Blogs are the personal sphere/domain of bloggers. If journalists were to engage bloggers on the web in their professional capacity, their actions might be construed as harrassment/bullying. At the same time, print newspapers are the spheres/domains of journalists. Surely their decision to comment on issues in their own domains/spheres cannot be faulted?
I don’t see how leaving some comments in a blog on a personal capacity can be construed as harassment/bullying. She herself wrote of how you and Joel amicably addressed the issue. It would in fact be a sign of humility rather than maintaining the status quo power relations between press and citizen.
Joel could have made his thoughts known at the neutral platform of the talk, but perhaps they were afterthoughts. Would writing to the papers be a reasonable avenue for him to share these afterthoughts? Lynn on the other hand could have easily left a comment on his blog to correct his ‘misconceptions’.
In any other circumstance it would have been more than ok for a journalist to use the print media to express him/herself while an ordinary citizen uses what is accessible to them. But the context is of a journalist writing about how proponents of MSM and NM can actually come together can happily co-exist. By doing what she did, she only maintained the distance between the two.
I hope the ideal for you isn't one where bloggers are quoted all the time in the mainstream media? I'd be even more ashamed to read The Straits Times if Xiaxue/Dawn Yang became the authoritative voices on all and sundry.
I think you misunderstood my statement. I am not calling for more referencing of blogs. I am merely stating that the recognition that something exists is not the same as being inclusive.
Your blog post ("online chatter") is in response to the journalist's column("mainstream media stories"), no? So I don't think it's a question of resource gathering per se but one of discussion - which medium provides the most reaction/responses for debate: online or offline? My guess is the latter.
No it is not. She mentioned somewhere in the article that: “self-professed media pundits…. seem to be forgetting two things: one that a large chunk of what they write about comes from initial reporting done by the daily mainstream media….”. This was her retort for those that claim alternative media trumps the mainstream media. If this is not a defensive statement I don’t know what is.
I think the journalist's point was that MSN and NM can be happy bedfellows and share the process of information dissemination. BTW, "to offer alternative readings of news" IS to be an "alternative news source", if you take the definition of news in its broader sense.
Yes, I agree with you.
Actually, the journalist did. But you... misread, I'm afraid. Read the article again and this time, read it with the mindset that the journalist is not slamming NM... The journalist is very supportive of NM that is rational, not rash.
I did not say she was slamming or belittling NM. Neither did I call for her to defend/ champion NM. The essence of my post was that her actions (medium) run counter to her calls (message) for inclusion, co-operation, mutual respect and maturity.
Appreciate your remarks though :)
No comments:
Post a Comment