I have to agree with Dean Wright, Reuters Global Editor for Ethics, Innovation and News Standards when he says that the journalist should do their jobs in a way that earns the thrust of our customers and audience. The trust of the audience and the public is essential in the field of journalism, the thrust in journalists, their stories and sources they have. But how do the journalists gain that thrust, what principle should they follow?
They should follow the principles of a good, critical journalism, but mostly they should follow the ethical standards. If I use the Wright’s words, those principles of good journalist work should be honesty, fairness, transparency, freedom from bias, pursuit of a truth, and an aggressive embrace of innovative ways of storytelling and delivery of information.
Here I want you to present the Code of Ethics of Slovene Journalists, which was adopted by the Slovene Association of Journalist in October 2002. There are several points that needed to be mentioned but I will highlight those that I find the most important – the whole Code of Ethics is available here.
“The journalist should respect the individual's right to privacy and avoid sensationalistic and unjustified disclosure to the public of anyone's privacy. Intrusion into an individual's privacy is only permissible if there is an overriding public interest. With public officials and others seeking power, influence and attention the public's right to be informed is greater.”
“Reporting on judicial matters, the journalist should take into consideration that no one is guilty until legally found so.”
“The journalist should be tactful when gathering and reporting information, publishing photographs and transmitting statements on children and minors, those affected by misfortune or family tragedy, the physically or mentally disabled and others having severe handicaps or illnesses.”
“The journalist should avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance and social status.”
“The journalist should verify the accuracy of information gathered and exercise care to avoid mistakes.”
“When publishing information involving serious allegations, the journalist should try to receive a response from those affected.”
“The journalist should identify the source whenever feasible. The public is entitled to know the source if it is to appraise the significance and credibility of information. The journalist may consent to the anonymity of the source if information cannot be otherwise acquired.”
“The journalist should avoid paying for information and be wary of sources expecting money or any special privilege in exchange for information.”
“The journalist should not conceal essential information he/she has gathered or falsify documents.”
“Plagiarism is not permissible.”
These are only some of the principles of journalistic work that should be taken into consideration, but I think that mostly, fairness, accurateness, honesty, reliability, authority and responsibility should be taken into account. Journalist should not forget that they are working for people, for public interest and not for owners, editors or politician interest and goals. He has to distinguish between the information, advertise and promotion material and also commentary. He has to gather information but should in the same time be free from bias, has to have the ability to report both side of the story (2 or more) and to find reliable sources or documents. Journalistic work is not easy, but if you follow some basic principles you will be successful.
Here you can watch the short video of Dean Wright talking about online journalism ethics.
sreda, 21. april 2010
nedelja, 18. april 2010
The future of online learning - The virtual learning environments
Reading and reviewing several essays and articles concerning the Second Life as a learning environment, me and Marko (my faculty colleague) came across several authors that had really different positions about the use of Second Life in education purposes. I’m convinced that virtual 3-dimensional learning environments are a future of online learning and teaching, so I want to present you the point of view of Alexandra Petrakou from the School of Communication and Design – University of Kalmar, Sweden. She has different point of view that I do, and she explained it in an article – “Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education”.
There she begins with an explanation that online education is gradually becoming a viable alternative to traditional campus education due to the rapid development of information technology. She confirms that with the fact that the number of students enrolling in the online courses is increasing and many universities are, in fact, trying to develop e-learning systems. (Petrakou 2010, 1020) The most important fact that she highlights is that the learning environment is not only restricted to the virtual campus, but includes a diversity of activities, experiences and interactions that are a part of the virtual world that exist outside the virtual campus area. At this point she cites Lombardi and McCahill who stated that the real world university campus is a much broader social space that reaches outside the classroom and that learning takes place in the common university areas where learners may have less structured, but equally valuable, opportunity to interact with others – interaction in the virtual world can be just as valuable. (Petrakou 2010, 1026)
She is therefore convinced that the key element of collaboration certainly is social interaction, but at the same time we have to be aware that if there is no social interaction there is also no real collaboration. In addition to this, the virtual world increases the probability that social interaction between students occurs, which in turn my foster collaborative learning. (Petrakou 2010, 1026) At this point I have to say, that the asynchronous interaction is also very important - because allows to stay connected in between the sessions and facilitates critical thinking since students have the opportunity to reflect on and revise their work (Barab et al. in Petrakou 2010, 1026).
As Petrakou concluded in her study, using a virtual world as a context of online education has both advantages and its drawbacks. As explained before, the virtual world provides enhanced interactivity because it allows synchronous communication in combination with spatial dimension, plus includes a diversity of activities, experience and interactions (and not only the virtual campus). But nevertheless she is convinced that the virtual world is currently not adequate as a learning environment on its own. There should be constructed an additional information space in order to gather all information regarding the course and to display this information outside the rather distracting, graphically rich and socially dynamic virtual environment. She also highlights the need to support asynchronous interactivity, which during her study course, was not embedded in the virtual world. (Petrakou 2010, 1027)
At this point I want to conclude, that I'm still convinced that the virtual learning environments are one step ahead the classical online collaboratories - they do not give the opportunity to interact with others outside the learning area, and the students or collaborators are not aware of the presence of the other - they can see their names listed but they do not see what if they are active for sure.
Petrakou, Alexandra. 2010. "Computers & Education Interacting through avatars : Virtual worlds as a context for online education." Computers & Education 54(4): 1020-1027. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.007.
There she begins with an explanation that online education is gradually becoming a viable alternative to traditional campus education due to the rapid development of information technology. She confirms that with the fact that the number of students enrolling in the online courses is increasing and many universities are, in fact, trying to develop e-learning systems. (Petrakou 2010, 1020) The most important fact that she highlights is that the learning environment is not only restricted to the virtual campus, but includes a diversity of activities, experiences and interactions that are a part of the virtual world that exist outside the virtual campus area. At this point she cites Lombardi and McCahill who stated that the real world university campus is a much broader social space that reaches outside the classroom and that learning takes place in the common university areas where learners may have less structured, but equally valuable, opportunity to interact with others – interaction in the virtual world can be just as valuable. (Petrakou 2010, 1026)
She is therefore convinced that the key element of collaboration certainly is social interaction, but at the same time we have to be aware that if there is no social interaction there is also no real collaboration. In addition to this, the virtual world increases the probability that social interaction between students occurs, which in turn my foster collaborative learning. (Petrakou 2010, 1026) At this point I have to say, that the asynchronous interaction is also very important - because allows to stay connected in between the sessions and facilitates critical thinking since students have the opportunity to reflect on and revise their work (Barab et al. in Petrakou 2010, 1026).
As Petrakou concluded in her study, using a virtual world as a context of online education has both advantages and its drawbacks. As explained before, the virtual world provides enhanced interactivity because it allows synchronous communication in combination with spatial dimension, plus includes a diversity of activities, experience and interactions (and not only the virtual campus). But nevertheless she is convinced that the virtual world is currently not adequate as a learning environment on its own. There should be constructed an additional information space in order to gather all information regarding the course and to display this information outside the rather distracting, graphically rich and socially dynamic virtual environment. She also highlights the need to support asynchronous interactivity, which during her study course, was not embedded in the virtual world. (Petrakou 2010, 1027)
At this point I want to conclude, that I'm still convinced that the virtual learning environments are one step ahead the classical online collaboratories - they do not give the opportunity to interact with others outside the learning area, and the students or collaborators are not aware of the presence of the other - they can see their names listed but they do not see what if they are active for sure.
Petrakou, Alexandra. 2010. "Computers & Education Interacting through avatars : Virtual worlds as a context for online education." Computers & Education 54(4): 1020-1027. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.007.
"Friending: experience of Facebook"
A lot it was written about Facebook, but let me add something more. I came across interesting article of two writers – Jane Lewis and Anne West with a title “Friending : London-based undergraduates’ experience of Facebook”. They conducted exploratory, qualitative research to look at the nature of “friending” that takes place and the extent to which students are able to manage their interactions in the public space of social networking site – Facebook.
They found out that FB was felt to be a socially necessary tool and a part of increasingly wide range of communication systems. It was valued for the way it enabled broad, low pressure and low commitment communication with acquaintances. The surprising for me was the fact that much time on FB was spend stalking – in other words browsing the users profiles, and the fact that communicating was regarded as fun and not serious. On the other hand it was expected – I make conclusions from my own experiences – that the communication on FB is seen as a supplement to other forms of communication, especially between close friends and a mean to stay in touch with others.
It was also considered to offer a very informal means of communication and maintained mostly very weak and loose ties. These ties seemed, as writers claimed, to act as a security blanket for some students – it was always a possibility of checking to see that they were not missing something.
Here I have to mention that the research findings showed that users tended to perceive the flattened friendship. If we go further the respondents in the study expressed also some anxiety about privacy. The exchanges could be read by different groups of “friends” and there exist a possibility that these exchanges can be broadcasted to the whole network.
The authors explained also that the architecture of the site worked to encourage a particular form of communication between friends, based in the main on banter and gossip, often gleaned from social browsing. The problematic is also the fact that the site requires both the presentation of the self and a process of “friending”. There is a degree of incompatibility between these two imperatives, they claimed.
I have to say that I have a profile on FB for about 2 years now. I have several friends that are my friend also in real life, and I use FB for staying in touch with them. This way of communication for me is a supplement to other forms of communication – the face to face and communication via mobile phones and emails. I do not use FB for stalking purposes but I’m aware that many users do. Fortunately the new FB gives us more privacy, because you can arrange who can see your profile, posts, wall, photos, profile information and other.
Lewis, Jane and Anne West. 2009. "Friending": London-based undergraduates' experience of Facebook. New Media Society 11, 1209. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/7/1209.
They found out that FB was felt to be a socially necessary tool and a part of increasingly wide range of communication systems. It was valued for the way it enabled broad, low pressure and low commitment communication with acquaintances. The surprising for me was the fact that much time on FB was spend stalking – in other words browsing the users profiles, and the fact that communicating was regarded as fun and not serious. On the other hand it was expected – I make conclusions from my own experiences – that the communication on FB is seen as a supplement to other forms of communication, especially between close friends and a mean to stay in touch with others.
It was also considered to offer a very informal means of communication and maintained mostly very weak and loose ties. These ties seemed, as writers claimed, to act as a security blanket for some students – it was always a possibility of checking to see that they were not missing something.
Here I have to mention that the research findings showed that users tended to perceive the flattened friendship. If we go further the respondents in the study expressed also some anxiety about privacy. The exchanges could be read by different groups of “friends” and there exist a possibility that these exchanges can be broadcasted to the whole network.
The authors explained also that the architecture of the site worked to encourage a particular form of communication between friends, based in the main on banter and gossip, often gleaned from social browsing. The problematic is also the fact that the site requires both the presentation of the self and a process of “friending”. There is a degree of incompatibility between these two imperatives, they claimed.
I have to say that I have a profile on FB for about 2 years now. I have several friends that are my friend also in real life, and I use FB for staying in touch with them. This way of communication for me is a supplement to other forms of communication – the face to face and communication via mobile phones and emails. I do not use FB for stalking purposes but I’m aware that many users do. Fortunately the new FB gives us more privacy, because you can arrange who can see your profile, posts, wall, photos, profile information and other.
Lewis, Jane and Anne West. 2009. "Friending": London-based undergraduates' experience of Facebook. New Media Society 11, 1209. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/7/1209.
ponedeljek, 5. april 2010
Could Wall save the professional journalism?
As I pointed out many times by now, I am really concerned about the future of journalism – but today I want to present you some different point of view. Surely you are all familiar with the Rupert Murdoch idea of walling off the content available on the internet. There are several theories (claims) about this subject, some are concerned “what if he really builds the wall and allows only to subscribers to access the information and news available online” others are very optimistic and don’t believe this could really happen.
Here I want to present you the David Simon’s point of view in his article “Build the Wall” that I found really interesting. For Simon the power to save as he called the “high end journalism” is in the hand of two paper executives (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth the publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post), who can, as he claims, rescue an imploding industry and thereby achieve an essential civic goo for the nation.
He appeals to them the idea that content matters, and that they have to find a way to make people pay for that content. For him it is the only way to have a product, an industry, a calling and a career known as a professional journalism. “If the only way to read the Times is to buy the Times, online or off, then readers who clearly retains desire for that product will reach for their wallets,” is convinced Simon. For this purpose he stressed few possible outcomes (scenarios), if the Times and the Post go ahead and build that wall:
First scenario: “The Times and the Post survive, their revenue streams balanced by still consliderable print advertising, the bump in the price of home delivery and newsstand sales, and, finally, a new influx of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions.” Most metro dailies will follow suit, says Simon, when they will see the paid content formula can work. And as they do, they re-emphasize that which makes them unique – local coverage, local culture, local voices, all coupled with wire-service offerings from the national papers otherwise available only through paid sites.
Second scenario: “In those cities where regional papers collapse, the vacuum creates and opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organizations that cover state and local issues, sports and finance, generating enough revenue to maintain a slim – but paid – metro desk. The additional plus at this scenario should be, for Simon, that advertisers – now considering a paid circulation base rather than meaningless Web hits – might be willing to once again pay a meaningful rate.
Third scenario: Is the worst of three scenarios. The Times and the Post survive because of their coverage is unique and essential. At the same time regional dailies, too eviscerated to offer a credible local product, cannot get enough online subscriptions – so they wither and die. Here new online news ventures are stillborn because both national papers become national.
Simon concludes with the fact that longer it will take for the newspaper industry to act together, more likely it is that regional dailies will be too weak and hollow to step through the online-subscription portal.
I don’t know if the subscription model could save the critical and professional journalism, and if we are honest nobody knows that. But sure it is one try that is worth consideration and reflection.
Here I want to present you the David Simon’s point of view in his article “Build the Wall” that I found really interesting. For Simon the power to save as he called the “high end journalism” is in the hand of two paper executives (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth the publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post), who can, as he claims, rescue an imploding industry and thereby achieve an essential civic goo for the nation.
He appeals to them the idea that content matters, and that they have to find a way to make people pay for that content. For him it is the only way to have a product, an industry, a calling and a career known as a professional journalism. “If the only way to read the Times is to buy the Times, online or off, then readers who clearly retains desire for that product will reach for their wallets,” is convinced Simon. For this purpose he stressed few possible outcomes (scenarios), if the Times and the Post go ahead and build that wall:
First scenario: “The Times and the Post survive, their revenue streams balanced by still consliderable print advertising, the bump in the price of home delivery and newsstand sales, and, finally, a new influx of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions.” Most metro dailies will follow suit, says Simon, when they will see the paid content formula can work. And as they do, they re-emphasize that which makes them unique – local coverage, local culture, local voices, all coupled with wire-service offerings from the national papers otherwise available only through paid sites.
Second scenario: “In those cities where regional papers collapse, the vacuum creates and opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organizations that cover state and local issues, sports and finance, generating enough revenue to maintain a slim – but paid – metro desk. The additional plus at this scenario should be, for Simon, that advertisers – now considering a paid circulation base rather than meaningless Web hits – might be willing to once again pay a meaningful rate.
Third scenario: Is the worst of three scenarios. The Times and the Post survive because of their coverage is unique and essential. At the same time regional dailies, too eviscerated to offer a credible local product, cannot get enough online subscriptions – so they wither and die. Here new online news ventures are stillborn because both national papers become national.
Simon concludes with the fact that longer it will take for the newspaper industry to act together, more likely it is that regional dailies will be too weak and hollow to step through the online-subscription portal.
I don’t know if the subscription model could save the critical and professional journalism, and if we are honest nobody knows that. But sure it is one try that is worth consideration and reflection.
ponedeljek, 22. marec 2010
What is the Slovene journalism like?
During our Wednesday meeting we talked about my previous blog post “What is the future of journalism” where I pointed out the rules of production that Nick Davies stressed in his book. And then I was not really prepared to answer the question what is my opinion about the statement “the death of journalism”. That is why I want to present you my view on the situation of journalism.
The main problem in journalism is that the profession (I think of journalism as a profession but I’m aware that some do not think that way) adopted the capitalistic values. Journalism, media, news, journalists have become products ready to sale, buy and the most important, replace. The power is now in the hands of those who have money, because money can buy and money can replace. Several journalists (in Slovenia) have low salaries, are not employed full time, and if they do not support the policy of the media they work for, are replaceable and in short time also replaced.
