Slashdot Mirror
And Now, the Cartoon News
theodp writes "Would you read a cartoon version of Slashdot? Quality stuff, not half-baked MS-Paint posts like 'Introducing Microsoft Monocle and Self-Driving Bentley'. Erin Polgreen has big plans for illustrated journalism. In October, Polgreen will be launching Symbolia, a tablet-based magazine of illustrated journalism, through Apple's App Store. 'Illustrated journalism draws you in, Polgreen explains. 'It's accessible in a way 5,000 words of text isn't. Regardless of age, gender or anything, you grasp it faster than most journalism.' Polgreen follows in the footsteps of other cartoonist-journalists, including Joe Kubert (RIP), Joe Sacco, and Josh Neufeld."
At first I thought we'd be seeing a new /. page. Thank God it's just a story.
Stop quoting that god damn article. It's over-referenced and the article title isn't even a leading question, it's not even a question at all, it's a question in the body on the text. You are not clever.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
So, why read a cartoon version when you can just watch the news? I really don't see what this is trying to accomplish that video won't.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I wonder if one day there will be little writing done and mostly video/photo with icons to tell you what's going on, like something you might see on an Egyptian temple, symbols not an alphabet or writing as we know it currently.
Side Note: When I turned to youtube for some tutorials I found myself losing patience with video because (to me any how) it just plods along, I could read a tutorial much faster than I can watch it.
That is all, let the dumbing down continue.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There are plenty of reasons to avoid apple products even if one can afford them.
I would certainly have been willing to try it, otherwise.
(OTOH, I find myself annoyed by how many things are available only as video these days, so perhaps I should just admit that I'm old.)
Larry Gonick.
When will people seriously get it into their think marketer heads that although cartoons or videos may be more initially eye-catching, they have low information density and are worse at getting actual information across than plain old text?
Information means different things. What most people mean when they say information is *meaning*. You can't make blanket statements about how much *meaning* a cartoon can carry vs. text. It depends on three things: (1) the topic; (2) the artist or writer's mastery of the topic; and (3) the artist or writer's mastery of his craft.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I also want my cornflakes to be blended - I don't have time to chew - then shot into my mouth.
Because obviously that's better.
I'd prefer to read it on my Linux PC, Windows PC, Android phone, and even yes... my Mac laptop. But never if it comes through their app store and it's apps.
This sig intentionally left blank.
When will people seriously get it into their think marketer heads that although cartoons or videos may be more initially eye-catching, they have low information density and are worse at getting actual information across than plain old text?
Not necessarily. Depending on what's being reported on, a picture can be worth a thousand words. And "information density" isn't always the only objective of journalism. A lot of stories are about evoking the emotion of the situation, so a lot of it tends to be descriptive. Quality news sources like the BBC are pretty good at almost transporting you there by capturing the sensations of what's going on. Illustrated news lends itself very well to that kind of reporting.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
When will people seriously get it into their think marketer heads that although cartoons or videos may be more initially eye-catching, they have low information density and are worse at getting actual information across than plain old text?
First, density != effectiveness in human-to-human communications.
Second, text has medium density... it's more dense than a comic but less dense than a well-designed graph.
Finally, consider that your view of cartoons may not include everything the medium is capable of. Have you seen, for example, Scott McCloud's comic-book introduction to Google Chrome? Plain old text could have conveyed the same information, but it's doubtful the audience would have been as large or absorbed as much. Scott argues that cartoons can be more effective than pure text, and while I suspect he's only partially right, it is still worthwhile to try experiments like the one Polgreen is talking about.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
You could read through a bland paragraph stating that the Greeks are desperate to eject from the Euro mess that they've gotten themselves into, but with Germany calling the shots they're finding it very difficult. Or you could just have a shuftie at this. Which gets the point across quicker?
It takes a lot of skill to get information summarized into visually digestible forms, and it's a much more efficient way of communicating. It's the same as how a company's logo is more instantly recognizable than just the company name printed in plain text.
There's no need to be such snobs about "dumbing down". I take it you all only read newspapers and never listen to the radio or watch TV news?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
A picture can be worth a thousand words... unless you're behind a filter that blocks most images.
Please.
No.
Giga bandwidth wasting graphic simplification.
Text is best.
Be eloquent.
This will go over about as well as the old Ananova.com website. Am I the only one who remembers that crime against journalism? It was like having the news fed through Xtranormal.
