Lasica, J.D. Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other
As the title suggest, in his article Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other Lasica voices his opinion that ‘blogs and journalism need each other’ (Lasica 70). According to him many journalists are needlessly critical of people who act as journalists on their blogs. Instead, Lasica believes that weblogs aren’t really competing with or trying to replace the work of professional journalists. Rather, they can complement it and offer a fresh angle on the news. In other words, bloggers and professional journalists can learn from each other (Lasica 73).
My question here is, “is it true that blogs and journalism complement each other? And is it a positive development that anybody who wants to (without a journalism degree) can write about news?” Nowadays, it’s impossible to ignore weblogs. More and more people create their own personal web diaries and start writing their own stories about things they find interesting or important, and personally I think that this is a positive development. I also think that it’s very likely that bloggers and journalists can learn form each other, however, I do think the words ‘need’ is a bit too much. There still are loads of areas where it’s very hard for bloggers to participate. For instance, war reporting is not something that most people will enter lightly, which means that there’s very little they can complement the actual war reporters with. Also, I get the impression that in general webloggers offer information that they find interesting or funny, but that they don’t really write complete articles. In other words, if journalists want to find out what is going on in a certain community, I believe that weblogs can offer useful information, but I’m not sure that they really complement each other. They’re both important in their own way.
Gillmor, D. Moving Toward Participatory Journalism
In his article Moving Toward Participatory Journalism, Gillmor talks about ‘the power of blogs that is central to the participatory journalism of the future’ (Gillmor 79). In other words, he believes that the possibilities of weblogs are endless(ly important). For instance, partly because of weblogs, everyone can let their voices be heard and participate, read different angles and gather news collectively (Gillmor 80). Even so, according to Gillmor there still are some difficulties that need dealing with, like developing a new set of rules and making sure that power is not misused. Otherwise it could all end up badly (Gillmor 80).
So, my question here is “is the worst-case scenario that Gillmor mentions plausible, or is it more realistic to hold on to the more optimistic view he also offers?” I agree with Gillmor that weblogs won’t disappear any time soon and that they have lots of benefits. I also agree with him that we should make sure that big organisations don’t misuse their power. However, I’m not certain that that these organisations won’t find a way to control the technology. In a way Gillmor is right in believing that people will continue to tell stories, because they like doing it and as long as there are many bloggers, it will be difficult to control them (Gillmor 80). But, I also think that some organisations will continue to sue people and that they do have a leg to stand on sometimes, for instance when it’s about copyright. In other words, they will always come up with something. Even though I believe that the struggle will continue, I also think that anything is possible as long as people keep trying (and don’t worry too much about the consequences).
Middelaar, L. van. On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement between Morals, Economics and Politics
In his paper On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement between Morals, Economics and Politics, van Middelaar focuses on the Anti-Globalisation Movement and ‘how this movement theorises about the changing relationships between economy and politics’ (van Middelaar 3). As far as I know van Middelaar believes that this movement sees capitalism as the source of all evil, but are too much involved with economics themselves and that they might even be counterproductive (van Middelaar 4).
At one point van Middelaar says ‘these protests are naïve and sterile; there is now way out of the world of money, not even for those people who think they’re fighting against it’ (van Middelaar 20). Overall, van Middelaar is quite negative about consumer activism and their attempts to change anything about the current situation. So, my question here is, “is van Middelaar right in believing this?” Even though he might be right that the Anti-Globalisation Movement doesn’t have all the answers, this doesn’t mean that the problem isn’t there. At least people like Naomi Klein make people aware of certain problems that most people just don’t see or want to see. I believe that this awareness can be quite helpful. However, van Middelaar does have a point that boycotts may not be the best answer and I also agree with him that it’s important that ‘a legal frame work and a political will’ is created (van Middelaar 36). But who says that the Anti-Globalisation Movement doesn’t want that as well? I also disagree with van Middelaar when he says that they want to escape from ‘the world of money’. As far as I know they just want money to be distributed more equally and I for
Warde, A. Production, Consumption and ‘Cultural Economy’
Warde believes that before we do anything else, we have to find a better definition for the economic and the cultural and in this essay he wants to pay more attention to the concept of ‘consumer culture’ and the idea that consumption is deeply cultural (Warde 186). According to him there are two different approaches to consumer culture. The first one revolves around Featherstone’s idea that ‘contemporary culture is drenched in culture’. In other words, in today’s society people use the style and aesthetics of cultural products to help form their identities (Warde 193). The second approach has more to do with the idea that ‘the way of life of societies is shaped primarily by the activity of consumption’, which more or less means that people live to consume (Warde 195).
I had some difficulty reading this text, but if I’m not mistaken Warde doesn’t agree with either one of the approaches. On the one hand he believes that people often consume without really thinking about it (Warde 193). And on the other hand he says that ‘economic activity is always meaningful and culturally embedded’ (Warde 197). So, my question here is “which one is it?” I believe that most people use cultural products the way they see fit and that it depends on the product and the person to what extent they will do something meaningful with it. Especially nowadays many people buy certain products because they like the images it portrays. And although some people only buy it to belong to a particular group and they might not even use the product, I think in general people consume cultural products because they like them and they like to apply meaning to them. (I’m sorry for this lame Q&A, but this is all I could come up with right now).