When Is the News Not the News?
One excellent reporter I know laments how her site has been dramatically “dumbed down” by the offensive, hostile, scatalogical comments of posters. (I don’t see it at that particular site, but she says that many freelancers won’t even write for them anymore; and this is not some fringe rag.)
Over the last few years, I have always tried to argue from the position that more reader interaction/input is a good thing. But this (via Digby) makes it easier to see her point:
…(NY Republican Representative Peter) King isn’t alone today in his disdain for (New Orleans Mayor) Ray Nagin and his constituents. Here are some nice comments from the CBS web site on its story about the Nagin comment:
…It’s time for the citizens of NO to face the truth and stop blaming the government for the life they chose to live and where they chose to live it. Grow up and accept responsibility for your own life. It should be pointed out to Nagin that New Yorkers were on their way work or at work when the unthinkable event occured. After the attack New Yorkers dug themselves out from underneath the distruction and strangers helped strangers. On the other hand the people of New Orleans were sitting at home on the front porch waiting for someone to tell them what to do. After Katrina every one sat on their butts and grew angry that no one is helping us. BooHoo!
You cant compare NO to NY and you sure as heck cant compare Rudy to Nagin.
Posted by Terrys1955 at 03:29 PM : Aug 25, 2006
……………………………………………………………………….
Being from Florida I’m very familiar with hurricanes. Hurricanes do not just happen spur of the moment. Comparison to ground zero is absurd. Maybe if there was less whining and these folks got their lazy behinds off their waterlogged couch things would be better. But that’s a lot to expect from the kind of people who would vote for Nagin. You got what you deserved. Maybe if we’re lucky a couple more canes will head your way and NO can become a great scuba diving spot. “See the ruins”. …Check ou the story yourself and you’ll see that these kind of comments are, by far, the majority.
…
If anyone is stil wondering why we have had trouble creating a decent safety net in this country, you need look not further. The benefits always seem to go to the “wrong people.”
Rove is hoping to tap into these primitive feelings to shore up his base and mitigate the perception of Republican incompetence in dealing with the most catastrophic American natural disaster in our lifetimes. So far, the news media seems more than willing to help him.
In much the same way that other media (radio, for example, or videotape) revolutionized the coverage of news, the Internet provides the possibility of a quantum shift in what news can be and how it can serve a democratic public. And like other media, when the Internet is used uncritically, it can undermine our better notions of democracy.
Speaking generally, simple tools like registration wouldn’t prevent racist commentary, and, in a sense, they shouldn’t. Racist commentary, while loathesome, is protected speech that deserves protection. But news editors can and should consider designing their sites so that the conversation itself is somewhat protected. Some low barrier to entry will keep out the most reflexive commentors, while still giving a widely open forum to posters (of all stripes) who want to contribute.
This is part of the complex equation now taking shape: the transformation of news into a conversation constructed by both reporters and readers. We’re about ten years into this phase, and these kinds of issues are only recently starting to approach a sort of cultural critical mass. But it’s a good time for all of us to ask, What is “news” for? Why does it look the way it does? How can it be better?
I’d be glad to hear your thoughts in the comments section.
August 28, 2006 at 6:56 pm
This is part of the complex equation now taking shape: the transformation of news into a conversation constructed by both reporters and readers. We’re about ten years into this phase, and these kinds of issues are only recently starting to approach a sort of cultural critical mass. But it’s a good time for all of us to ask, What is “news” for? Why does it look the way it does? How can it be better?
But I’d argue that we’re not really even 10 years into this phase of conversation, but only two or three. Prior to that, reporters weren’t really engaged in the process, so how could any transition be taking place?
(saw your boss in DC, too. Keep me posted on what’s going on at CU)
August 28, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Well, the New York Times went online in 1995, the same era that Slate and Salon were trying to catch up with the truly bleeding edge Amp Magazine (Cool Site of the Day, April, 1996; a watershed by any measure). So the ten-year mark represents a more general view, perhaps. But that year I was working to figure out how readers at ESPN.com, ABCNews.com and other sites would be interacting with these properties. And the issues that I hear editors and publishers talk about now are essentially the same questions that we had back then. (Though, again, as with Amazon and Yahoo, knowing what’s going to happen hasn’t translated into any smart stock picking on my part.)
There’s a very swanky Media and Fundamentalism conference happening out here at the end of October; and they serve the best cocktails. Come on out and we’ll get you fixed up!