As I am
rather partial to print journalism, this guy is really not my favorite person. “To
keep talking about newspapers as if they were news is far too limiting in the
discussion.” In my opinion, newspapers do carry news; I feel like that is the
main purpose of them. Jarvis goes on to say how “it’s more about the process
and not the product;” he’s logic seems a little turned around to me. A
newspaper (or any other online source) is the product that starts the process
rolling. If he was arguing for the value of new literacy, I could see where the
process may be more important, but he is talking about the news and how we get
our sources. So actually the product is pretty important; the process has to
start somewhere.
His “press
sphere” is a representation of the way people receive news today. Compared to when
people used to get news only through the filter of newspapers (a linear motion),
today our news function is much more spherical. Jarvis throws all kinds of
potential sources into the sphere including the government, witnesses,
companies, and the press. I find his chart a little wanting. I can’t tell if
the varying sizes of circles around each source are supposed to point out their
significance, and I am also confused by the sources themselves. What is the
difference between an observer and a witness? I think he is defining an observer
as a reader who could comment? What are “Sources?” And I find it interesting
that he lumps all news sources directly into “Press.” I understand his point
that now we can create our own “news” because of the many resources available
to us. But I don’t see linking to an archive as creating news. That is just
providing background information, which is a great tool, but not exactly news. Resources
like government databases and company websites are a great place for
information, but news is the current event that is happening now, not old,
factual information.
I do agree
with the theory of Jarvis’s model. I get my news from many sources now, not
just one, and not just the press. I hear about a lot of things from general
discussion with friends and then go to other sources to find more. I also found
his idea of where the news stops interesting. He compares a journalistic view
of the story ending as soon as the article gets published to the new reality of
that being just the beginning. As soon as a story is published the process starts
rolling; it gets read, discussed on the way to work, commented about on blogs,
maybe referenced on The Daily Show. And really, stories nowadays never end. The
ability to have archives online keeps the story in circulation forever. I’d
never thought about it that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment