I don't think open news can be completely open, simply because you can't 100% trust what is posted. If anything can be posted, what is to stop people making up stories? On a website like Indymedia, where everyone is 'equal' and free to publish their own stories, there is no control, and no one to check the stories for validity etc. That's not to say you shouldn't believe anything you read regarding open news (lets face it, even new sources like 'The Sun' are ridiculed for providing false stories), however, caution should be taken, as nobody is moderating any of these sites (at least, they're not moderating them in terms of checking each story to see how much of it is true) so people are free to write whatever they please (within reason!)
Are those who want to make DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture (that also exists offline) or is it more diverse than that? Think of examples beyond Indymedia. I think that those making DIY news are part of an alternative culture. They are described as 'directed cluster of interests and practices around green radicalism, direct action politics, new musical sounds and experiences'. Therefore if they are part of an alternative culture to an extent, as they are writing stories/news on things that may not otherwise be reported on, as they are more niche. Whether or not this can be called a 'culture' I'm not sure... Does it go as far as being an alternative culture, or just a more original group of people reporting stories that are not exactly 'mainstream'?
What does everyone else think? I'm a bit stuck on this question!
i think that the most common mistake made by theorists is that they assunme that what general unacademic people are passive and that they do not question the material tha they are provided with, so i agree with your comment that one cant always trust everything that they read online they have to be careful as to whom they go to to obtain news.....and as for DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture, i personally dont think that they are any different form print based reporters expect that they operate online and theere isnt that fierce competition for sale thus there are fewer dramatic stories online.
ReplyDeleteBUT...don't these DIY reporters believe their stories tobe worthwhile? even if other people don't. Wouldnt this have the same effect as a dramatic story in another format, that was mainstream?
ReplyDeleteI think other produsers can moderate produsers product -especially news. "Current TV" tried to use collective criticism to retain and improve media standards on their website. It failed because the economics of the site didn't take off. More people were interested in silly content on YouTube than worthy, arty content on CurrentTV. But in terms of policing content, it worked well. users voted on what should get top billing, and searching could bypass the user-vote system and drag up anything 'relevant' regardless of quality.
ReplyDeleteThis approach was borrowed from alternative news websites I believe.
I'm with Dani, on alt.media sites, contributors generally do believe their offerings are worthwhile -but they are often controversial, so attract 'spoiling' responses etc. (Hence the need to create a gatekeeper) but if the technology doesn't allow that to swamp the original article, it can be good to see how bigotted opposition can be.
The judgement that alt.news is no news is much more likely to be one of 'I'm not interested' -and that's just like the fundamental point of persuasion. If you don't seem to share the attitudes of your audience, you won't keep their attention (as so many lectures prove).
Mainstream ideology might well mean that commercial journalists cannot pick up on a story because it requires a whole different outlook than their readers/viewers have. (Chomsky writes on this). They don't have the opportunity to re-educate their audience.
Hey loove!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first comment of the news being "open", as although anyone can post, hwo can we trust them and how do we know they are reliable sources? We don't! Within online sourses i think its just safer to stick with then "don't always trust what you read" motto!