| the impoverished state of media coverage of the poor |
[08 Feb 2006|10:07am] |
yesterday i listened to a reporter, who actually covers the poverty beat mind you, defend the media's coverage of poverty issues
i also listened to a poverty activist cry for more media coverage, even though more media coverage leads to the closing of loop holes in legislation that helps his organization and the thousands of people they help
the thing that stuck with me the most however, was how the journalist defended the media by saying that "we the people" don't need "them the media" to get the message out. how because of the internet explosion, people can do what i'm doing right now and get the message to the masses.... well, how many masses read the globe and mail every day? and how many people read the hamilton spectator everyday? and how many people read www.blurty.com/users/burntoshine everyday? i think you see my point. yes, i can reach a few people, who can share it with a few people, who can share it with a few people, but the globe and mail reaches all those people at once... timeliness is a buzzword in media, and the internet is a medium, and it doesn't always have that if it takes time to reach the people
with all that said, i do believe that my voice here, and yours over there (www.blurty.com/users/makeyourself) and yours (www.blurty.com/users/underthewaves) and yours (www.blurty.com/users/rollingalong) are great things. but we don't have the reach of the globe. or the spec. and that is not going to make THE BIG difference.
for more:
http://www.wlu.ca/news_detail.php?grp_id=37&nws_id=1225
and
http://www.wlu.ca/news_detail.php?grp_id=37&nws_id=1217
|
|
|
[08 Feb 2006|10:17am] |
sorry that took a week.
i'm resolving not to make any more resolutions i can't keep. which seems to be most of them. for a while at least.
|
|