ONCE YOU POP, YOU CAN'T STOP
really now, it's so mean of me to feel or exhibit a schadenfreude over what is happening right now. you know, the brian gorrell and gucci gang brouhaha. Other Half is now telling me i've become tsismosa na that i've immersed myself the whole afternoon reading chikatime, a local gossip blog. deliciously wicked.
but the thing here is baka balikan ako (i.e. "karma") sa ginagawa kong 'to. haha. baka balikan din ako sa mga ginawa ko sa blog ni sisa noon.
--
ON BLOGGERS VS. JOURNALISTS
Malu Fernandez once again ignited a debate (probably a reaction to the hate campaign against the gucci gang) that got the goat of a lot of bloggers.
i'll not start a tirade of criticisms on MF again but rather i'll try to flesh out an issue which has been on my mind for quite some time now that i even suggested to my adviser that this could be a good subject to study for a thesis or a paper. however, the subject is still under debate, ergo, i would have a hard time getting related literature on the subject, she told me.
what i can say is the two are different things and shouldn't even be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. for me, the main difference lies in the gatekeeping mechanisms of the medium or whatever you categorize it. when i say gatekeeping, there is/are some mechanism(s) involved in the delivery of the message i.e. the gatekeepers hold the key/decision to what would come out as messages or how the messages would be delivered to its audience.
in print, the gatekeepers may come in the form of the publishers and editors -- people who have the control over the messages (or the articles) that will come out. the articles are edited, re-edited, re-angled, re-hashed (sometimes mutilated beyond recognition). information is verified, they see whether the piece is appropriate (but in MF's case they're kinda remiss in that respect), whether it is libelous and so on and so forth. there are checks and balances. that's why editors meet and brainstorm on how the banner story should look like etc. etc. the creator of the message (i.e. the writer/reporter) or the functions of the creator/source may be independent of the gatekeepers.
Karine Barzilai-Nahon, Assistant Professor, The Information School, University of Washington
in blogging, on the other hand, the producer of the message (blogger) is also the gatekeeper of the message. bloggers can argue that they also employ self-restraint, checks and balances and whatever but basically the bloggers themselves control the message. (just look at the contents of brian gorrell's blog. i'm not saying that all bloggers are irresponsible. hell, a lot of journalists are also irresponsible).
and that makes a whole lot of difference.
the thing here is with blogging, the traditional set up of generating a message has eroded since generating messages is not confined to the traditional sources of traditional medium anymore. the audience now has the power to create messages themselves or react to the information/messages generated by traditional sources of messages.
point is the two different kinds of information sources (or producers -- bloggers and journalists) shouldn't be compared on an apples-to-apples basis (i couldn't bring the phrase "same level" lest i want to earn the ire of both camps) since the bloggers have all the control over their messages and their medium whereas journalists don't have that kind of freedom. some have (depending on their gatekeepers) but basically their messages are still at the mercy of the gatekeepers especially for straight news and news features.
however, a lot of bloggers and journalists don't see it that way. they see one another as enemies of some sort or whatever, reading from the posts/comments of other bloggers. it's like, "hey you journos, we're gonna replace you because what we're doing is also journalism and what we're doing is more relevant than what you do!" then the other camp would say, "hey, you too, bloggers, you're just wannabe-journalists but what you're writing is crap! you're just a bunch of diarists!" or something to that effect.
hay, the never-ending crap debate. for me it's a non-issue because both use one another, therefore, should co-exist peacefully (unless some ethics/rules were breached). bloggers use news items written by journalists to generate content and journalists also use blogs as a source of news.
as for journalist-bloggers, blogging is another outlet to communicate. for me it's a way to get out of the gatekeeping mechanism of my medium (of my job). in some sense it may be an extension of my profession but blogging is more of a way to express on a more personal level. in writing news stories, i can express myself a little bit (in so many creative little ways just to be able to deliver the punch) but that's it, i'm confined to the square box that the gatekeepers and the medium provide me.
i'm sorry i have to be academic about it since there is no other way i can explain what's inside my head without receiving hate comments or being too biased.
but the thing here is baka balikan ako (i.e. "karma") sa ginagawa kong 'to. haha. baka balikan din ako sa mga ginawa ko sa blog ni sisa noon.
