For Wednesday, September 11, 2013, here are some media stories of note:
Jeff Jarvis, in his latest Buzzmachine post, looks back on events of 9/11 and says this is the first year in which he has felt hopeless about his nation. He looks at the invasion of privacy, the prosecution of those who report about it, and the use of 9/11 to threaten freedom and build fortresses. He says it is difficult but necessary to search for hope.
Colin Freeman, writing for The Daily Telegraph, argues that prosecuting journalists for paying for news is bad for everyone. Freeman says there is a "class prejudice" about paying for content. It is increasingly difficult to gain access to information, and he asserts that paying for it is not nearly as bad as prosecuting about it. "You may not approve of paying for information, but as things stand, it is increasingly one of the only ways in which non-sanitized stories come out," he writes. Prosecution only helps the institutions trying to shield the content, he says.
Earlier this week three Shorenstein Center Fellows released Riptide, a lengthy report on digital disruption of legacy media. The reaction hasn't been universal acclaim. Andrea Peterson, writing in The Washington Post, represents a cohort that found considerable limitations in the extensive research, principally in the lack of diversity of those interviewed. She argued that the report failed to recognize how the Internet gave a range of under-represented voices an opportunity to reach audiences with their work.
Jeff Jarvis, in his latest Buzzmachine post, looks back on events of 9/11 and says this is the first year in which he has felt hopeless about his nation. He looks at the invasion of privacy, the prosecution of those who report about it, and the use of 9/11 to threaten freedom and build fortresses. He says it is difficult but necessary to search for hope.
Colin Freeman, writing for The Daily Telegraph, argues that prosecuting journalists for paying for news is bad for everyone. Freeman says there is a "class prejudice" about paying for content. It is increasingly difficult to gain access to information, and he asserts that paying for it is not nearly as bad as prosecuting about it. "You may not approve of paying for information, but as things stand, it is increasingly one of the only ways in which non-sanitized stories come out," he writes. Prosecution only helps the institutions trying to shield the content, he says.
Earlier this week three Shorenstein Center Fellows released Riptide, a lengthy report on digital disruption of legacy media. The reaction hasn't been universal acclaim. Andrea Peterson, writing in The Washington Post, represents a cohort that found considerable limitations in the extensive research, principally in the lack of diversity of those interviewed. She argued that the report failed to recognize how the Internet gave a range of under-represented voices an opportunity to reach audiences with their work.
