Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Anonymity & The Internet
I’ve been having trouble really sitting down to contribute to my blog. As an aspiring journalist, I know I should have no qualms about posting to a space that’s open to the public; after all, isn’t a journalist a conveyer of public information? I’m not sure if I would feel more willing to write if I knew nobody was going to see my thoughts, but that’s something I’m going to have to get over.
Anyways, I’ve been thinking about the Internet and the anonymity it gives to everyone on it. Being anonymous certainly seems to give people power, whether it’s meeting new friends online, keeping a daily blog, or criticizing the actions of others. We don’t really need to think about what others on the Internet will think of us; there’s a good chance we’ll never have to actually come face to face with the millions of people online.
With this in mind, I was online reading news about my hometown on The San Diego Union Tribune’s website. I read local news on there a couple of times a week, and lately I have been more intrigued with the feedback comments that people make on the news stories, than the actual stories themselves. If an article is particularly juicy or controversial (in San Diego, this usually means the story has something to do with illegal immigration), the comments made are completely outrageous. In this class and my other journalism classes, I have basically been taught that new media is an advancement for journalists, a way to connect directly with audiences, and improve or build upon ideas.
Instead, I see grammatically challenged readers who try to pick fights with other people leaving comments, or shove their extremely biased opinions on everyone else. Often, the comments have nothing to do with the story at all. And the condition of anonymity seems to give commentators some sort of right to be as mean-spirited, racist or bigoted as they can get…even though they would never say such things outside of a posting on a newspaper website.
I don’t think online media sources should get rid of comment sections. But I do think, instead of remaining anonymous, we should get out and talk to the people around them more. If there is a particularly thought-provoking article in a newspaper or TV website, we shouldn’t be afraid to go out, discuss, and communicate about it. The Internet sometimes builds a false sense of community, as well as a way to hide from our real community.
Here’s an example from the Union Tribune, where many contributing readers like to abuse the anonymity of the Internet: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080214-1103-bn14wiretrap.html
Anyways, I’ve been thinking about the Internet and the anonymity it gives to everyone on it. Being anonymous certainly seems to give people power, whether it’s meeting new friends online, keeping a daily blog, or criticizing the actions of others. We don’t really need to think about what others on the Internet will think of us; there’s a good chance we’ll never have to actually come face to face with the millions of people online.
With this in mind, I was online reading news about my hometown on The San Diego Union Tribune’s website. I read local news on there a couple of times a week, and lately I have been more intrigued with the feedback comments that people make on the news stories, than the actual stories themselves. If an article is particularly juicy or controversial (in San Diego, this usually means the story has something to do with illegal immigration), the comments made are completely outrageous. In this class and my other journalism classes, I have basically been taught that new media is an advancement for journalists, a way to connect directly with audiences, and improve or build upon ideas.
Instead, I see grammatically challenged readers who try to pick fights with other people leaving comments, or shove their extremely biased opinions on everyone else. Often, the comments have nothing to do with the story at all. And the condition of anonymity seems to give commentators some sort of right to be as mean-spirited, racist or bigoted as they can get…even though they would never say such things outside of a posting on a newspaper website.
I don’t think online media sources should get rid of comment sections. But I do think, instead of remaining anonymous, we should get out and talk to the people around them more. If there is a particularly thought-provoking article in a newspaper or TV website, we shouldn’t be afraid to go out, discuss, and communicate about it. The Internet sometimes builds a false sense of community, as well as a way to hide from our real community.
Here’s an example from the Union Tribune, where many contributing readers like to abuse the anonymity of the Internet: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080214-1103-bn14wiretrap.html
Friday, February 1, 2008
More on the Realities of Local News
The 2008 presidential race has started to attract many new voters, including college students who have never been too involved in politics, including myself. The good news is, there seems to be no shortage of television coverage of anything even remotely related to the candidates. In fact, the race to the presidency has seemed to cause a huge media sensation, which is great for viewers…the voting population is getting all sorts of information, and the TV news, particularly local, is reporting on issues that actually matter.
Journalism.org published an article called “Why Local TV Loves the Presidential Campaign.” http://journalism.org/node/9164 The answer, of course, is for the high revenues that stations will generate from advertising dollars. So the question is, if the 2008 race did not have “celebrity” candidates (Barack and Hillary) and did not attract so many youthful audience members, would local news deem politics so important? I think it’s fair to say that coverage of the race would be important, but not overly so in comparison to other topics. The article suggests that perhaps media continues to be driven by the dollar, and not as a public information provider.
Journalism.org published an article called “Why Local TV Loves the Presidential Campaign.” http://journalism.org/node/9164 The answer, of course, is for the high revenues that stations will generate from advertising dollars. So the question is, if the 2008 race did not have “celebrity” candidates (Barack and Hillary) and did not attract so many youthful audience members, would local news deem politics so important? I think it’s fair to say that coverage of the race would be important, but not overly so in comparison to other topics. The article suggests that perhaps media continues to be driven by the dollar, and not as a public information provider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)