Slashdot Mirror
Interrogate New Media Professor Clay Shirky
Clay Shirky is a Professor of New Media at Hunter College in NYC, currently on leave while he works with the acceleratorgroup. And writes. Prolifically. About almost everything to do with the Internet, with sidelong glances at Open Source and Linux, which (yes) he uses as his everyday operating system. What should you ask Clay? Take a look at his personal site, read some of what he's written, and go from there. (He's so wide-ranging that he's hard to pin down!) We'll forward 10 of the highest-moderated questions to him Thursday afternoon (US EST), and will post his answers early next week.
Amongst any group of users, my bet is that you'll find several who would pay for improvements in the quality and nature of the information they receive. Obviously there is great value in correct and timely information. In some cases, it is nothing short of a life or death matter. In most cases it simply keeps us a little better informed.
I don't understand, therefore, why none of your proposed solutions (aggregation, subscription, subsidy) have evolved yet. Every site that I've seen try subscription has given up (except one: the WSJ). And everyone agrees that subsidy in the form of advertising is not going to fly.
Many high-quality sites that deserve to survive are having a tough time of it, and it's not for lack of readership. The Onion hasn't created any multi-millionaires; it should have. Salon has had layoffs. The Straight Dope should make more money on its website than on its books. User Friendly should not have to resort to dead tree publishing or syndication.
In short, while Fucked Company celebrates the death of the crappy sites and stupid business plans, the quality sites are in danger of dying as well. What's gone wrong? Why haven't any models come about that support what people really want?
Does the New Media need journalism training?
In the bad old days, journalists almost always got some training before they were unleashed on the public. Boring things like finding out a complete story, verifying rumors before publishing, disclosing conflicts of interest, journalist integrity, and a whole host of other things (including spelling and grammar).
Due to the rise of New Media, anyone with a web page can be a journalist, regardless of their qualifications. The Drudge Report is the canonical example. Matt Drudge can post any rumor he hears, without having to verify it.
Now, I'm not sure I want to go back to the old way of journalism, but should New Media editors at least try to follow some basic journalist ethics and principles?
If they should, how should they try to implement them?
Thanks,
George
After reading your piece on the WTO, I have a question for you.
What do you think of the Indymedia phenomenon?
Or, more broadly, do you feel that the increasing accessibility of digital cameras and other tools, which lower the cost of putting a strong Web-based newsroom together, might challenge the increasingly corporate system of mainstream news?
Interestingly, you don't mention Indymedia in that article, but we're a collective of people who gets equipment out to intereted people, to cover the protests on the inside.
They have connected live, streaming news about protests all over the world, including the recent UN climate talks, the WTO, the World Economic Forum, and the march of the Zapatistas to Mexico City.
Although Indymedia started in Seattle, there are IMC bureaus all over the world now.
I think they've done two important things- popularized the "movement against corporate globalization," and created a forum for debate.
The debate you talk about- between the protesters who want to fix institutions like the WTO and the ones who want to abolish them- is taking place in the discussion rooms of Indymedia. Check it out!
-perdida
Goat sex free since 2001