This whole @aplusk vs @cnnbrk thing is interesting.
17 April 2009 at 4:37 pm 2 comments
So I’m assuming you’ve already heard of the Ashton vs. CNN war, since you’re using a computer to read this blog, and it was all anybody talked about yesterday… which also means you’ve already heard of Susan Boyle, but that’s a whole other post (that will probably not happen because I’m actually in the dissenting group and I generally just keep quiet about that sort of thing). Anyway! I was on team @aplusk because 1) he’s funny; 2) CNN, while wonderful, doesn’t post interesting Tweets; and 3) he pledged to donate $100,000 to fight malaria, a cause near and dear to my heart. I really don’t understand his vendetta against the media though. Yes, with the advent of social networking websites and “citizen media” (oh look at me, writing a blog!), the people have taken control of what news they recieve. While I agree with Ashton that journalism has deteriorated ethically and content-wise in the last few years, I disagree with his belief that we need to get rid of it altogether.
Professional journalism, unlike blogs and other citizen-based journalistic expeditions, requires some degree of balance. True, you have your MSNBCs and your Fox Newses, but *most* media sources at least try to avoid bias. Because they rely on advertising as well as their viewers, professional news sources are more likely to do fact-checking before posting their stories. Bloggers, however, rely solely on their readers, who have expectations about the type of information portrayed in those blogs. For instance, readers of Perez Hilton’s Blog expect “Celebrity juice, not from concentrate.” They demand the latest gossip about Miley Cyrus and Heidi Montag. Most of what Perez writes, however, isn’t necessarily news (or true, for that matter). Most of it is just commentary like “Oh, bb. We’re trying hard to sympathize. But that is LOLtastic!”
While I love social media and am an avid user of sites like Twitter and Facebook, I feel as though Ashton’s belief that traditional media must be eradicated is a dangerous one. Having citizen journalism (bloggers, Tweeters, etc.) as the people’s only source of information is just as dangerous as having one or two conglomerates controlling all of the information available to the people. We need balance not only in the content being distributed to the masses, but also in the methods being used to distribute such information.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: .
1.
xPirate | 17 April 2009 at 7:55 pm
Yay for @aplusk! I agree with you though, that there needs to be a balance between citizen type media and corporate media. Most bloggers aren’t true journalists and only relay information they get from the corporate media. Anything can be said on the internet, while traditional media often reports facts intermixed with opinions.
Congrats on the new blog! ^_^ Hope you stick with it. I just started another blog up, as well, now that I have a computer and time again.
2.
Lenaaaaaa | 21 April 2009 at 2:27 pm
Well, first of all, you are sitting right next to me right now, and I thought that was noteworthy. But also, I completely agree with you. From a glimpse of a live stream of @aplusk, I heard his main argument: he wants the news to come directly from the source. That way, celebrities can tell their fans what’s going on without waiting for the media to filter it. However, is the public to wait to hear from the victims of terrorist attacks, car crashes, earthquakes? Would they have educated opinions? Or is it more responsible to trust a journalist with legitimate credentials to collect some opinions and facts for the public before the story comes out? I really think the latter is a more effective way to handle the news. I detest media bias, and it will be something I will actively fight against when I become a journalist. Still, what most people don’t realize is that media has always been biased. America’s first newspapers would actively support presidential candidates and drown the opposition with mudslinging. And yet, that was still better than nothing, because the key was that the papers were allowed to write what they wanted. Freedom of the press, freedom of choice, freedom.
Those are my two cents.