This article tells about the relationship of blogging and ‘professional’ journalism. In the conclusion of his article, Lasica askes: What’s ahead? I think this will serve as a good question for here also, thus (although a bit differently put):

How will the future of journalism in relation to blogging look like?

Lasica predicts ‘a much larger role for amateurs in the news process’ (page 74). Therefore he gives an example of video footage filmed by an amateur that was used in the professional news of Japan. Although in a way this is participation by amateurs, I do not think the role for amateurs is very big. I wonder if there will be participation in the production process. To me, the largest role for amateurs would be if they could participate in the decisions which are being made in relation to what ‘makes it to’ the news and what doesn’t. Blogs do help to give attention to the things happening in the world that aren’t broadcasted on television or radio. However, even if people know that blogs will deepen the information in the news and offer more topics of information, I wonder if the majority of the world will take the effort to search for good quality blogs and read them, instead of just looking at the mainstream news in papers, radio and on television. The latter takes a lot less time and effort and I think therefore many people will still choose this form of information. So, therefore I wonder if the bloggers will also get a role in the broadcasting of the news, instead of only complementing it.

Gillmor, D. (2003) Moving Toward Participatory Jouranlism (Nieman Reports, Fall 2003)

In this article Gillmor provides an answer to the last sentence above (refering to my comment on the article of Lasica). Gillmor, who is a journalist himself, says that he uses the information and feedback of his readers to give his own articles more quality. He does this by owning a weblog, where he explains his on what he is working and sometimes he asks his readers if they have information/feedback for him. As he says himself, this raises ‘new questions of trust and veracity’ (page 80). Therefore, my question is:

What will the standards be to trust information and feedback given by ‘amateurs’?

Is it even possible to make standards to trust this information? According to Gillmor, some lawyers will make some new rules, since they always have done that. To me this sounds a bit vague….He also says that he worries about the big media organizations taking control over digitally stored material. In other words, he is questioning who will decide the rules/standards for using information from non-professional ‘journalists’. This seems to be a relevant question. If the lawyers will decide this, the process of obtaining information will probably become more difficult and maybe this will be an obstacle for many journalists to use information and feedback from their readers. However, if the media corporations will decide, it will probably mean that there will be practically no change in the type of information that the we (consumers/readers/viewers) receive…….That brings me back to my question, is it possible to make standards and is it ‘good’ to make standards?

Middelaar, L. van (2003) On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement Between Morals, Economics and Politics See:http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/032003_luuk_grassroots.pdf

Middelaar sketches the anti-globalisation environment. He focuses on three types, namely moral anti-globalisation, economic anti-globalisation and political anti-globalisation. He states that especially the first type could use Internet and e-mail to exchange information and enable massive protests, since this is the cheapest and fastest media form. I wonder the following:

If it is possible to enable massive protests via Internet, in regard to anti-globalisation, why haven’t we seen a lot of these protests yet?

I cannot imagine that the control of companies or governments a such enormous that it isn’t possible to organise protests surrounding anti-globalisation. Since I don’t know a lot about this topic I am wondering if these protests maybe do exist (and it is just me who hasn’t heard of it….) Or that small organisations which organise these protests have a to much struggle with their opponents? Or that maybe the majority of the world population doesn’t share the same idea of anti-globalisation? These are some interesting topics/questions to discuss, because I really don’t know…

Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural economy. pp 185-200

Here, the main question is ‘to what extent is it useful, or indeed possible, to claim that contemporary economic relations are more or less ‘culturalized’ than their historical predecessors?’ (page 185). This question is viewed from the perspective of consumption. In order to do this correctly, the author states that it is important to distinguish and define cultural and economic. Thus, the author gives his view on these concepts. However, since consumption has such a big role in this chapter, I wonder what is exactly meant with consumption here; the author does not define this concept. Thus, my question is:

What is meant by consumption? Or, what is the definition of consumption?

According to the author, consumption is deeply cultural and very narrow in relation to the concept of consumer culture. It becomes clear that both concepts have bands with markets, symbolisation, lifestyles, commodities, etc. etc. However, it doesn’t become clear what it is precisely. What I think is important is that consumption should be defined in different categories, in order to predict or analyse its cultural value. The consumption of food is different from the consumption of cosmetics. In cold countries its necessary to wear warm clohts, whereas in warm countries it is not…..How does this effect consumption? In other words, one should distinguish the different factors involved in consumption, and by doing this one can give a more understandable definition of consumption. Afterwards, it is possible to examine the cultural aspects involved in consumption in relation to economy.