Even two years ago it was impossible for me to imagine how anyone can control the Internet. I mean, TV, radio, and newspapers are those media sectors that historically were under someone’s control, be it government or businessmen. But Internet, as for me, was created not only for convenience in searching information or creating new data base, but also to fight with that information control and to give voices to voiceless. With the development of Independent Media it became even clearer that web is a “free of control” space for those, who have something to say. It seemed that people all over the world were “celebrating” the global holiday of freedom and total absence of control in the information flow. But as Internet becomes more popular, informative and influential, more and more people realize that having control in the web space is equal to having control in the whole media sector. And of course, if there is something as huge and global as Internet there will be always someone, who wants to own this “something.” Some governments chose the easiest way to control it – block all “dangerous” web-sites in the whole country, which basically destroys the whole idea and point of Internet existence. While people in the U.S.A. or E.U enjoy the total freedom of speech in the Web and talk about Independent Media every two seconds, citizens in china or Turkmenistan still can’t use the Internet for its primary purpose. We heard all the stories with Google in China, where it’s searching engine blocks all the Web-pages that go against Chinese government’s ideology. But we don’t understand that the main problem here is not about Google Company, but about the government that has total control in all the spheres of social life in China. Yes, Google could have resisted providing its service in China and left the country. In this case the whole “democratic” world would respect the Company, but what about China? What are all those people suppose to do? It’s easy to give an advice living in the U.S., but it’s not that easy to fight against the government in countries like China.
But blocking Web-sites is not the only problem. At&T idea of creating fast and slow lanes, with big companies paying extra money to move to the fast line is even more dangerous as it might affect all countries, including democratic America and Europe. Big conglomerates that already control broadcast media now realize that Internet is the next step. And this idea is not as crazy as it sounds and not as impossible as any of you might think. If those big corporations have enough money to buy media broadcast they definitely have enough money and creativity to find the way to control Internet. Will the Internet be divided into fast and slow? Will it be privatized by media corporations or controlled by the government? Will we still be able to write whatever we want on the blog in 20 years? Who knows? But what I know now is that Internet became too big and too important in the whole world to be unnoticed and untouched by those who have money and power.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Who are you, Bloggers?
This question appears in the media again and again. Who are the bloggers? Journalists? Writers? Citizens or professionals? What rights do they have and what obligations? The online media developed so fast that a particular definition has not been found yet. Some might say that blogging is just an alternative journalism or “citizen” journalism with the same purpose and rights as “professional.” And it does make a lot of sense. Bloggers just like journalists write news stories, investigative reports, opinions, etc. In many cases bloggers act even more “journalistic” than journalists, covering significant issues ignored by the broadcast media. But at the same time it would be unfair to call bloggers journalists and to give them all the rights professional journalists have. By saying this I relay to the situation in Oregon, where Mark Bunster, the author of the political blog, tried to attend an executive session and was asked to leave. (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/bloggers_might_be_excluded_fro.html.) Even though media is allowed to attend all the executive sessions in Lake Oswego City, as it found out bloggers are not considered to be professional journalists. Of course, the issue initiated many discussions and debates on weather bloggers can be considered as a media or not. And my answer is surprisingly…No. Although I consider myself as a big fan of independent media and maybe even a part of it (as I blog sometimes for school or my friends), I don’t think that bloggers should have the same rights as professional journalists. Just imagine if the press-conferences with politicians, musicians or any other important person would be open to everyone, who names him/herself a blogger or a citizen journalist. It would basically allow anyone to attend the event and automatically turn it into mess. It is hard to imagine the security measurements that would be required to control everyone and make sure that all important people are safe. And it doesn’t mean that bloggers are worse than professionals. I just don’t compare them to journalists at all. They are just different. Like dogs and cats. Both animals. Both beloved pets. But at the same time completely different.
Of course some of you would argue that information access should not be limited. Instead it has to be free and open to public. And I would say that it can happen only in a perfect world which doesn’t exist yet and probably will not in future. And it’s understandable. Journalists are the ones who open the information to the public, they are the platform for all public people. Yes, to some point they are the gatekeepers of the information flow. But think about it. You will see the same situation everywhere. With bank workers and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. They are all the gatekeepers of a particular information. And only they can decide whether to share it with the public or not. And the only thing the society can do is to trust all those people and to hope that they share all the important information they know.
