new? media analysis

I went to a great talk last night at MIT. That was an adventure in and of itself. First, my backpack is getting so heavy and the trek over there was slong. Just when I thought I was getting rid of the diaper bag .

Anyway, MIT is one giant maze of buildings. Literally, talk about the lab rat - it's incredible. I finally found the room. The two heads of the Comparative Media Studies program were speaking - which was my main incentive. Part of my coursework dilemma revolves around this one professor, HJ, whose class I want to take next semester, and I wanted to be sure it was worth the angst. It is. The other professor speaking was some dude from the Yale Law school. The talk was supposed to be part of a larger series on "Are newspapers dying?" Last night's was more of the new media aspect of it. The yale guy was fascinating but spoke so fast it was tough to keep up. They were all concerned with justice issues - not always directly- but as a subtext, and that was wonderful. Also, NB was there, and it was nice to be at an event with someone I'd almost call a cmrd - who is also my prof.

Anyway, HJ had some great points about how "fan culture" and bloggers, etc. may get involved in the internet for entertainment purposes but are then easily drawn in and participate in more political activities. He also presented some old evidence about the Internet and how people don't actually surf to a variety of sites - but mostly mainstream sites - not as democratic as people think - but then he actually debunked that with newer research that also says that people gointo their own niches and then spread out wide on the web. He just generally had a great, fun, demeanor. I look forward to the class and have already exchanged e-mails with him.

He also mentioned the democratic thrust these days of new media - that the issue used to be the digital divide and access to the Internet - he acknowledged that there are a lot of people who maybe get 10 minutes of slow filtered connection at the library, but the task now is new media literacy - i liked that phrase. He had a lot of good buzzwords and phrases...

But I had a bizarre experience in JC's class on Wednesday. We take turns presenting the reading, and the focus was on the foundations of journalism - the history behind it, so during the discussion, I raised the first amendment issue - challenged the author we read - Schudson on his analysis that the founders created the post office cheaper newspaper rates as a reaction to pressure and bribes from the newspapers. On the otherhand, Paul Starr and McChesney argue that they were created b/c the framers of the first amendment were not just concerned about free expression and the individual right to free speech but also the right to receive a wide variety of viewpoints, and there were so many newspapers back then from a range of political views that they subsidized the post office to get those voices heard. So I made the analogy of how in some ways, the journalism we have now is somewhat narrow and sanitized, if you look just at the mainstream, and perhaps the Internet can help us get back to those more varied routes - and I questioned what is better for democracy - that one story from large newspapers/tv news or the full range.

His response was simply that newspapers still have, as far as he knows, the third class rate for newspaper delivery. Huh?

At first I felt really stupid, like I hadn't been articulate enough, but after classmates said I raised a good point after the class, I realized he just didn't get it???







Something about JC's class - the statement I made and then all he did was make the comment about the post office....

not a lot of openness yet he did rail the point about caring mroe about shareholders than j'm - but hello, this is capitalism...