Here's a brief BBC story on Ananova, for the youngsters who have no idea what gramps is ranting about this time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/606855.stm
/*Insert boring sig here*/
If this were about uplifting kids or bringing news to the english-language disadvantaged OR SATIRE, I believe this concept may have merit. Unfortunately, I'm convinced this is nothing but a contributor to the dumbing down of culture/society. This is an appeal to the lowest common denominator and it should be soundly rejected as mainstream messaging.
Diluting and distilling the message creates more opportunity for message corruption and/or misinterpretation. But the problem extends beyond miscommunicating the facts. Skew and color (a.k.a. bias) is a natural byproduct of dilution and distillation. This is where journalism ends and marketing begins. When the vehicle of a message becomes as important as the message itself... this is not journalism. It is entertainment and/or advertising.
Cartoons are not new in the journalistic space. The political cartoon first appeared in 16th-century Germany during the Reformation, the first time such art became an active propaganda weapon with social implications. By the mid-19th cent. editorial cartoons had become regular features in American newspapers, and were soon followed by sports cartoons and humorous cartoons. England (1843); a series of drawings appeared in a publication called Punch that parodied the fresco cartoons submitted in a competition for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. Nonpolitical cartoons, typically humorous, became popular with the development of the color press, and in 1893 the first color cartoon appeared in the New York World. The New Yorker and the Saturday Evening Post were among the most notable American magazines to use outstanding single cartoon drawings. In this way cartoon, in journalistic parlance, came to mean any single humorous or satirical drawing employing distortion for emphasis, often accompanied by a caption or a legend.
As a society, we must be clear on what quality journalism is... and what defines news. When Fox News Channel and Christian Broadcasting Network can present tabloid, yellow journalism or fantastic, mythical distortions of reality and characterizing their products as "Fair and Balanced" or "Good News", something has gone horribly wrong with the general understanding of journalism.
What's Dumbing Down Journalism
Dumbing Down - Implications
Is online media dumbing down journalism?
Dumbing Down Journalism - The Rise of American Propoganda
Society must demand quality journalism and if they do not understand what quality journalism, philosopher kings must be ever vigilent against the intrusion of pretenders. Society must be uplifted by journalism. Journalism should not cater to the lowest common denominator. Cartoons that do not confine their scope to children, special language needs audiences, or satire present a slippery slope and usher the decent of journalism into a hell of misinformation.
It depends upon what you mean by "information" or what you mean by "news" in the case of this article (cartoon journalism).
At its best, "the news" is much more than just raw data. A graph can visualize data but it cannot provide analysis. And the thing we're sorely lacking in most of our media (no, one of the many things) is serious analysis. I don't even mean "unbiased" analysis, because there is no such thing. I mean actual analysis, with some disclosed opinion as gravy.
Seeing the streets of New Orleans flooded and a body floating facedown may be worth a thousand words, but it does not tell me what I need to know. It does not tell me about the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers or the history of those levees. It does not tell me how Katrina compares to most hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast. It's a dramatic picture, "dense" in the parlance of visualization, but has no value as news. I could have gotten the same information that "Hurricane hits New Orleans. People die." from a tickertape or a tweet.
And I really, REALLY don't need a moral equivalence based on some coward's notion of "fairness". I don't need the kind of BS "fact-checking" like the Washington Post or politifact, where facts are only checked against conventional wisdom, not against what's actually happening or has actually happened. And always now, the only bias is not a political one in the usual sense, but a bias based on the corporate hegemony. The conventional wisdom is the convention of mindless consumerism.
It's not that hard, really, except for the change in the business model of the news media. Before there was an expectation of huge profits, when most media outlets were family or individually owned by people who had a sense of civic duty (even with their political bias generously applied), we were able to discern some useful picture of our larger world from the news media.
Now we get either useless posturing or glaring images of things over which we have absolutely no control. That isn't news. That's exploitation of the consumers of media.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This makes reporting so much simpler because actual interviews and reporting won't be necessary. Interviews can be completely written on the spot! It will be a huge time saver and a win for the readers.
Distilled satire on an issue or simple gripe with a plain service make excellent candidates for cartoons. Penny-arcade is a wonderful example of satire in an industry I care about. The New Yorker has been doing much the same with political satire for years. However, both of these outlets do not represent their entire collection of view points with just simple quips.
As a format for a news journal I think it's fairly laughable, but may likely draw in some viewers. There is a niche for everyone!
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Considering /. has become somewhat of a joke for news lately anyway, sure.