Lasica, J. (2003) Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other
Lasica has a high opinion of blogging and it’s working. Blogging complements traditional forms of journalism and it will play a role in the future development of news. But isn’t that only true for a very small percentage of the news providing sources?
First of all there are people who don’t have an Internet connection or who don’t know blogs exist. For instance, I never heard of blogs before I had to make one for this course. The spelling and grammar check of my Microsoft Word program didn’t hear of it either.
Another reason is that news can be a form of entertainment. Relaxing in front of your computer is commonly a bit harder than watching television or reading a newspaper. And when listening to the radio, you can do other things as well. Now blogging can be a form of entertainment as well, but due to the involvement blogs require, they don’t provide the comfort and ease the TV, newspaper or radio do.
When blogs are being used, there has to be a reason. You would really like the writer, no matter what subject he or she touches or you are really interested in the subject. Bottom line, you won’t start searching the Internet unless you have a reason for it.
Then there are the people who don’t always approve of the information blogs provide. Although a lot of useful and insider information can be extracted from blogs, there still is a big chance that people subconsciously keep thinking of amateurs writing. They don’t have the image and reputation (yet) that journalists have form the traditional way of newsgathering.
To summarize, blogs are a good process in collecting information and providing a broad and comprehensive view about the subject but the Lasica gives, in my opinion, too much credit to the usage and impact of it.
Gillmor, D. (2003) Moving Toward Participatory Journalism
Gillmor suggests that blogging is about the engagement op participants through blogging. But is that a defensible development? When everyone is able to put up a blog and when we assume Gillmor’s point that blogs can influence, isn’t this a process that thins the line between privacy and public?
People can put everything on blogs; data, information, lies, trueness, games and so on. Some people nowadays see the media as annoying and not as a trusty information provider. Moral values disappear and just the hype is the interesting part. When using the Internet, it often seems like the virtual worlds, where participants spend their time, look like villages. People know each other and interact with each other. When blogging, people can put all sorts of stuff on the net and with the connectiveness, people can be intertwined. Unwanted data can be put on the web easily, and even spread more easily. These are not files that can be distributed through P2P; these are stories put on websites. It then looks like a gossip foundation, everyone can add to the stories, making it worse. So maybe rules can and should be needed. Gillmore says that’s a worst-case scenario. I know there’s a freedom of speech and I think that shouldn’t be restricted, but there are data that shouldn’t be shown on the Internet. Not that I think people always would behave this bad, but as good as Gilmore thinks blogging can be, like I’ve said, I don’t think is realistic. If the privacy of people gets too much exposed, than blogging isn’t a good process and it might need regulations.
Middelaar, L. van (2003) On logos and grassroots: the anti-globalisation movement between morals, economics and politics
Will globalisation, like Fukuyama sees it, ever be realized?
In this article the American political scientist, Fransis Fukuyama, is mentioned. He thinks that history only has one direction; capitalist democracy. Globalisation can be understood as achieving this goal; capitalist democracy around the world. In this way all frontiers would disappear. So it wouldn’t make a difference if your car is American made or German made; they are both produces in one ‘country’; earth. It really sounds like a romantic future.
Moneymaking goes beyond all ethnic, political, and country boundaries. (This is how black people got their own movies; it’s just another target-group to get some money from.) So a lot of big manufacturers cross these boundaries, and become active in a lot of countries, just to make money. The anti-globalisation movement shows that some people don’t like these developments. A lot of countries have laws to protect their own manufacturers from those of other countries, who can make the same things, but cheaper. So I think a lot of people are afraid of these things, and want to protect themselves. And, let’s face it; you probably want your neighbours to be financial healthy, more then someone you will never see. So I think globalisation, as Fukuyama sees it, will never be realized.
Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy. pp. 185-200
In this article the author concludes that economy and culture shouldn’t be separated because they are connected to each other. Culture defines economy and visa versa. Hence consumers get aestheticzed and stylized; they are being triggered by new considerations when purchasing items. But isn’t that a bit obvious?
Where does economy come from? It’s a culturally defined setting, not all cultures have had an economy in the sense we speak about it. Economy comes from culture, not the other way around. Economy is a subgroup, an underlying level of culture which can be examined as a lose part of society, but it’s not an independent level. Economy must be placed in the context of culture.
