• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    By running unwitting PR for Jeffrey Epstein, Forbes shows the risks of a news outlet thinking like a tech platform
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    Sept. 17, 2010, 1 p.m.

    Yeah, but what does it mean for journalism? A visual rhetoric guide

    It’s become something of a Twitter joke. A new gadget appears, or a dramatic development takes place on the world stage, and the cry goes up: But what does it mean for journalism? I’m guilty of it myself. And a lot of the time, it’s a meaningful question to ask; we are in the future-of-journalism business, after all. What would we spend our day doing if not inquiring about what it — all of it– means for journalism.

    That said, I wanted to try a little experiment. And so using , some time-delimited Google , and quick-and-dirty cutting and pasting, I decided to take a look at how the conversation about “what it means for journalism” might have changed, or not changed, since 2008.

    The results are below. But first, a little bit about what I did. I plugged a few searches into Google, namely “what” AND “future of journalism.” I time-delimited the search, looking only for results from 2008, then only from 2009, then only 2010. I scraped the text from all my results, and dropped them into . I then deleted all mentions of “journalism,” “media,” and “news,” figuring they’d be the most common and least interesting answers, and wanting to weigh the words without them included in Wordle. And here’s what I got.

    2008 []: Words that jump out: “public,” “interest,” “material,” “interactivity,” “information.” The combination of “public” and “interest” are the most interesting to me here. It was an election, after all, perhaps there was a bit more discussion of that amorphous body we call “the public,” and how it relates to changes in journalism. There’s a little about journalists, though not as much as we’ll see in 2009.

    2009 []: “Public” has disappeared, as has “information.” It’s been replaced by “people,” “journalist,” “online,” “world,” “web,” “paper,” and “think.” There’s some question about medium at play here; this was the year of “what comes after newspapers die,” after all. I have to admit I was a little surprised there weren’t more words having to do with “morbidity” here, stuff like “death,” “dying,” “disappearing, or “crisis.” But I think the focus on “journalist” here reflects the industry crisis in its own way — as in, what about all those people losing their jobs?

    2010 []: Now here’s the “what does it mean for journalism” conversation I remember — iPad and WikiLeaks. Will either of them save journalism? We’ll see what the rest of the year brings, but for now, it looks to me like a fairly abstract conversation about journalism and the public has been replaced by a debate over particular types of mediums (paper and web), which has itself been supplanted by a focus on particular organizations and devices.

    Now, all of this is incredibly crude measurement, and there’s a ton wrong with it. (Let’s just say my methodology wouldn’t pass peer review.) Time-limited Google searching is imperfect, and of course I’ve totally left out stuff like Twitter and Facebook. But I think there’s a germ of potential here for mapping particular forms of dialog around particular key phrases. I’d love to work with any data-happy, data-mining Twitter scholars or smart Google engineers to pursue this line of work further. Drop me a line if you’re interested.

    POSTED     Sept. 17, 2010, 1 p.m.
    SHARE THIS STORY
       
     
    Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    By running unwitting PR for Jeffrey Epstein, Forbes shows the risks of a news outlet thinking like a tech platform
    If journalists want to criticize the anything-goes ethos of Facebook, it’s only fair to note when news organizations’ hunger for scale leads them down the same problematic path.
    Can’t read just one: Slate’s daily advice columns are strange, funny, deep, and increasingly a major traffic driver for the site
    “We probably won’t do twincest again.”
    O, a meaning!
    Fifty years ago, with humanity about to reach the moon, The New York Times gave a poet a corner of the front page.
    www.baden-medservice.ru

    таблетки левитра отзывы

    www.snowbears.com.ua