But with the whole “bloggers as journalists” issue it is definitely more complicated. Yes, I do not consider them all as journalists. But at the same time some independent media outlets like Huffington Post or DemocracyNow deserve a right to be considered as a professional media. That’s why I think there should be a particular measurement of the whole blogosphere that would define whether the outlet can be considered as professional journalism or not. And still it is difficult to imagine how and what is even more important who will make this decsision? Well, that’s a good topic for the government to think about in order to avoid Oregon’s situation in future.
Of course some of you would argue that information access should not be limited. Instead it has to be free and open to public. And I would say that it can happen only in a perfect world which doesn’t exist yet and probably will not in future. And it’s understandable. Journalists are the ones who open the information to the public, they are the platform for all public people. Yes, to some point they are the gatekeepers of the information flow. But think about it. You will see the same situation everywhere. With bank workers and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. They are all the gatekeepers of a particular information. And only they can decide whether to share it with the public or not. And the only thing the society can do is to trust all those people and to hope that they share all the important information they know.
But with the whole “bloggers as journalists” issue it is definitely more complicated. Yes, I do not consider them all as journalists. But at the same time some independent media outlets like Huffington Post or DemocracyNow deserve a right to be considered as a professional media. That’s why I think there should be a particular measurement of the whole blogosphere that would define whether the outlet can be considered as professional journalism or not. And still it is difficult to imagine how and what is even more important who will make this decsision? Well, that’s a good topic for the government to think about in order to avoid Oregon’s situation in future.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Internet as a Big Sponsor
As for me, Internet was definitely the best invention of the past century. Just think about it. Nowadays we cannot imagine our life without web. Be it studying, working, shopping or talking to your friends, everything is connected to the internet. But this invention gave us much more than just convenience. It opened new doors for the flow of information, especially in the countries where freedom of speech is an unachievable good. Blogs, chat-rooms, and social network gave an opportunity for people to speak out and what is more important to stay incognito. In countries like Iran, Turkmenistan and China internet is the only platform for people to share truthful information and to initiate social changes in this way.
But freedom of speech is not the only issue that internet tries to solve. Funding also got more opportunities with the development of the web. William Booth in his article “His Fans Greenlight the Project – Robert Greenwald Tapped a new Funding Source: The Audience” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800210_pf.html) mentions the story of Gim Gilliam, who raised funds for his movie on the internet. In the situation, when there were no sponsors for the project he was really interested in he turned to the web and…won. The story of Gim Gilliam is indeed not the only one in the past years, but one of many others. Internet became a great solution for those artists (be it movie makers, photographers or journalists) who don’t get a support from big sponsors and the only hope left for them is to ask people for donations. It’s unbelievable but it works and makes a perfect sense for me.
First of all, people are willing to pay money for someone they already know, like and what is more important trust. For example, when you buy New York Times you never know if you will satisfy your interest in one topic or another. You don’t know if the article written by some journalist will be enough funny or too funny, informative or based on rumors. But with internet and independent journalism you, as a “customer” of the product are able to choose your favorite journalist or writer and to follow his works constantly. That’s why when it comes to the point when either this journalist will write his or her article or not depends on YOU, it’s easier to donate money to someone you know and trust.
Second of all, the ability to donate money and get the project started makes people feel important and involved. Instead of observers readers become participants and it creates this significant feeling of importance and being a part of something huge and being a part of the community. It also unites people and makes them closer to each other. Because it is a great feeling to realize that you and thousands of people around you have the common interest and a willing to pay for satisfying your common need.
That’s why Internet is a powerful source. It gives an opportunity for starting artists or just someone, who has really good ideas but not supported by a big sponsor to make their projects going by simply asking people for money. And it is useful for both sides: creators and consumers. Because in this way people can choose the product they are really interested in and pay for it. In this way people interested in fishing or white bears in Alaska are actually able to unite and sponsor movies about their interests. And with the development of Internet, creators, who would never dream about getting $100,000 or even more are actually able to get those money from people interested in their projects.
But freedom of speech is not the only issue that internet tries to solve. Funding also got more opportunities with the development of the web. William Booth in his article “His Fans Greenlight the Project – Robert Greenwald Tapped a new Funding Source: The Audience” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800210_pf.html) mentions the story of Gim Gilliam, who raised funds for his movie on the internet. In the situation, when there were no sponsors for the project he was really interested in he turned to the web and…won. The story of Gim Gilliam is indeed not the only one in the past years, but one of many others. Internet became a great solution for those artists (be it movie makers, photographers or journalists) who don’t get a support from big sponsors and the only hope left for them is to ask people for donations. It’s unbelievable but it works and makes a perfect sense for me.
