American Journalism Review interview
I was interviewed via e-mail by someone from the American Journalism Review. Can't find any sign that anything from my interview was actually published. but this article may be related.
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Joseph D. Lasica wrote:
> One major aspect of the article concerns the issue of "filterless news'' --
> ie, Netizens bypassing the traditional news media to interact directly with
> each other (in news discussion forums) or possibly even serving as "amateur
> reporters" by going out in their communities and reporting on events
> directly and putting them out over the Net (by the way, do you know anyone
> who's taken this one step further and taken a camcorder out, reported on an
> event, and put it on the Net for users to download? Not sure the technology
> is there yet.)
While the technology is there, it'd take so long for most people to download anything of useful length and quality that it'd be rare at best. However, with advents in video compression and such, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this type of thing in the future.
> Anyway, here are a couple of questions:
>
> * In your serving as moderator (correct term?) of Usenet discussion forums
I'm only the moderator of one, misc.news.internet.announce. In Usenet terms, a "moderator" is either a human or a program which filters and actually chooses which messages get posted.
For misc.news.internet.discuss and alt.internet.media-coverage, I'm the FAQ maintainer, as well as a regular participant.
There are a lot of different reactions; I couldn't hope to cover all of them in just a few paragraphs. While there is a very vocal bunch who say that the net will overwhelm and replace current major media outlets, there are many others who would say that there will always be a need for people who can research items and reliably collate the information into a readable form.
The latter will also argue that "the media" is scared of the net taking over their jobs, and this is why most articles and reports from major media regarding the net are sensationalistic and misleading. As most people know, there simply isn't any all-powerful Media Illuminati which would control such things -- instead, it's simply because most reporters don't know enough about the net.
If you'd like to follow that train of thought a little further, check out the Internet Press Guild at 'http://www.netpress.org/ipg/'.
> * Pretend that I don't know a thing about Net culture. Describe for me
> some of the hallmarks of cyberspace that make it a very different place
> than what you'd find in a typical newspaper or broadcast medium. (ie, is
> it a meritocracy, where ideas are exchanged freely without regard to a
> person's professional affiliation? Is it a free-wheeling land of anarchy
> where there are few rules? etc etc) Tell me about the ethos of cyberspace.
It's actually misleading to call the net "cyberspace." To many people, the term brings up virtual 3-D "world" concepts, based on books by William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, and others, and the net still has far to go before it reaches a true virtual reality as those authors have envisioned.
Net culture has been described as a "cooperative anarchy." While there is no rule that absolutely MUST be followed, the net is a community, and other members of the community will ignore or even disconnect you if you stray too far from the standards.
For example, if your company decides to ignore the technical standards which state that Internet e-mail must have a recipient address formatted in one manner, and formats those addresses differently, nobody has the authority to tell you not to -- your messages will simply fail to get to the correct place, because none of the other machines on the net will know what to do with it.
Most of the cultural mores of the net are treated in much the same manner. If you advertise in a place which is clearly not for advertising, you're liable to find yourself without access to that place, and so forth.
> * What are the sorts of topics or subject areas that people flock to on
> Usenet that would never be covered by the mainstream media?
Historically, the net has always been a haven for information about technology (especially computers, of course), and the hobbies which many technologically inclined people are interested in -- science fiction is perhaps the largest such example.
Then, there are also many topics which are rarely if ever covered by mainstream media, simply because the audience isn't large enough, but are often discussed online -- conspiracy theories (both crackpot and otherwise), alternative religions, and so forth.
> * Which forums do you moderate?
Journalism-related:
misc.news.internet.announce (moderator)
misc.news.internet.discuss
alt.internet.media-coverage (FAQ maintainer, now retired)
Other:
news.admin.net-abuse.misc (FAQ maintainer)
bofh.food (FAQ maintainer)
> And what city do you live in?
Fairfax, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.)
> * I've seen some discussion on Usenet forums to the effect that
> professional journalists are obsolete in a world where anyone with a modem
> can act as a reporter/publisher/broadcaster, and that "you don't need a
> journalist when you have a good enough newsreader or browser, or when
> you've got a good discussion group going." You think there's validity to
> that viewpoint?
See above (in short, no.)
> * Have you spent any time at any of the mainstream media's commercial sites
> on the Web? If so, what's your impression of how they're doing?
Most of them (especially Time/Warner's Pathfinder, which is the one I'm most familar with) seem to suffer from what I call the cyberspace delusion: they have a lot of good ideas, but many are based on the mythical Gibsonian "cyberspace," and that doesn't exist yet.
It's clear that they want to create some type of community with their web-based discussion forums and the like, but web browsing software simply isn't advanced enough for that type of thing yet. The net still has a long way to go before it truly can be mainstream.
> That's it! As I say, take your time, and I truly appreciate it.
