Do Jarvis' and Sullivan's theories on the news and blogging, respectively, agree? Of course! They are almost entirely the same. Jarvis claims that the news is different from "back then" (though he fails to give us a tangible era). Now, news is all around us in many sources, ones when can respond to, creating new stories, ad infinitum. This is a clone of Sullivan's theory on blogging: blogs are posted and then commented on, spurring new blog posts. Sullivan describes how people share information on blogs through links. Jarvis claims people are "distributors" of the news article because of this very same reason. Both authors would agree on this new process of writing and distribution. But are their theories completely uniform? It depends on how one interprets Jarvis' article. Does he dislike the new process or love it? Many of my fellow classmates have felt that Jarvis feels animosity to the new process; however, Jarvis is actually (and obviously) a proponent of it. Why is this obvious? For one, he never says a bad thing about the process; he just points out the differences. Secondly, he refers to the "old process" as everything being filtered through the press, which has a negative connotation to it, whereas the "new process" has unfiltered, raw news, ripe for the reading. Finally, he owns a blog—a piece in the puzzle he likes to call the "Me Sphere." With all of these obvious clues as to whether or not he is a fan of the "new news process," how can one not know his point of view? This shows that Sullivan's theories are almost a complete match of Jarvis'. The theories are so similar, it is almost as if Sullivan's article was rewritten to apply to news in general, or vice versa.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment