*

14.1.05

Interesting that an award-winning blog post is simply a collation of sources, hyperlinked and referenced, clearly demonstrating massively incompetent leadership in the American government. Simple, easy to read, with an amazing degree of political punch.

With the increasing transparency of society comes the ability for those willing to spend the time and effort to hold the other side to their word. Instant publishing of collatable, provable, checkable data is the political tool of the 21st century. This is a good thing. Truth may just become a democratic institution in the end. What it takes, however, is time and effort, and this is something people are becoming increasingly less willing to spend. Hooray for factcheckers!

Actually, I might just write a master's degree about this.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then you might want to read this short, but quite interesting (even though some of the arguments here already have become worn out chlichés) article on hypertexts:
http://www.localmotives.com/2003/svimleessay/hypertekstens.html

/AL

January 15, 2005 4:15 pm  
Blogger Elisabeth said...

I was just thinking along those lines myself. There is a lot of information out there. Bloggers may have the ability to keep traditional media and politicians to account, but the main issue is credability and access. There is plenty of information and links on www.cyberjournalist.net, and Pew Research Centre, by the way.

January 15, 2005 9:10 pm  
Blogger Gaute said...

Before we go all hyperbolic about hypertext, it should be pointed out that this basic juxtaposition of quotes could have been done by any competent researcher within any medium, and that the full text being accessible through hypertext represents little more than an added convenience. I applaud the people that put time and effort into scrutinizing government and big media like this, but the fact that blog is the buzzword du jour represents just as much a failure of the traditional media as it does the triumph of the new.

January 17, 2005 1:33 pm  
Blogger MGL said...

OTOH, running water and the printing press are just modern conveniences when you get right down to the nitty-gritty. I think that the ease of collation and the fact that you don't need to go to two libraries and three public offices and spend eight hours in each place, does represent some sort of shift beyond critical mass.

But I think your point about traditional vs new media is something I completely agree with. The question is: does the failure of trad.media arise from its dependence on capitalist economics, or is it immanent in the makeup of the media themselves?

Discuss, maximum 3000 words.

January 17, 2005 2:05 pm  
Blogger Gaute said...

Sure, if you want to take on the big perspective, modern society is little more than a convenience (much of it being an indirect consequence of the invention of the printing press anyway). My point was merely that hyperlinking to readily available information does not constitute any information revolution in and by itself. Instant publishing is primarily a user-friendly extension of technological and informational opportunities already inherent in the internet, but that's not to say it doesn't have its share of interesting implications.

I'll pass on the essay question, but it would be an interesting discussion to have... in person. Right now, all this hypertext is making my head hurt.

January 17, 2005 3:16 pm  
Blogger Elisabeth said...

Has the traditional media really failed? Audiences consult traditional media at the same time as they use new media, and television is still the most popular medium. The nature of new media has altered the conventional media, but that does not mean that the latter has failed. Whilst new media enables participation, the conventional media is changing to conform to new practices. Of course, capitalism and media systems play an important role, but we should not forget globalisation and its effect on audiences.

January 17, 2005 7:21 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home