First of all, people are willing to pay money for someone they already know, like and what is more important trust. For example, when you buy New York Times you never know if you will satisfy your interest in one topic or another. You don’t know if the article written by some journalist will be enough funny or too funny, informative or based on rumors. But with internet and independent journalism you, as a “customer” of the product are able to choose your favorite journalist or writer and to follow his works constantly. That’s why when it comes to the point when either this journalist will write his or her article or not depends on YOU, it’s easier to donate money to someone you know and trust.
Second of all, the ability to donate money and get the project started makes people feel important and involved. Instead of observers readers become participants and it creates this significant feeling of importance and being a part of something huge and being a part of the community. It also unites people and makes them closer to each other. Because it is a great feeling to realize that you and thousands of people around you have the common interest and a willing to pay for satisfying your common need.
That’s why Internet is a powerful source. It gives an opportunity for starting artists or just someone, who has really good ideas but not supported by a big sponsor to make their projects going by simply asking people for money. And it is useful for both sides: creators and consumers. Because in this way people can choose the product they are really interested in and pay for it. In this way people interested in fishing or white bears in Alaska are actually able to unite and sponsor movies about their interests. And with the development of Internet, creators, who would never dream about getting $100,000 or even more are actually able to get those money from people interested in their projects.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Women’s rights
Nowadays it is really hard to imagine how a few centuries ago women were limited in their rights to the extent when they were not able to vote, work and speak out. As Rodger Streitmatter mentions in his book “Voices of Revolution” “The American women of the 19th century were widely perceived to be incapable of rational thinking – resolutely helpless and inferior to her male counterpart.” Less then two hundred years ago women in our society were supposed to marry, give a birth to child and make her husband’s life easier. That was the purport of their lives. But that situation couldn’t last forever and the whole society needed changes. Those changes came in the person of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who established her “The Revolution” to improve the situation with women rights and initiate women all over the country to join her ideas.
Journalism became the platform for Elizabeth to speak out and inform people of her thoughts and goals. Journalism as a whole always played a great role in initiating the social changes as it ahs a great influence on people’s views and opinions. Elizabeth was in some way a predecessor of an independent journalist, who decided to establish something that hasn’t exist before, something that didn’t fit the typical “social box”, something that she really believed in. As for me, Elizabeth is a great example of how one person can change the whole society once and for all. Although her “The Revolution” survived only for two and a half years and its circulation was not as big as she had been expected, but the fact of appearance of this kind of press for women was itself priceless. As it often happens in a history, people who start doing something, who gibe this first “push” to new idea for the whole society are the ones who don’t reach success. But all their beginnings are significant because they “build” a base for others to continue developing a new idea. I think Elizabeth was a great and brave person, who worked not for profit (as many independent media outlets even nowadays), but for the idea itself.
Without people like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony and George Train, who was a controversial millionaire and who supported the newspaper, the society would have stayed on the same level as 200 or 400 years ago. These people, who go against the ideas of their society, who not only disagree, but what is more important, act and often sacrifice their life to the idea; these people are worthy our respect. And nowadays, as independent media becomes even more important then the “old media” I think these people should be as an example foe every truly independent journalist, be he or she citizen journalist or professional.
Journalism became the platform for Elizabeth to speak out and inform people of her thoughts and goals. Journalism as a whole always played a great role in initiating the social changes as it ahs a great influence on people’s views and opinions. Elizabeth was in some way a predecessor of an independent journalist, who decided to establish something that hasn’t exist before, something that didn’t fit the typical “social box”, something that she really believed in. As for me, Elizabeth is a great example of how one person can change the whole society once and for all. Although her “The Revolution” survived only for two and a half years and its circulation was not as big as she had been expected, but the fact of appearance of this kind of press for women was itself priceless. As it often happens in a history, people who start doing something, who gibe this first “push” to new idea for the whole society are the ones who don’t reach success. But all their beginnings are significant because they “build” a base for others to continue developing a new idea. I think Elizabeth was a great and brave person, who worked not for profit (as many independent media outlets even nowadays), but for the idea itself.
Without people like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony and George Train, who was a controversial millionaire and who supported the newspaper, the society would have stayed on the same level as 200 or 400 years ago. These people, who go against the ideas of their society, who not only disagree, but what is more important, act and often sacrifice their life to the idea; these people are worthy our respect. And nowadays, as independent media becomes even more important then the “old media” I think these people should be as an example foe every truly independent journalist, be he or she citizen journalist or professional.