The second problem is that graduated journalists have less opportunity to be employed, because they cannot be that easily guided as those that are not educated, that don’t have the media knowledge.
The media economy is also problematic, because the owners of the media are only concerned about the profit, making money, and produce more and more goods (news) that sell the media. They bring pressure on the editors, they pressure the journalists and journalists can no longer write a quality articles. Because of time limitations they copy the agency news, and by now, if we look at 6 Slovene media, we can see the same news, in some media restructured, but still the same. It is very similar with the sources of information; nowadays almost all the journalist in our country calls and cites the same sources. That means that we can have only one side of the story (or one side of one side), but we don’t have the diversity of facts, thoughts, opinion.
Here I have to point out, that in the journalistic field there is way too much rivalship, jealousy and envy. Several journalists would, just to have the top news first and only, lie or mislead other partners in this field – even if one of them works on the internet and other for the newspaper. And this is problematic; I just think about lawyers and doctors profession that has a high level of solidarity. They stick together to protect their profession and they act together towards others.
Until journalist will not recognize that beside other enemies, that are outside their profession (politicians, economists, owners of the media, PR, marketing workers), their worst enemy is that inside their field, they would not be able to step together and resist those who keep the profession of journalism at such a low level.
The main problem in journalism is that the profession (I think of journalism as a profession but I’m aware that some do not think that way) adopted the capitalistic values. Journalism, media, news, journalists have become products ready to sale, buy and the most important, replace. The power is now in the hands of those who have money, because money can buy and money can replace. Several journalists (in Slovenia) have low salaries, are not employed full time, and if they do not support the policy of the media they work for, are replaceable and in short time also replaced.
The second problem is that graduated journalists have less opportunity to be employed, because they cannot be that easily guided as those that are not educated, that don’t have the media knowledge.
The media economy is also problematic, because the owners of the media are only concerned about the profit, making money, and produce more and more goods (news) that sell the media. They bring pressure on the editors, they pressure the journalists and journalists can no longer write a quality articles. Because of time limitations they copy the agency news, and by now, if we look at 6 Slovene media, we can see the same news, in some media restructured, but still the same. It is very similar with the sources of information; nowadays almost all the journalist in our country calls and cites the same sources. That means that we can have only one side of the story (or one side of one side), but we don’t have the diversity of facts, thoughts, opinion.
Here I have to point out, that in the journalistic field there is way too much rivalship, jealousy and envy. Several journalists would, just to have the top news first and only, lie or mislead other partners in this field – even if one of them works on the internet and other for the newspaper. And this is problematic; I just think about lawyers and doctors profession that has a high level of solidarity. They stick together to protect their profession and they act together towards others.
Until journalist will not recognize that beside other enemies, that are outside their profession (politicians, economists, owners of the media, PR, marketing workers), their worst enemy is that inside their field, they would not be able to step together and resist those who keep the profession of journalism at such a low level.
sobota, 13. marec 2010
What is the future of journalism?
These days we heard a lot talking about “death of journalism” and how the traditional, objective and critical journalism is being replaced by commercial and profitable one. That is why I want to point out some rules of journalistic production.
Nick Davies is The Guardian journalist and also the author of the book Flat earth news, in which he stressed the rules of so called »churnalism«. As he pointed out, these rules of production are of course unwritten and unstated and broken by a considerable number of able journalist that for that reason repeatedly run into trouble with media managers. All this rules flow from the two guiding principles in commerce: to cut the costs of production and to increase the flow of revenue.
First five rules that he highlights are set for the purpose of first guiding principle – cutting the costs. The first rule – “Run cheap stories” – simply requires the selection of stories which are quick to cover and safe to publish. Next rule – “Select safe facts” – encourages journalists to favor factual statements which are safe (can be attributed to official sources and for that safe). Third rule suggests to “Avoid the electric fence”, that means to stay in the safe territory and to avoid any problems with those who can endanger news organization. The author points out that the oldest electric fence is media law, nowadays this role is played by lobbying groups. Fourth rule is to “Select the safe ideas” and requires moral and political values to be safe. This means that moral and political ideas generally should not be expressed overtly in the story and they should reflect the surrounding consensus. The last rule in this first group is the rule to “Always give both sides of the story”, which author calls the safety net rule.
Next five rules are set for the purpose of increasing the revenue. So the rule six suggests to “Give them what they want”, which means that stories should increase readership and audience. The seventh rule is “The bias against truth”, which is now entrenched by the news factory’s move towards shoving its stories into smaller packages, stories that should be told fast or the punters will lose interest. “Give them what they want to believe in” is rule eight, which requires that ideas and facts should be selected with commerce in mind. The journalist should be aware, Davies says, that reader is never wrong, and regardless of editorial judgment about what was wrong or right, the paper should feed the values of its consumers. The rule nine is to “Go with the moral panic”, which is to be followed only at times of perceived crisis. The last rule is “Ninja turtle syndrome”, that means media should run stories which are being widely published elsewhere, even if those stories clearly lack merit.
And at this point I cannot avoid thinking – is the same way as Davies describes also in Slovene media sphere? I have to agree and also disagree; some rules are surely followed in several Slovene media but not all. The rules select safe facts, run cheap stories, always give both sides of the story, select safe ideal, give them what they want, give them what they believe in and go with moral panic are rules that can be noticed in several newspapers, web sites , radio and TV stations. But there are also the rules such as avoid the electric fence, ninja turtle syndrome, the bias against truth that I have not come across in our media. Slovenia is too small to have such organizations or laws that build the electric fence that should not be crossed, even if there are some subjects that should be avoided – if you want to have tranquil and peaceful life. Also the ninja turtle syndrome is not all that “popular”, because every media runs the stories that fit its nature the most. For sure Delo, our daily newspaper will not publish the popular, tabloid story, even if all other media would.
However maybe I’m wrong, and the status of the Slovene and world journalism is not bad at all, maybe it is just a phase, and in some years we will see journalism as a profession emerge again.
Nick Davies is The Guardian journalist and also the author of the book Flat earth news, in which he stressed the rules of so called »churnalism«. As he pointed out, these rules of production are of course unwritten and unstated and broken by a considerable number of able journalist that for that reason repeatedly run into trouble with media managers. All this rules flow from the two guiding principles in commerce: to cut the costs of production and to increase the flow of revenue.
First five rules that he highlights are set for the purpose of first guiding principle – cutting the costs. The first rule – “Run cheap stories” – simply requires the selection of stories which are quick to cover and safe to publish. Next rule – “Select safe facts” – encourages journalists to favor factual statements which are safe (can be attributed to official sources and for that safe). Third rule suggests to “Avoid the electric fence”, that means to stay in the safe territory and to avoid any problems with those who can endanger news organization. The author points out that the oldest electric fence is media law, nowadays this role is played by lobbying groups. Fourth rule is to “Select the safe ideas” and requires moral and political values to be safe. This means that moral and political ideas generally should not be expressed overtly in the story and they should reflect the surrounding consensus. The last rule in this first group is the rule to “Always give both sides of the story”, which author calls the safety net rule.
Next five rules are set for the purpose of increasing the revenue. So the rule six suggests to “Give them what they want”, which means that stories should increase readership and audience. The seventh rule is “The bias against truth”, which is now entrenched by the news factory’s move towards shoving its stories into smaller packages, stories that should be told fast or the punters will lose interest. “Give them what they want to believe in” is rule eight, which requires that ideas and facts should be selected with commerce in mind. The journalist should be aware, Davies says, that reader is never wrong, and regardless of editorial judgment about what was wrong or right, the paper should feed the values of its consumers. The rule nine is to “Go with the moral panic”, which is to be followed only at times of perceived crisis. The last rule is “Ninja turtle syndrome”, that means media should run stories which are being widely published elsewhere, even if those stories clearly lack merit.
And at this point I cannot avoid thinking – is the same way as Davies describes also in Slovene media sphere? I have to agree and also disagree; some rules are surely followed in several Slovene media but not all. The rules select safe facts, run cheap stories, always give both sides of the story, select safe ideal, give them what they want, give them what they believe in and go with moral panic are rules that can be noticed in several newspapers, web sites , radio and TV stations. But there are also the rules such as avoid the electric fence, ninja turtle syndrome, the bias against truth that I have not come across in our media. Slovenia is too small to have such organizations or laws that build the electric fence that should not be crossed, even if there are some subjects that should be avoided – if you want to have tranquil and peaceful life. Also the ninja turtle syndrome is not all that “popular”, because every media runs the stories that fit its nature the most. For sure Delo, our daily newspaper will not publish the popular, tabloid story, even if all other media would.
