Your use the word "news" as though it is quite unproblematic. And it isn't
- it is clearly a loaded term - politically and in other ways. You say
"
>more photos
>from more events will be published since there indeed is more relevant
>news.
"
But how can news expand? The sense it which it is news that my cat has had
kittens is not the sense in which it is news that North Korea (just across
the way from me here in Fukuoka) is thinking of ending the truce that
brough the Korean war to a halt... It isn't just that one is a smaller
version of the other - It's a question of "shared significance". "News" in
the "grand" sense really DOES have to be something of shared significance.
Why has this revolution not happened already? There are enough digital
cameras out there. Phones offer two things - 1) they are always with you
2) they allow instant upload. The former might lead to a few more
snapshots of events that add a little spice (but not real content) to
coverage of tragedies, but the instant upload thing is usually not
important.
So why hasn't this brave new world happened already?
>
>If you drive down the cost and trouble of publishing a photo you also
>drive down the number of viewers that you think needs to see it in order
>for you to go through the trouble of doing it.
>Therefor, more photos
>from more events will be published
You help yourself to this conclusion, when it is precisely what is in
question.
>since
>there indeed is more relevant
>news.=20
>
>And why hasn't this hit radio you ask. Well everyone can't start a radio
>station but everyone can have a Blogg.
More pictures in bloggs does not mean more news, any more than the
existence of bloggs means more news. More drivel to wade through, all too
often.
What news programmes do is select - thank goodness - the alternative to
selection is a sea of raw data in the face of which we are utterly BLIND!
- not informed.
Nick
Received on Tue Feb 18 11:22:48 2003