Comments on: w/e

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:26:22 +0000

Chris, I’m entirely in favour of skepticism, absolutely so. I’m drawing a distinction between that and “sweeping mistrust” that tends to occur in repressive media environments. Agree with you absolutely that the viewer should engage positively with multiple media sources, and the Web can help with that (though I don’t see it as anything more or less than just another complicated, and compromised, medium). I also think that’s exactly what one should be able to do in a media environment characterised by openness and lack of spin — which of course does not only come from government, but also business and ideologically motivated editors.

Which, Stef, is how I understood your point, that a lack of openness in the media in capitalist democracies generally has far more to do with corporate control and the ideological orientation of powerful editors and other moneyed special interests (cf. the case of the litigious Sheikh) than it has to do with government repression.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:21:31 +0000

point taken sam. scepticism is not an end or a desirable environment in and of itself, but coupled with a desire to engage with a number of persepctives (and the open environment you point out this would require) it can be useful… especially if the viewer engages with his or her position as mediator, mediated and consumer.

stef, I don’t have a great deal of knowledge regarding the media situation in Canada, but there is a line between censorship and self censorship which is almost invisible. Competitiveness begs the question of what is being competed for. and professional is, as you allude, a very loaded term. What makes reportage amateur or professional; mode of presentation? employer? content (and the relationship content has with the previous two)… forgive me if I’m repeating your points. thanks for your comments.

By: subVerse

subVerse — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:12:13 +0000

As my Media Studies prof says “Web 2.0 is so 10 minutes ago”. Web 2.0 = lots of user generated unreliable crap (mixed with good). Web 3.0 = professional user content. Apparently.

And a question. In Canada for example.. how much does government control and how much is media conglomerate and narrowed editor political views? Does a proliferation of owner’s view represent openness, competitiveness.. access to information. I dunno.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:46:33 +0000

“Having said that, a sweeping mistrust of the media could well have many positive consequences.”

Like what? Openness and skepticism is great and necessary, and only fostered by an open and healthy media climate. A sweeping mistrust of the media based on a serious curtailment of media freedom sounds like the situation in your average dictatorship: an uninformed, scared and paranoid populace with no idea what to believe. Nothing positive about that.

Re: Web 2.0 — interestingly, one of its greatest mainstream media proponents now is the conservative Telegraph newspaper, largely because it fits with a their post-Thatcherite ethos and means you can employ less journalists. Hence their blazing row with the NUJ new media group, e.g. The NUJ doesn’t understand web 2.0