« Induced Consumption | Main | Kombinat moves to kombinat.blogspot.com »


severed talking head

"This is a fun story. Let's explore this a bit. It shows a couple of things. One, let us ponder journalistic credibility. Is it maybe that Journalism decides what Credibility is by choosing "remarks to report" due to "tight confines of a newspaper article"? - Perhaps. - Two, could it also be that Blogging deals with credibility by first blowing up the fucking tight confines and then letting ALL REMARKS be reported? - Perhaps."

This is focking genial, K!! - it clarifies the widely misheld notion that objectivity is a thing, an attribute of certain vetting, or betting, procedures, when "in fact" what it is, merely, is the triumphal assertion that the newspaper (or other media) is more believable because it believes itself to be so. It is credible because it thinks itself to be credible, and surely it would not believe itself if it did not think it was to be believed. Some blogs - not those of the experts, however - turn out to be "more objective" by refusing to play this game.


Ha! I think there is even more than that. At some point Journalims was coopted to be part of Media. There is a distinction. Journalims is about Commitment to Truth as they say, Media is about Commitment to ??? Here I draw a blank, but mostly it's about Circulation, me thinks. Me thinks WallStreetJournal is more interested in Circulation, has more commitment to Circulation than to Journalism. New York Times is a newspaper to be 'Talked About and Read' not necesarily by every peasant in the world, no no that kind of circulation, but by the Target Market Circulation. Hm.... more shit to look at.

Jon Husband

I did read this K! ... but thanks for dropping me a comment about it anyway.

Jon Husband

And you've just done what I described in laboured, stentorius English phrases in this comment I left on one of JOH's long posts about the Harvard BloJoEthics Conference. You've given readers an alternative view of how what comes to be seen as reality or the truth ... is constructed.

I asked David:

Was there any discussion of the possibility that some form of credibility may come from our having access to an aggregated set of views on a situation ... that offers a reader their own experience of a process of knitting together opinions, links, analyses, questions, verbal frictions ?

We can become (or are becoming ?) the point where takes place the knitting together of sources of information ... we can choose the sources much more easily than even only a few years ago, those sources can be delivered directly to us in a wider range of easier-to-use ways, and we have new tools at our disposal for combing, re-mixing and slicing and dicing the information from those sources in order to assess, compare, analyse, and finally for participating, by writing and commenting ... blogging.

We now have a different way than tv and newspapers for the process of building up our own views and judgments about a situation, and comparing that with what happens and how it happens ... perhaps not different cognition for developing and assessing credibility, but perhaps different paths and logistics for how credibility occurs.
Posted by: Jon Husband on January 23, 2005 10:01 AM

To which he replied

Yes, Jon, that idea came up a few times, It's hugely important, imo.

severed talking head

- cross posted from Kombinat! Reads:

At 4:50 PM, Tom Matrullo said...

K!: Circulation is to media what blood is to life. What MSM likes to do is ignore it. Might it have more "credibility" if, instead of pretending that its blood had nothing to do with its spirit, it openly and freely acknowledged that it was in the business of making money by informing and entertaining a subset of its locality whose attributes of education, income and "goodwill" are in fact the precious ring that enables it to attract advertising dollars?

Second: The first thing wrong with the Harvwebblojourcredcon was its hanging its hat on the term "credibility," rather than looking into the matter of how we actually become persuaded that something is true, important, valid, real, etc. I find certain media, certain bloggers, certain critics, quite credible in one matter and entirely incredible in another. Why should we assume credibility is transferable from the instantiation to the actor or speaker?

Jon: You are describing process - this already leaves the benighted hypostatization of "credibility" back where it is most at home, in the Dark Ages.


STH. Thanks. We are moving our con-versashion over there to that new dumping grounds for noise. Yes Yes. Much to say 'bout that.
permalink for new comments here

The comments to this entry are closed.