The internet has had a great impact on the way the world relates to and engages with one another. The internet has a huge impact on journalism, the web, online news, weblogs and so much more. Donald Matheson’s “New Media and Society,” article questions interactive journalism. The lines of communication become blurred when it comes to what is and is not acceptable in interactive journalism. “Jon Katz (1997) has attacked US newspapers for remaining ‘insanely stagnant in an interactive age,’ failing to provide such minimal interactivity as reporters’’ email addresses on stories” (444). I find Katz positioning to be very interesting. Although society views journalists as credible sources who are suppose to relate the truth about everyday events/encounters, it is not their job to provide their personal information to the public. I am not sure as to how valuable a reporter’s email address would be to society. No matter what information is related to the public, it is our job to properly decipher that information and make the best choices in life.
Matheson’s article goes on to talk about weblogs. It questions, “Why look to weblogs, rather than to other forms in which journalism is happening on the internet, in order to track such epistemological shifts?” (445) This question was very interesting because I am in no way familiar with weblogs before this course, but a red flag went up upon reading this. It is hard for me to understand why people would read information from people who could be posting absolutely anything. What was even more interesting was the fact that Katz questioned credible sources contact information, yet blogs are so huge and authors can be completely anonymous. When we sign up for blogs, it is not a requirement to provide accurate personal information to the public who may read our postings. I must agree that weblogs are in fact a great way to interact with one another, but they in no way serve as credible sources. People are allowed to express their thoughts, ideas and beliefs, but it is hard for me to understand why so many people quickly adapted to them.
Cass Sunstein’s “Democracy and Filtering,” article also discusses the internet and how it related to the world. This article approaches the issue from a governmental point of view. The article questions, “Is the Internet a wonderful development for democracy?” (57) Sunstein feels it is when stating the internet provides far more information than before enabling society to learn at a much faster rate (57). I can agree with Sunstein on this because when we talk about print, the process is much longer concerning news coverage being related to the public. The internets greatest factor is it’s up to the minute coverage. The internet also furthers its educational element as Sunstein makes it clear. I never viewed blogs as being an educational outlet, but Sunstein views it as an opportunity for people to read and write an extraordinary array of topics (57). It was this statement that gave me a different outlook on weblogs.
When thinking about weblogs, there was never a clear definition for me. As I continued to question what purpose they served, Rafaeli and Sudweeks article further enhanced my knowledge when discussing computer-mediated communication (CMC). They define CMC as “An experiment in social intergration and democratic participation” (1997, 4). Without the internet there would be no weblogs, my question is what makes a person become interested in blogging? Though the answer to my question is not readily provided, the authors, “Propose to examine how captivation occurs through interactivity” (1997, 4). I feel this interactivity has to do with the networks of networks. These new programs are basically like trends, they will forever exist and they will forever be followed. No matter what emerges from the internet, it will most likely succeed because it is appealing to society and mainly because it relates to the internet.