Jeff Jarvis ably shreds NY Times editor Bill Keller’s straw men. Sadly, Keller and other major media people are still making this a bloggers against professional journalists question, which is not the question at all, or at least hasn’t been for anyone who actually knows anything about the development of new media.
Sheesh.
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“making this a bloggers against professional journalists”
BWA-HA-HA!
[Oh, why bother, I’ve been here before, and it’s not pleasant 🙁 ]
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
[…] Bill Keller du Guardian sur le sujet. Dan Gillmor, chantre du journalisme citoyen, y va d’un commentaire qui résume bien cette situation qui fait que plusieurs passent à côté de la question : “Sadly, Keller and other major […]
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Headline from this site, this week: “Traditional Reporters v Bloggers — Who Asks Pols Better Questions”
(What does the ‘v’ stand for there?)
Indeed, yes, it’s very tough to find someone of high regard in the media field espousing the replacement theory (a la Winer). But there are clearly instances of rhetoric that have echoes of supersessionism, which does encourage the dichotomy.
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
[…] Jeff notes — and Dan Gillmor does as well — Keller’s argument is a straw man, designed to pump up traditional journalism at the […]
on Dec 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[…] Jeff notes — and Dan Gillmor does as well — Keller’s argument is a straw man, designed to pump up traditional journalism at the […]
on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 am
Well, this will continue to be the case for a while to come, I suspect. Even the National Union of Journalists in the UK seems to have declared war on blogging and online Journalism.
When will people learn they are complimentary.
on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
People *have* learned they are complimentary – in Philadelphia.
I’ve been helping run a mailing list here for the past two years that has brought bloggers and newspaper publisher’s together – where real bridges have been built.
Karl
on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
They can be complimentary … and also not. The elephant in the room is that the “not” is far more attention-driving.