However maybe I’m wrong, and the status of the Slovene and world journalism is not bad at all, maybe it is just a phase, and in some years we will see journalism as a profession emerge again.
nedelja, 7. marec 2010
The utopian idea: Independence of cyberspace
For the 3rd assignment for the course New media & Society I read Aimée Hope Morrison's article, with the topic An impossible future: John Perry Barlow's 'Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'. Because I was not familiar with the Declaration I have decided to google it and find something more. I was pretty surprised I have to say and so I thought why not write some review and share my own opinion about this declaration and its main ideas. I extracted just few statements that were, by my opinion, utopian and unrealistic also for the time they were written and composed (in 1995).
• »Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.«
• »We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.«
• »We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.«
• »Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.«
• »We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.«
Barlow was very optimistic, at some point really utopian. The cyberspace for him was a new space and opportunity for democratic and free civilization to form and shape. He was convinced that this new media – internet, will bring wind of changes in this government leaded world. He saw the cyberspace as the world where all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force or station of birth. He saw the possibility to create a civilization of Mind that may be more humane and fair than the real world we are living in.
But he was wrong. He forgot one little detail in this picture, and that is the fact that internet and with that cyberspace is not available to everyone. Several countries, such as African states, South American states and also some places in Asia are so poor that they cannot afford to have a computer and neither internet connection. Internet connection is not available everywhere and I have to say that most producers of the new technologies are from Western countries and those that have power and money are dictating the tempo of development of other countries – mostly countries from the third world, and with that also the access to new technologies.
He is also wrong that the government regulation did not affected the Internet and with that the cyberspace. Because Those in power again have enough capital to own internet sites, tools, programs and servers and are again those who have the power to regulate and restrict access of those revolutionary voices that can endanger their work and ideas. Also the cyberspace is not the place where all the voices are equal and everyone can express their opinion, because the Internet, sadly, approves only the ideas and beliefs that are mainstream, which correspond to the ideas of the government, politics and capitalist.
At this point I have to agree with several authors in the Morrison’s article that this declaration is far too much optimistic. The Barlow’s claim that “we will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace that may be more humane and fair than the world our governments have made before «is not correct. Cyberspace, I think, is another tool (mean) for those in power to spread their ideas and beliefs.
• »Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.«
• »We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.«
• »We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.«
• »Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.«
• »We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.«
Barlow was very optimistic, at some point really utopian. The cyberspace for him was a new space and opportunity for democratic and free civilization to form and shape. He was convinced that this new media – internet, will bring wind of changes in this government leaded world. He saw the cyberspace as the world where all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force or station of birth. He saw the possibility to create a civilization of Mind that may be more humane and fair than the real world we are living in.
But he was wrong. He forgot one little detail in this picture, and that is the fact that internet and with that cyberspace is not available to everyone. Several countries, such as African states, South American states and also some places in Asia are so poor that they cannot afford to have a computer and neither internet connection. Internet connection is not available everywhere and I have to say that most producers of the new technologies are from Western countries and those that have power and money are dictating the tempo of development of other countries – mostly countries from the third world, and with that also the access to new technologies.
He is also wrong that the government regulation did not affected the Internet and with that the cyberspace. Because Those in power again have enough capital to own internet sites, tools, programs and servers and are again those who have the power to regulate and restrict access of those revolutionary voices that can endanger their work and ideas. Also the cyberspace is not the place where all the voices are equal and everyone can express their opinion, because the Internet, sadly, approves only the ideas and beliefs that are mainstream, which correspond to the ideas of the government, politics and capitalist.
At this point I have to agree with several authors in the Morrison’s article that this declaration is far too much optimistic. The Barlow’s claim that “we will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace that may be more humane and fair than the world our governments have made before «is not correct. Cyberspace, I think, is another tool (mean) for those in power to spread their ideas and beliefs.
Naročite se na:
Objave (Atom)
