JakeD
09-21-04, 08:33PM
"The Web has done one revolutionary thing to journalism. It has made the price of entry into the media market minimal. In days gone by, you needed a small fortune to start up a simple magazine or newspaper. Now you need a laptop and a modem," said Sullivan, writing in this week's Time magazine.
So. I kinda like what this article says. Obviously, American media conglomerates have become less affluent in spreading the truth about news, and once again their errors have been thrusted into the spotlight.
Considering the general idea of this article, do you think that blogging (specifically news/media blogging) has struck a major artery on the laughable excuse of a media machine that runs our country and powers most of the populace's perspective on current events?
As if their growing lack of credibility wasn't enough, their history of misinformation and omissions adds to the possibility of more people turning to more truthful sources that have the potential to offer a wider point-of-view in regards to the news. Do you think that blogs are a worthy substitute? Explain why or why not.
Whether or not they're a worthy substitute for syndicated news agencies, there's still one group that's facing perilous consequences from all of this media fallout - the journalists. Whether you're an aspiring honest, by-the-books cub reporter or a spin doctor/mad genius manipulator in the making, does this pending situation look grim to you, or does it merely broaden your opportunities?
If you're a blogger yourself, what do you think about the whole ordeal? Is it just what you need to be recognized, or do you worry about deep-sixing amongst a sea of Johnny-come-latelys?
Should I go away?
Where did my Mountain Dew go?
arrrrgh!
So. I kinda like what this article says. Obviously, American media conglomerates have become less affluent in spreading the truth about news, and once again their errors have been thrusted into the spotlight.
Considering the general idea of this article, do you think that blogging (specifically news/media blogging) has struck a major artery on the laughable excuse of a media machine that runs our country and powers most of the populace's perspective on current events?
As if their growing lack of credibility wasn't enough, their history of misinformation and omissions adds to the possibility of more people turning to more truthful sources that have the potential to offer a wider point-of-view in regards to the news. Do you think that blogs are a worthy substitute? Explain why or why not.
Whether or not they're a worthy substitute for syndicated news agencies, there's still one group that's facing perilous consequences from all of this media fallout - the journalists. Whether you're an aspiring honest, by-the-books cub reporter or a spin doctor/mad genius manipulator in the making, does this pending situation look grim to you, or does it merely broaden your opportunities?
If you're a blogger yourself, what do you think about the whole ordeal? Is it just what you need to be recognized, or do you worry about deep-sixing amongst a sea of Johnny-come-latelys?
Should I go away?
Where did my Mountain Dew go?
arrrrgh!