Comments on: Implications of Digital News Media in the Context of the United States Presidential Election http://justanother24hours.com/politics/implications-of-digital-news-media-in-the-context-of-the-united-states-presidential-election/ Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:09:45 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Shevaun http://justanother24hours.com/politics/implications-of-digital-news-media-in-the-context-of-the-united-states-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-4284 Shevaun Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:51:41 +0000 http://justanother24hours.com/?p=254#comment-4284 The idea of a digital media future has its pros and cons. I don’t think if people become their own editors of news that this would necessarily lead to them being any less informed. I agree with Joyce that the ability of the internet to provide information from global sources has if anything made people think more widely about world issues. For instance without the internet a majority of Australian’s wouldn’t be as knowledgeable about the American political election. I was able to watch the vice presidential debate from my computer at work, something that I most likely wouldn’t have tuned into without digital access. Whilst I initially started out using the internet for entertainment purposes, increasingly I now use it to check online news sources, or visit forums because it’s free, easily accessible and there is an array of opinions. I think the internet is a really important educational medium. I don’t expect it to force-feed me views that I can claim as my own, but I do rely on it to have access to a wider variety of information and outlooks from which I can then form my own judgments. Online news doesn’t negate the problem of journalistic influence, such as certain headlines being emphasised more than others, or articles written subjectively rather than objectively and facts being omitted. There is definitely a risk that if news were to become purely digital that perhaps some of the depth and standards would be sacrificed due to content needing to be faster and more concise. I guess, for those that want to be informed they will ensure the sources will be there and for those that don’t care they can remain ignorant. In that respect the future of news won’t be any different than now. However I think it’s a little bit bleak to think we will all become oblivious cretins in the age of digital media. If anything we can see through examples like science and philosophy that it’s in our nature to want to be informed and to challenge norms. Hopefully we’ll continue to demand a news source that educates. The idea of a digital media future has its pros and cons. I don’t think if people become their own editors of news that this would necessarily lead to them being any less informed. I agree with Joyce that the ability of the internet to provide information from global sources has if anything made people think more widely about world issues. For instance without the internet a majority of Australian’s wouldn’t be as knowledgeable about the American political election. I was able to watch the vice presidential debate from my computer at work, something that I most likely wouldn’t have tuned into without digital access. Whilst I initially started out using the internet for entertainment purposes, increasingly I now use it to check online news sources, or visit forums because it’s free, easily accessible and there is an array of opinions. I think the internet is a really important educational medium. I don’t expect it to force-feed me views that I can claim as my own, but I do rely on it to have access to a wider variety of information and outlooks from which I can then form my own judgments.

Online news doesn’t negate the problem of journalistic influence, such as certain headlines being emphasised more than others, or articles written subjectively rather than objectively and facts being omitted. There is definitely a risk that if news were to become purely digital that perhaps some of the depth and standards would be sacrificed due to content needing to be faster and more concise.

I guess, for those that want to be informed they will ensure the sources will be there and for those that don’t care they can remain ignorant. In that respect the future of news won’t be any different than now. However I think it’s a little bit bleak to think we will all become oblivious cretins in the age of digital media. If anything we can see through examples like science and philosophy that it’s in our nature to want to be informed and to challenge norms. Hopefully we’ll continue to demand a news source that educates.

]]> By: Joyce Summers http://justanother24hours.com/politics/implications-of-digital-news-media-in-the-context-of-the-united-states-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-4106 Joyce Summers Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:15:13 +0000 http://justanother24hours.com/?p=254#comment-4106 I agree with E. J.L. The luxury of feedback provides opportunity to be more, rather than less, informed – new media is the catalyst for greater awareness and ultimately truth. The NY Times political blog by Brian Stelter notes the Biden vs. Palin debate was the most-watched V.P. debate in television history while CNN set a 28-year record among young viewers (18- to 34-year-old demographic). Combining digital news media with an intense distaste for Washington politics has resulted in unprecedented levels of interest among voters of all ages, including me. After watching Sarah Palin wink and reference “maverick,” countless times on Friday, I was keen to participate in public discourse during lunch with colleagues as well as the online world. New media allows opportunity to digest information from sources across the globe – before reading our daily newspaper 24 hours later. To further support this notion, let’s try a different example. Suppose one is planning to buy a new camera. Would she trust the company’s Web site, a CNET blog, a friend’s opinion or a mention in a print feature story? Surely the informed consumer seeks multiple sources (e.g. validating a friend’s endorsement with positive comments posted to credible bloggers sites) before making a decision. J.S. I agree with E. J.L. The luxury of feedback provides opportunity to be more, rather than less, informed – new media is the catalyst for greater awareness and ultimately truth.

