I've been thinking about Dylan Smith's presentation to us several days ago. I've been wondering about the history of journalism, and thinking about how his argument for the new, seems to be an old argument; nevertheless, still true.
New strategies, new technologies, new business models seem to be the "stuff" of which journalism is made. I love reading pp. 8-9 in Tim Harrower's Inside Reporting. In 1690, Benjamin Harris produced the first and only issue of Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestick. "It was a small newspaper, printed on three pages. The fourth was left blank, so readers could add news, then pass the paper along. But Harris had failed to obtain a printing license. Worse, authorities claimed the paper contained "doubtful and uncertain Reports," including criticism of military policy. So after one issue, the governor shut it down."
It seems that Wikipedia is not a new idea, and Julian Assange may have had some forebears.
I love the idea of leaving one page blank on which the readers would put their own news. Dylan Smith argued that by going digital, news can be more immediate and the readers can be reporters of the news as well as the professional journalists. The media may have changed, but the message and the style doesn't seem to have changed that much.
Larry Wayman
W.R. Farrington High School
Honolulu HI
Larry, don't miss my 'official' institute post. I'm writing about how Walter Cronkite reinvented journalism for TV and now it is being reinvented again for the Internet. Everything old is new again, but I reached the conclusion that sticking to the core principles assures relevance, no matter the medium.
ReplyDelete