Sure, glad to help. Feel free to contact me if you've got any more questions, or for clarification on anything above.
> One major aspect of the article concerns the issue of "filterless news'' --
> ie, Netizens bypassing the traditional news media to interact directly with
> each other (in news discussion forums) or possibly even serving as "amateur
> reporters" by going out in their communities and reporting on events
> directly and putting them out over the Net (by the way, do you know anyone
> who's taken this one step further and taken a camcorder out, reported on an
> event, and put it on the Net for users to download? Not sure the technology
> is there yet.)
While the technology is there, it'd take so long for most people to download anything of useful length and quality that it'd be rare at best. However, with advents in video compression and such, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this type of thing in the future.
> Anyway, here are a couple of questions:
>
> * In your serving as moderator (correct term?) of Usenet discussion forums
I'm only the moderator of one, misc.news.internet.announce. In Usenet terms, a "moderator" is either a human or a program which filters and actually chooses which messages get posted.
For misc.news.internet.discuss and alt.internet.media-coverage, I'm the FAQ maintainer, as well as a regular participant.
There are a lot of different reactions; I couldn't hope to cover all of them in just a few paragraphs. While there is a very vocal bunch who say that the net will overwhelm and replace current major media outlets, there are many others who would say that there will always be a need for people who can research items and reliably collate the information into a readable form.
The latter will also argue that "the media" is scared of the net taking over their jobs, and this is why most articles and reports from major media regarding the net are sensationalistic and misleading. As most people know, there simply isn't any all-powerful Media Illuminati which would control such things -- instead, it's simply because most reporters don't know enough about the net.
If you'd like to follow that train of thought a little further, check out the Internet Press Guild at 'http://www.netpress.org/ipg/'.
> * Pretend that I don't know a thing about Net culture. Describe for me
> some of the hallmarks of cyberspace that make it a very different place
> than what you'd find in a typical newspaper or broadcast medium. (ie, is
> it a meritocracy, where ideas are exchanged freely without regard to a
> person's professional affiliation? Is it a free-wheeling land of anarchy
> where there are few rules? etc etc) Tell me about the ethos of cyberspace.
It's actually misleading to call the net "cyberspace." To many people, the term brings up virtual 3-D "world" concepts, based on books by William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, and others, and the net still has far to go before it reaches a true virtual reality as those authors have envisioned.
Net culture has been described as a "cooperative anarchy." While there is no rule that absolutely MUST be followed, the net is a community, and other members of the community will ignore or even disconnect you if you stray too far from the standards.
For example, if your company decides to ignore the technical standards which state that Internet e-mail must have a recipient address formatted in one manner, and formats those addresses differently, nobody has the authority to tell you not to -- your messages will simply fail to get to the correct place, because none of the other machines on the net will know what to do with it.
Most of the cultural mores of the net are treated in much the same manner. If you advertise in a place which is clearly not for advertising, you're liable to find yourself without access to that place, and so forth.
> * What are the sorts of topics or subject areas that people flock to on
> Usenet that would never be covered by the mainstream media?
Historically, the net has always been a haven for information about technology (especially computers, of course), and the hobbies which many technologically inclined people are interested in -- science fiction is perhaps the largest such example.
Then, there are also many topics which are rarely if ever covered by mainstream media, simply because the audience isn't large enough, but are often discussed online -- conspiracy theories (both crackpot and otherwise), alternative religions, and so forth.
> * Which forums do you moderate?
Journalism-related:
misc.news.internet.announce (moderator)
misc.news.internet.discuss
alt.internet.media-coverage (FAQ maintainer, now retired)
Other:
news.admin.net-abuse.misc (FAQ maintainer)
bofh.food (FAQ maintainer)
> And what city do you live in?
Fairfax, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.)
> * I've seen some discussion on Usenet forums to the effect that
> professional journalists are obsolete in a world where anyone with a modem
> can act as a reporter/publisher/broadcaster, and that "you don't need a
> journalist when you have a good enough newsreader or browser, or when
> you've got a good discussion group going." You think there's validity to
> that viewpoint?
See above (in short, no.)
> * Have you spent any time at any of the mainstream media's commercial sites
> on the Web? If so, what's your impression of how they're doing?
Most of them (especially Time/Warner's Pathfinder, which is the one I'm most familar with) seem to suffer from what I call the cyberspace delusion: they have a lot of good ideas, but many are based on the mythical Gibsonian "cyberspace," and that doesn't exist yet.
It's clear that they want to create some type of community with their web-based discussion forums and the like, but web browsing software simply isn't advanced enough for that type of thing yet. The net still has a long way to go before it truly can be mainstream.
> That's it! As I say, take your time, and I truly appreciate it.
Sure, glad to help. Feel free to contact me if you've got any more questions, or for clarification on anything above.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