The NY Times political blog by Brian Stelter notes the Biden vs. Palin debate was the most-watched V.P. debate in television history while CNN set a 28-year record among young viewers (18- to 34-year-old demographic). Combining digital news media with an intense distaste for Washington politics has resulted in unprecedented levels of interest among voters of all ages, including me. After watching Sarah Palin wink and reference “maverick,” countless times on Friday, I was keen to participate in public discourse during lunch with colleagues as well as the online world. New media allows opportunity to digest information from sources across the globe – before reading our daily newspaper 24 hours later.

To further support this notion, let’s try a different example. Suppose one is planning to buy a new camera. Would she trust the company’s Web site, a CNET blog, a friend’s opinion or a mention in a print feature story? Surely the informed consumer seeks multiple sources (e.g. validating a friend’s endorsement with positive comments posted to credible bloggers sites) before making a decision.

J.S.

]]> By: Eiram J. Lewis http://justanother24hours.com/politics/implications-of-digital-news-media-in-the-context-of-the-united-states-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-3983 Eiram J. Lewis Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:36:15 +0000 http://justanother24hours.com/?p=254#comment-3983 The implications of the digital media on a presidential election... Perspectives. Lots of them! It is a pool of perspectives and information on which to form our own opinions. That is assuming of course, that the individual cares enough to go to more than one source. Or to be somewhat discerning of the information consumed. As for having a moral responsibility to be informed - sure. But being informed doesn't mean everyone will come to the same meaning or understanding. How do you measure 'informed-ness' anyway? When are you considered 'informed'? After how many column inches, or screens or blogs? And which ones?! And who decides?! The digital media in my opinion, plays such a crucial role in finally allowing - or broadening - a really important part of communication. And that's feedback. The ability to question what you're reading or watching or hearing, and get a quick response. Generate debate and test ideas amongst the rest of society. Prove to the distributor's of information that we're not just passively accepting what's presented to us anymore - we are going to challenge and question them. New media facilites discussion and the ability to question information that is being presented to us - regardless of who it's from. This way, people can find meaning in the information presented, as it relates to their lives. By allowing publishers of content - regardless of who they are - to be challeneged and questioned - it may even improve the quality of the information that's put out there. Or at the very least, quickly separate the men from the mice. E. J.L. The implications of the digital media on a presidential election… Perspectives. Lots of them! It is a pool of perspectives and information on which to form our own opinions.

That is assuming of course, that the individual cares enough to go to more than one source. Or to be somewhat discerning of the information consumed.

As for having a moral responsibility to be informed – sure. But being informed doesn’t mean everyone will come to the same meaning or understanding. How do you measure ‘informed-ness’ anyway? When are you considered ‘informed’? After how many column inches, or screens or blogs? And which ones?! And who decides?!

The digital media in my opinion, plays such a crucial role in finally allowing – or broadening – a really important part of communication. And that’s feedback. The ability to question what you’re reading or watching or hearing, and get a quick response. Generate debate and test ideas amongst the rest of society. Prove to the distributor’s of information that we’re not just passively accepting what’s presented to us anymore – we are going to challenge and question them.

New media facilites discussion and the ability to question information that is being presented to us – regardless of who it’s from. This way, people can find meaning in the information presented, as it relates to their lives.

By allowing publishers of content – regardless of who they are – to be challeneged and questioned – it may even improve the quality of the information that’s put out there. Or at the very least, quickly separate the men from the mice.

E. J.L.

]]>