Week Five. Topic One.
"Open news" can be quality news. I think this applies to all the web. I think it can be quality because of the "produser" culture on the web- anyone can post and be a researcher and use a massive and varied around of sources and influences. However, we dont know who is posting this information. This is not completley "open", websistes such as IndyMedia are still monitered and edited, even if its just for spelling mistakes. One asks-why does news have to "professional", what is really wrong with reading the news in "text speak"? So this "open" news is edited for no apparent reason than to make it generic to what we expect of news, if it was any different-then it would be a shock to read, which reflects as us on individuals and society, as we wish to be "open-minded" and "original" on the internet, in terms of what we post and read-and yet it appears that we want things like the news to be conventional. These "open" news websites are also controlled by moderaters etc and people act in a democratic way-such as the examples given in this text.
No comments:
Post a Comment