Women’s rights
Nowadays it is really hard to imagine how a few centuries ago women were limited in their rights to the extent when they were not able to vote, work and speak out. As Rodger Streitmatter mentions in his book “Voices of Revolution” “The American women of the 19th century were widely perceived to be incapable of rational thinking – resolutely helpless and inferior to her male counterpart.” Less then two hundred years ago women in our society were supposed to marry, give a birth to child and make her husband’s life easier. That was the purport of their lives. But that situation couldn’t last forever and the whole society needed changes. Those changes came in the person of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who established her “The Revolution” to improve the situation with women rights and initiate women all over the country to join her ideas.
Journalism became the platform for Elizabeth to speak out and inform people of her thoughts and goals. Journalism as a whole always played a great role in initiating the social changes as it ahs a great influence on people’s views and opinions. Elizabeth was in some way a predecessor of an independent journalist, who decided to establish something that hasn’t exist before, something that didn’t fit the typical “social box”, something that she really believed in. As for me, Elizabeth is a great example of how one person can change the whole society once and for all. Although her “The Revolution” survived only for two and a half years and its circulation was not as big as she had been expected, but the fact of appearance of this kind of press for women was itself priceless. As it often happens in a history, people who start doing something, who gibe this first “push” to new idea for the whole society are the once who don’t reach success. But all their beginnings are significant because they “build” a base for others to continue developing the idea. I think Elizabeth was a great and brave person, who worked not for profit (as many independent media outlets even nowadays), but for the idea itself.
Without people like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony and George Train, who was a controversial millionaire and who supported the newspaper, the society would have stayed on the same level as 200 or 400 years ago. These people, who go against the ideas of their society, who not only disagree, but what is more important, act and often sacrifice their life to the idea; these people are worthy our respect. And nowadays, as independent media becomes even more important then the “old media” I think these people should be as an example foe every truly independent journalist, be he or she citizen journalist or professional.
Journalism became the platform for Elizabeth to speak out and inform people of her thoughts and goals. Journalism as a whole always played a great role in initiating the social changes as it ahs a great influence on people’s views and opinions. Elizabeth was in some way a predecessor of an independent journalist, who decided to establish something that hasn’t exist before, something that didn’t fit the typical “social box”, something that she really believed in. As for me, Elizabeth is a great example of how one person can change the whole society once and for all. Although her “The Revolution” survived only for two and a half years and its circulation was not as big as she had been expected, but the fact of appearance of this kind of press for women was itself priceless. As it often happens in a history, people who start doing something, who gibe this first “push” to new idea for the whole society are the once who don’t reach success. But all their beginnings are significant because they “build” a base for others to continue developing the idea. I think Elizabeth was a great and brave person, who worked not for profit (as many independent media outlets even nowadays), but for the idea itself.
Without people like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony and George Train, who was a controversial millionaire and who supported the newspaper, the society would have stayed on the same level as 200 or 400 years ago. These people, who go against the ideas of their society, who not only disagree, but what is more important, act and often sacrifice their life to the idea; these people are worthy our respect. And nowadays, as independent media becomes even more important then the “old media” I think these people should be as an example foe every truly independent journalist, be he or she citizen journalist or professional.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Now it is time to be responsible for what we read and what we trust
South Korea is one of the most mystic countries in the world in terms of the political changes that happened suddenly and turned the country to the completely different way. The geographical location (closeness to North Korea) and political differences between those countries make South Korea unique. As in many other countries all over the world, independent media played a great role in initiating the social and political changes in the state and since that time “indy” media outlets has been the primary source for citizens to read news and share information. OhmyNews is one of the biggest and most influential media outlets in South Korea that was a pioneer of citizen journalism in the country. It played an important role in the 2002 election of Roh Moohyun, but since then the popularity of the web site has never reached the same number of viewers. And this problem exists not only in the OhmyNews site, many other indy outlets become less popular or even completely disappear after one big issue, which was covered in this particular outlet and made it popular. Because at the particular moment particular outlet post the story, that was not covered before or give a platform for citizens to share thoughts about prohibited on the broadcast network topic and in this way the outlet becomes popular and reaches the audience of several millions of people. But after the issue is gone, the platform becomes less popular as people loose the need of the platform itself. But with OhmyNews the situation is a little different and even though the platform lost many of its viewers it is still very popular among South Korean’s citizens. A considerable amount of its writers as in many other indy media outlets are not “real” journalists (they don’t have a degree in journalism or never had a journalism experience). For example, Kim Hye-won, as was mentioned in the Don Lee’s article “Citizens are media in Korea” (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/18/business/fi-ohmynews18) , started her career in OhmyNews just because age wanted to share her concerns about her son’s relationships with his father. And even though she still doesn’t consider herself as a journalist, the Tyme magazine selected her as a “person f the year” for her contribution in the development of changes in media. Kim is just one of millions bloggers, who start their career just to share thoughts and get some peace of advice from the audience, not even thinking about becoming a “citizen journalists.” Probably that is the reason why the company’s motto, posted outside the office is a sigh “Every citizen can be a reporter.”
