1. Is this the future of journalism? Is this a way for a major newspaper to attract readers? Or a way to cut budgets and still cover small events? Could something like this work in the Bay area? Do you think the IJ or the Point Reyes Light would mind this kind of program in the area? Would there be a way to apply this idea to MA?
2. Here's a great review from the NYTimes. What do you think of the writing and style? Is it too negative? Too opinionated? Yes it's a review, but are reviewers supposed to maintain any objectivity?
6 comments:
The idea of having a community news link off the NY Times seems risky and out of place. While it might be fun for locals to post news stories and pictures about their town, the articles would lose their credibility and journalistic sense. Maybe people could submit ideas for journalists to write about, but voluntary news blurbs about a specific community seem to fit in LOCAL newspapers or announcements at a community center. A national newspaper, even with professional editing, does not seem the right place for neighborhood news.
On the topic of the review, I think it was very well written. While the opinions stated might be offensive to the cast and crew in the play, they were honest and descriptive. In this type of review though, it might be better to at least get a few different views on the play before writing such strong criticisms. If it was a general consensus that the performance was bad, then the writer did a good job of saying what problems existed. I think he could have been slightly more tactful, but it is still a review. A review is SUPPOSED to be what the person's real reactions to the performance were.
Although there was no article regarding this on the blog, THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE IS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! (So I hear)
What has become of print journalism? A San Francisco with only the Inquirer? This should not be such a reality.
I would be interested in further discussing this. Why? When? How?
Specifically, how the economy is tearing apart print media and the effect this have on the distribution of news to come.
Taking print journalism to the internet is not a solution! The internet is and will always be unreliable. Sadly, when your on the run, taking the media for granted is all too easy. This is going to have to change now that blogs are the new newspaper.
(sorry I commented on something unrelated but I think it is important)
I agree! It is a tragedy that newspapers are disappearing from society - a sad reality of our modern technological world. I have an image of Sunday mornings with coffee, orange juice, bagels and schmear, and a newspaper permanently ingrained in my mind, yet such treasured moments from my childhood are fading away as a thing of the past. People no longer take the time to read the paper pages, opting for electronic sources instead. I must say that I am one of these people - the NY Times is my homepage on my computer and I frequent the HuffPost. Although I now read news stories much more frequently from a wider selection of sources, almost all of it is from the convenience of my computer. All of this was a long was of saying that print newspapers are dying and thus the companies are trying to find alternatives to garner interest, readers, and thus advertising money to remain in business.
I think that this NY Times community-based journalism is actually a very interesting idea, so long as it does NOT replace the paper. I would love to read tidbits about communities in my area, but reading stories from random places across the US is not something I would opt for on a regular basis. Not only is it less relevant, but is not what I would consider a credible "news" source. It is cool, however, that it would give young journalists a chance to write on a regular basis under the umbrella of the NY Times. I just hope that the NY Times would remain a credible, varied, current, and compelling news source.
I enjoyed the review because of its sarcastic tone. Normally, I wouldn't bother reading a review of an old musical like Guys & Dolls, but when the writer uses colloquial writing such as: "And, honey, there ain’t no chemistry in your show", i was hooked. I kept feeling like i should yell "OH SNAP!" every time the writer dissed either the actors or production crew of the play, and believe me, there was plenty of dissing.
Sadly, I don't think that this kind of review would fit in the MA voice because it's derogatory to the point where it'd cause a potential audience member to save their cash and choose dinner and a movie instead of dinner and theater. I don't think that any of us as voice writers would be allowed to go to (for example) the spring theater production, and if we hated it like the writer hated Guys & Dolls, say that it was horrible. Why? Because the people in our plays and shows are our fellow classmates, and we just don't do that to them.
On the review...
While opinionated, I don't find this article at all overly mean-spirited or negative. I actually find it kind of refreshing to read such a blunt and unforgiving review. Often, I think it's difficult to flat out review something badly, because so often the effort shines through despite a failed final product. This reviewer is doing his job, he tells it as he saw it. On the other hand, the slightest bit more negativity and sassy criticism and I might have lost my trust in the author; I might have thought he was being harsh without justification. However, the author explains his opinions and gives lucid examples of what turned him off.
The Future of Journalism?
The idea of giving average citizens the power to publish articles is not entirely new. It has been implemented heavily in various iPhone news applications (and most likely for the BlackBerry too), and is something that Twitter users take advantage of often. But just like how readers often question the veracity of Twitter posts, readers of this NYT website will probably also question the reliability of these pedestrians.
Using this for MA might not be too practical. Unless the Voice was able to pay a group of people to read over every single post to check for profanity and inappropriate material, the Voice would run into a problem similar to the one we discussed in class about comments posted on the Voice website. While it seems like a good idea, I don’t believe that it would be easy to maintain on the Voice, and I don’t think that it would be profitable for professional newspapers.
Personally, for both the NYT and the Voice, I think that instead of allowing users to post full articles, the system would be much more effective if users were only allowed to upload photographs (with short captions). That way, bias would be much easier to avoid, and users would be able to supplement professionally written/edited stories from different angles (pun intended) without having to deal with having their dependability questioned.
-Tiras Lin
Post a Comment