« Businesses fail more than last year | Main | links for 2006-02-02 »
Long live diversity.
Grinning:
This is for me the proof 'citizen reporting' and diversity work.
And blogs of-course.
The real danger lies in the possibility of becoming angry on opinions.
I was a lecture recently where a sociologic mentioned: don't be too personal in blogging.
I saw this phenomena already years ago at Photoblog, where the social structures are very strong, but also very vulnerable: a community can go against you.
People don't seem to make the difference between an opinion and a person.
As long as people keep that in mind, all is ok.
i. and Michel share a different opinion from mine. And that is perfectly fine ;)
I thought about whether it was fair to the program that they wrote such a review on Gent.Blogt. (because indeed most of the public was laughing, and writing a bad review seemed a little bit 'out of proportion' to me and thus not representing the publics opinion)
But then again: Gent.blogt is a blog, it is not a journalistic thing*. It is more personal, and less compared to certain influences (Like an art-critic that would compare to streamings in art and such, a blogger doesn't need to do this.)
And the comments on the post make the reader think twice anyway.
Citizen journalism pulls the different cords and more differentiations appear.
(*Though it doesn't mean bloggers cannot be journalistic. There are a lot of journalistic blogs online. And it doesn't mean that because you are a blogger, you are not journalistic, or don't have those ethics.)
This thin line between blogs and journalism makes things intriguing.
Blogs main difference is the commenting, which in traditional media isn't there.
In a blog someone writes, and immediately the readers become part of the thing and can oppose.
That's what's nice.
And that's what's hard and difficult.
Posted on February 2, 2006
in Limit of my knowledge, Living in Belgium
Digg this | 
Add to Delicious | Technorati reactions | Permalink | 
Comments (2)
Comments
I don't quite follow you: are you saying that if I'd written my review for a newspaper, I'd have had to write what "most people" thought about the show and not what my feelings were?
I certainly don't think so. Take Patrick Duynslaeger and films or Wim Van Gansbeke and theater: they would routinely utterly destroy their subjects based on their very personal likes and dislikes. That's just what happens when you do a review: it's a personal appreciation.
I certainly didn't (and still don't) feel I had to defend my opinions, not in the least because (1) I was honest enough to point out that mine wasn't the only opinion and (2) as you say: anyone who disagreed could leave their own review in the comments.
Now if only that were possible in Knack or on the radio... :)
Posted by Michel Vuijlsteke | February 3, 2006 3:12 PM@Michel: I meant that I think that journalists or commenters in newpapers have a different background.
As said I do appreciate your review and especially the fact that you stated that 'it seemed that the audience was enjoying the show'
Your review just made me think about the subject of reviews.
Posted by ine | February 6, 2006 3:42 PMThe fact that the review appeared on a blog made it more interesting knowing that commenters would 'pronounciate' the writers views. In fact I believe that blogs for that matter are even more interesting than a review in a newspaper, which is, like you say, a personal view, without the extra touch of the audience. Blogging is more 'levelled' for that matter.