Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
Dan Gillmor, a media critic and head of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, said the White House needs to update the rules for its pool reports to match the realities of 21stcentury reporting. But he also said newspapers should do more to embrace the new reality that amateurs are capable of providing their own records of events, showing a wider range of perspectives. For example, he said the Chronicle could focus more on providing a platform for amateur video, which would expand the definition of the press pool to anyone with a video camera. "Neither the White House nor the journalism organization in this case are showing much imagination about what's possible in a world with democratized media creation and access," Gillmor said. "Your source... and I happen to agree with this." What is it about "print only media" that is so difficult to sink in here? The article containing the quote above is nothing but hyper-spin. Read the stipulation 'print only media' that is nothing new and has been a part of media rules ever since still or moving picture cameras entered the process. There are different levels of media access, some in terms of who is allowed, some in terms of recording media allowed. That has always been in place, it is 'standard procedure' as per event. Let's look at this gem: "Dan Gillmor, a media critic and head of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, said the White House needs to update the rules for its pool reports to match the realities of 21stcentury reporting." I must ask here; is there something about digital media experts whereby a Faustian deal has to be struck between simple logic and comprehension of one's own language vs. understanding of a particular technology? "Print media only." Send Dan Gillmor to whatever island and yoga practice and tantric toast making lessons he needs as enlightenment to normal English language understanding to let that one sink in. This notion of 'Jetsons' vs. 'stone age' technology misdirection and distraction are quite amusing too, being as that this claims cell phone cameras to be an advancement of the professional Cannon, Panasonic, etc. $5,000-$20,000 pro video cameras. Please, please, my guts are hurting too much already. "print media only." Can one stab into the paper deep enough with their cell cam to qualify here? Ingenuity, people. Something that has ink in it, or graphite extending from a stick of wood; "print only media." OK, party's over, folks. When cameras are allowed then only the real thing is used by those who actually understand the difference between "print allowed" and "cameras allowed." Pro cameras, not cell phone 'cams.' And yes, I used a cell cam to record the stupid idiotic look on your face the whole time in this arduous process.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 5/1/2011 1:18:00 AM >
|