Q. Lasica is very elaborate about all he advantages of blogs and their position against the mainstream media. Reading his article leaves me with not a lot of questions, for I agree with him a lot. Still, it might have been a bit more interesting if Lasica had put some negative sides on blogging in the text as well. Maybe to him there are none, but I believe there must be some. Are there?
A. With blogging I tend to believe that whatever makes it good is at the same time the weak spot of the concept. This new form of journalism and the blogosphere as Lasica calls it is very open and accesible to the entire world population. Lasica uses Lisa Rein as example. She is what we in Holland call a 'razende reporter':) en beats the professional journalists with more exclusive footage and faster broadcasting. Rein who, on her own, is an entire news agency herself by only using her weblog. Lisa Rein is one example but I think that there are just as many bad examples of 'dangerous' weblogs to be found floating around in the blogospghere as there are good ones. I remember myself referring to the Nick Berg decapitation and the amount of weblogs that pay attention to it in the previous week readings. Some of them are full of anti-islamic content or some come up with lists of arguments why this video could not have been real. Either way, fact remains that this type of journalism is very easy for anyone with a computer. In the end, blogging might just be the same as the mainstream media. A difference is the scatterded image that blogging carries along with it. Yes, many people can read it, but many don't. There is an increasing amount of communities that pop up. Are they tired of the lies that the mainstream gives them or are they jsut exploiting the fact that everything they say can be read by millions. To me, Lasica is too optimistic. .. or maybe I am to pessimistic, but I don't think I am. It might be just human (or DUTCH ;) nature to be somewhat sceptical about all that's new. Don't be persuaded that fast.
Gillmor (reader)
A. With blogging I tend to believe that whatever makes it good is at the same time the weak spot of the concept. This new form of journalism and the blogosphere as Lasica calls it is very open and accesible to the entire world population. Lasica uses Lisa Rein as example. She is what we in Holland call a 'razende reporter':) en beats the professional journalists with more exclusive footage and faster broadcasting. Rein who, on her own, is an entire news agency herself by only using her weblog. Lisa Rein is one example but I think that there are just as many bad examples of 'dangerous' weblogs to be found floating around in the blogospghere as there are good ones. I remember myself referring to the Nick Berg decapitation and the amount of weblogs that pay attention to it in the previous week readings. Some of them are full of anti-islamic content or some come up with lists of arguments why this video could not have been real. Either way, fact remains that this type of journalism is very easy for anyone with a computer. In the end, blogging might just be the same as the mainstream media. A difference is the scatterded image that blogging carries along with it. Yes, many people can read it, but many don't. There is an increasing amount of communities that pop up. Are they tired of the lies that the mainstream gives them or are they jsut exploiting the fact that everything they say can be read by millions. To me, Lasica is too optimistic. .. or maybe I am to pessimistic, but I don't think I am. It might be just human (or DUTCH ;) nature to be somewhat sceptical about all that's new. Don't be persuaded that fast.
Gillmor (reader)