--
ON BLOGGERS VS. JOURNALISTS
Malu Fernandez once again ignited a debate (probably a reaction to the hate campaign against the gucci gang) that got the goat of a lot of bloggers.
i'll not start a tirade of criticisms on MF again but rather i'll try to flesh out an issue which has been on my mind for quite some time now that i even suggested to my adviser that this could be a good subject to study for a thesis or a paper. however, the subject is still under debate, ergo, i would have a hard time getting related literature on the subject, she told me.
what i can say is the two are different things and shouldn't even be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. for me, the main difference lies in the gatekeeping mechanisms of the medium or whatever you categorize it. when i say gatekeeping, there is/are some mechanism(s) involved in the delivery of the message i.e. the gatekeepers hold the key/decision to what would come out as messages or how the messages would be delivered to its audience.
in print, the gatekeepers may come in the form of the publishers and editors -- people who have the control over the messages (or the articles) that will come out. the articles are edited, re-edited, re-angled, re-hashed (sometimes mutilated beyond recognition). information is verified, they see whether the piece is appropriate (but in MF's case they're kinda remiss in that respect), whether it is libelous and so on and so forth. there are checks and balances. that's why editors meet and brainstorm on how the banner story should look like etc. etc. the creator of the message (i.e. the writer/reporter) or the functions of the creator/source may be independent of the gatekeepers.
Karine Barzilai-Nahon, Assistant Professor, The Information School, University of Washington
in blogging, on the other hand, the producer of the message (blogger) is also the gatekeeper of the message. bloggers can argue that they also employ self-restraint, checks and balances and whatever but basically the bloggers themselves control the message. (just look at the contents of brian gorrell's blog. i'm not saying that all bloggers are irresponsible. hell, a lot of journalists are also irresponsible).
and that makes a whole lot of difference.
the thing here is with blogging, the traditional set up of generating a message has eroded since generating messages is not confined to the traditional sources of traditional medium anymore. the audience now has the power to create messages themselves or react to the information/messages generated by traditional sources of messages.
point is the two different kinds of information sources (or producers -- bloggers and journalists) shouldn't be compared on an apples-to-apples basis (i couldn't bring the phrase "same level" lest i want to earn the ire of both camps) since the bloggers have all the control over their messages and their medium whereas journalists don't have that kind of freedom. some have (depending on their gatekeepers) but basically their messages are still at the mercy of the gatekeepers especially for straight news and news features.
however, a lot of bloggers and journalists don't see it that way. they see one another as enemies of some sort or whatever, reading from the posts/comments of other bloggers. it's like, "hey you journos, we're gonna replace you because what we're doing is also journalism and what we're doing is more relevant than what you do!" then the other camp would say, "hey, you too, bloggers, you're just wannabe-journalists but what you're writing is crap! you're just a bunch of diarists!" or something to that effect.
hay, the never-ending crap debate. for me it's a non-issue because both use one another, therefore, should co-exist peacefully (unless some ethics/rules were breached). bloggers use news items written by journalists to generate content and journalists also use blogs as a source of news.
as for journalist-bloggers, blogging is another outlet to communicate. for me it's a way to get out of the gatekeeping mechanism of my medium (of my job). in some sense it may be an extension of my profession but blogging is more of a way to express on a more personal level. in writing news stories, i can express myself a little bit (in so many creative little ways just to be able to deliver the punch) but that's it, i'm confined to the square box that the gatekeepers and the medium provide me.
i'm sorry i have to be academic about it since there is no other way i can explain what's inside my head without receiving hate comments or being too biased.
i spent all morning reading Brian's blog. hmm..very emotional. ang saya ko lang at na-echo nya ang opinion ko regarding that thing, Celine Lopez.
crim (Comment this)