But independent media outlets also have problems, connected not only with money and revenue, but also with a bias and doubtful information. Along with all the advantages that you can find in indy media, such as freedom of speech and sharing opinions, citizen journalists are however the same human beings, sometimes bias and sometimes liars. OhmyNews also experienced the problems with credibility, when an advertising agent and a citizen reporter wrote a story promoting a company, connected with a client, who was promoting Oh to issue a public apology. And I am sure the OhmyNews is not the only one example. After all, how can anyone be sure that citizen journalists are not connected with political parties, agencies or business? How can anyone be sure that the information they provide on the Web is just their own opinions and facts? Well, the question is rhetorical. But in fact, there is a way to make sure everything you read is true and this way makes the biggest difference between “old” and “new” media. And this difference is that every reader of the blog can not only add comment and correct the information in this way, but also check all the provided facts in the article using links and internet. New technologies give us an opportunity to be active, to participate in journalism, but at the same time they make us responsible for what we read instead of journalists in newspapers and TV, who were responsible to provide us with information they consider to be truthful or important. Now we decide what information is truthful, what is important for us and which journalists deserve to be read. Now the time of changes has come and if we want to know the truth we have to make an effort to make sure the facts are reliable and use the opportunity to check everything on the Web.
But independent media outlets also have problems, connected not only with money and revenue, but also with a bias and doubtful information. Along with all the advantages that you can find in indy media, such as freedom of speech and sharing opinions, citizen journalists are however the same human beings, sometimes bias and sometimes liars. OhmyNews also experienced the problems with credibility, when an advertising agent and a citizen reporter wrote a story promoting a company, connected with a client, who was promoting Oh to issue a public apology. And I am sure the OhmyNews is not the only one example. After all, how can anyone be sure that citizen journalists are not connected with political parties, agencies or business? How can anyone be sure that the information they provide on the Web is just their own opinions and facts? Well, the question is rhetorical. But in fact, there is a way to make sure everything you read is true and this way makes the biggest difference between “old” and “new” media. And this difference is that every reader of the blog can not only add comment and correct the information in this way, but also check all the provided facts in the article using links and internet. New technologies give us an opportunity to be active, to participate in journalism, but at the same time they make us responsible for what we read instead of journalists in newspapers and TV, who were responsible to provide us with information they consider to be truthful or important. Now we decide what information is truthful, what is important for us and which journalists deserve to be read. Now the time of changes has come and if we want to know the truth we have to make an effort to make sure the facts are reliable and use the opportunity to check everything on the Web.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Jokes growing into drama in Matt Taibbi’s speech.
Independent journalism nowadays is something that you should if not be concerned about but at least discuss. “New,” “Free,” “Objective” journalism is believed to be the new page of journalism in general and the new model of journalism considering the development of new technologies and popularity of the Web.
Some people turn to “indy” media because they trust it more and find it more diverse and truthful. Others become “indy-fans” because articles written by independent journalism are more engaging, personal and what is also important funny. “Conzo” journalism is exactly a term used to describe the new type of journalism, or to be more presice the new style of writing articles, where journalists write everything in a subjective, funny manner and the reporter is often an actual participant in his or her own story. "Conzo" journalism was established in 1970's and was actively developed in late 1990's.
