
traditional music publishers: get with the way people communicate or die.
Yes. Yet commercial publishing and broadcasting seem to just go on and
To subscribe, send a blank email to:
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to: