Yes, I know this is THE question of contention today but I thought that my argument was fair and perhaps worth reiterating.
The argument usually plays in an arrangement not to different from this:
News today is less reliable as people are using Blogs as an outlet of information that they have witnessed through secondary mass- mediated messages. Ex. Obama had (fill in the blank) to say on CNN.
What blogs have created is an obstacle in the conveyance of messages, as blogs are now filtering messages taken from the mass media and redefining them. True, Bloggers do not typically witness news making moments, nor do they have the funding to be able to do so. But, while they may not have direct access to journalists or the funds to capture news as it happens, they do have access to thousands of news- feeds over the internet.
Why mass- mediated news still has a place?
Bloggers have a hard time as it is moving up the ranks of internet legitimacy, let alone competing with mass- mediated news one-on-one. What they do have are the numbers; bloggers by the thousands screening the news and collaborating.
Blogging has finally provided a system of accountability of mass-media institutions, forcing them to provide accurate and truthful information, failing to do so at their own risk of being caught by bloggers who are following their every move.
Mass- mediated news will always have a place, regardless of how fragmented they may become due to citizen media. They will always have a place because journalists are still key criteria for legitimate news, with that being said, the mass- media are some of the only institutions able to pay for the labour of a journalist. What has changed are the stipulations associated with the media, institutions no longer have free reign over our media, it is the bloggers who now have the last word.
No comments:
Post a Comment