Citizen journalism: does it mean democratised media or a decline in journalistic standards? What’s the difference in quality between blogging and academic writing or serious print journalism? Is the concept of ‘quality’ merely elitist, exclusive and undemocratic? In other words, does ‘quality’ conflict with ‘equality’ on the internet? Is there such a thing as objectivity or does all writing and research reflect the author’s own perspective and bias? While women may feel freer to express themselves in blogs or elsewhere on the internet, does this mean that they are any safer from attack – that is, from male violence in the form of verbal abuse?
Have your say!
7 comments:
Of course there's the ‘proper internet, people selling things or themselves, Governments, Universities, Pressure Groups of one kind or another, all of which can be used as long as one is clear about who they are, and what they are trying to do. Then there's the rest…
Any one who has a computer and a connection can say what they like, well almost, whether true, false or deluded. so to that extent all is equal.
But quality?
It's probably wise to assume that anything you read is false or deluded and not to be taken as true unless you can cross-check the validity of the person or of the information.
If, given that access brings with it equality, it's only by the actions of the participants that inequality can creep in; they can admit to being male or female, young or old, British, French, Japanese, whatever, because we can all assume any persona – as long as you realize that everyone else, if they have any sense, is doing the same thing.
I'm on the side of the internet. Personally it's opened the gateway for me to publish some of my writing, and I think many people would agree. To a point I think it is that sense of being somewhat anonymous that is appealing. For centuaries female writer have taken on male personas simply to get their work taken seriously.So equality...yes...but quality?
I'm not too sure. As most things I thinks lots of it should be taken with a pinch of salt. However it is possible to cross reference information quickly and without much trouble. Let's face it, internet publishing is here to stay and it's only going to get bigger, not necessarily better, but as long as the correct education is provided for users I think it can only be a good thing. As with everything there are always going to be some who misuse it and spoil the spirit of it for everyone else.
Each of these questions prompts me to respond "yes,but..."
Equality and quality may well be enhanced as citizen journalism expands. We will hear hitherto disenfranchised voices. Authors will not be employed by those with powerful political, economic and social interests.All writing and research is contextual and reflexive in any case.
However, freedom of expression is an increasingly challenging concept in a multi-cultural and politically-correct world.The internet is a powerful resource and will therefore be used to defend and attack.It is not therefore exempt from the need to be watched and censored. But - by whom and how and at what price to freedom and equality?
Blogging allows for freedom of expression, unbound by form and accessible to all with basic IT skills and computer access. Quality is often determined by adherence to set standards, a sonnet is constrained by form but just because the form is adhered to does not mean it is a good sonnet. Everyone has an opinion, the mode of expression for that opinion should not dictate its value, it is for the individual reader to place value on a text. Academic writing and serious print journalism is exclusive to writers who adhere to imposed standards and it is assumed that information presented through these modes is reliable. Since anyone can blog and there are no standards, it can be assumed that ‘quality’ will be variable, this does not mean that a blog can’t rival other forms though. A blog is likely to express personal opinion, the reader can recognise it as such and interpret information accordingly. The reader also has the opportunity to interact with the writer via the comment box which makes blogging more of an interaction than statement. Academic writing and serious print journalism generally assume a bias, which the reader is not expected to question and is therefore less democratic. Field specific terminology could exclude the general reader; a journal on quantum physics for example would perhaps therefore be elitist. Even if it is elitist I don’t feel that democracy is threatened by it, it is appropriate since scientists use jargon not to alienate the general reader but to communicate clearly with each other. To be democratic it is not necessary for all texts to be universally accessible but for free speech to be all-inclusive.
Equality/Quality
Undoubtedly the internet has opened up a valuable forum for disenfranchised voices: Chinese and Burmese dissidents, women in Iran and Afghanistan who have been silenced in their own countries, frightened Iraqis describing the mayhem in their now chaotic country. On populist medical sites patients whose health has been damaged by prescription drugs (now responsible for over 60% of ill-health in the UK) can relate their personal experiences. These people have achieved equality.
The language of the internet is overwhelmingly English, and because some of the writers are using ESL, some are poorly educated and others simply do not care about the conventions of syntax and spelling, the quality of the language is variable, but almost always intelligible. And in this context surely that's what matters.
However, when academics, professional writers and students are blogging I feel they should use correct English and tidy up their typos. Am I old-fashioned? Maybe, so I won't deliver a 'disgruntled of Cheltenham' type rant. And yes, Pat, I did try to think up something wise, witty, and pithy etc. but failed dismally. So this is just what I think.
Post a Comment