One of the most famous representatives of "Conzo" journalism is Matt Taibbi, who visited Ithaca College in New York to give a speech about his own experience in both “old” and “new” kinds of media. The story of his life is itself seems to be a one big experiment in terms of different jobs, places to leave and study. It is no wonder that after Matt has got so much experience in Russia and Mongolia, countries with a totally different culture than the U.S., after being a reporter in the “Moscow Times” in 1990’s, being a freelancer for British newspaper he turned to experimental journalism – independent. From being a basketball player in Mongolia Matt Taibbi now became one of the most famous independent journalists in the United States. His articles and books are known for being funny and serious at the same time. And that is exactly how Matt is in the real life. Laughing at his own mistakes, making fun of problems in his past life and being sarcastic about “old-school” journalism in particular and the whole journalism system in the U.S. and overseas, Matt is representing not only the new type of journalism, but the new type of journalists. Open, honest and of course funny. His endless stories about his experience in Russia, where he first was a reporter for the Moscow Times and then a co-founder of The eXile, an experimental newspaper that represented everything you shouldn’t do in “regular” journalism reporting, were full of sarcasm and jokes, but at the same time everyone could understand what meaning is hidden behind these jokes.
But at one point the jokes about Russian politicians seemed too unceremonious for me for some reason. Maybe my cultural background didn’t allow me to be objective or maybe I am too brain-washed by the “old” type of media, where jokes about politicians are allowed, but not greeted. Somehow or another but I felt offended when jokes about the ex-president of Russia, Boris Eltsin, came to the point when it is not a joke any more, but a scorn. And I think this is one of the main problems in independent media. The problem is that those journalists are not responsible for what they write. They don’t take a responsibility before the editors, the owners of the media outlet and as a result they sometimes forget about ethic issue, which is really important for journalism, old or new. When I asked Matt if there is a line that you should not cross when making fun of politicians, he agreed on that point and it looked like he was even regretting some stuffs he did in the past. That gives a hope and makes me beleive that independent journalism can be funny but tactful at the same time. After all, "Human style" in writing, that Matt mantioned in his speech, is also about human attitude to those you are writing about, even if you don't support his or her views and positions. Indy media is a future of journalism. Then why don't we make an effort to make this new journalism not only funny and honest, but also ethic and correct...
Some people turn to “indy” media because they trust it more and find it more diverse and truthful. Others become “indy-fans” because articles written by independent journalism are more engaging, personal and what is also important funny. “Conzo” journalism is exactly a term used to describe the new type of journalism, or to be more presice the new style of writing articles, where journalists write everything in a subjective, funny manner and the reporter is often an actual participant in his or her own story. "Conzo" journalism was established in 1970's and was actively developed in late 1990's.
One of the most famous representatives of "Conzo" journalism is Matt Taibbi, who visited Ithaca College in New York to give a speech about his own experience in both “old” and “new” kinds of media. The story of his life is itself seems to be a one big experiment in terms of different jobs, places to leave and study. It is no wonder that after Matt has got so much experience in Russia and Mongolia, countries with a totally different culture than the U.S., after being a reporter in the “Moscow Times” in 1990’s, being a freelancer for British newspaper he turned to experimental journalism – independent. From being a basketball player in Mongolia Matt Taibbi now became one of the most famous independent journalists in the United States. His articles and books are known for being funny and serious at the same time. And that is exactly how Matt is in the real life. Laughing at his own mistakes, making fun of problems in his past life and being sarcastic about “old-school” journalism in particular and the whole journalism system in the U.S. and overseas, Matt is representing not only the new type of journalism, but the new type of journalists. Open, honest and of course funny. His endless stories about his experience in Russia, where he first was a reporter for the Moscow Times and then a co-founder of The eXile, an experimental newspaper that represented everything you shouldn’t do in “regular” journalism reporting, were full of sarcasm and jokes, but at the same time everyone could understand what meaning is hidden behind these jokes.
But at one point the jokes about Russian politicians seemed too unceremonious for me for some reason. Maybe my cultural background didn’t allow me to be objective or maybe I am too brain-washed by the “old” type of media, where jokes about politicians are allowed, but not greeted. Somehow or another but I felt offended when jokes about the ex-president of Russia, Boris Eltsin, came to the point when it is not a joke any more, but a scorn. And I think this is one of the main problems in independent media. The problem is that those journalists are not responsible for what they write. They don’t take a responsibility before the editors, the owners of the media outlet and as a result they sometimes forget about ethic issue, which is really important for journalism, old or new. When I asked Matt if there is a line that you should not cross when making fun of politicians, he agreed on that point and it looked like he was even regretting some stuffs he did in the past. That gives a hope and makes me beleive that independent journalism can be funny but tactful at the same time. After all, "Human style" in writing, that Matt mantioned in his speech, is also about human attitude to those you are writing about, even if you don't support his or her views and positions. Indy media is a future of journalism. Then why don't we make an effort to make this new journalism not only funny and honest, but also ethic and correct...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
