A Critical question to the article of J.D. Lasica

Question: Lasica refers tot the following statement of Clay Shirky “The order of things in broadcast is filter, then publish. The order in communities is publish, then filter.”  What are your thoughts on this statement.?

Answer:  Since this article is about journalism I will take the daily news as example. As always I have double thought concerning this matter. At this point, I’m almost at the point that hardly believe anything that’s on the news. Due to my study I’m almost indoctrinated with the idea that everything we see on the news had been carefully picked out for us to be broadcast or on a higher level has been constructed for us. Everything about the war in Iraq, I tend to take with a little bit of sold (to use a Dutch phrase which I can’t pronounce in English). I would almost go as far to argue that the footage we saw last year about those people thanking president Bush and America for his support after the fall of the Hussein-regime was all set-up on forehand but I don’t have any evidence to prove this but I will elaborate on this matter in my next critical question. So on one hand I think it would be nice if  the truth would be broadcasted so we can filter for ourselves. On the other hand, I think it’s good that broadcast networks filter on forehand. A good example is the decapitation of an allegedly American soldier in Iraq. It was on the 6 o-clock news, children we’re also watching for instance. On the news they showed some footage of the decapitation but not really the core-part of the decapitation so to speak. I think it was  a good thing, you don’t know on forehand what your about to watch on the news, before you know it you could see a actual decapitation. You don’t have a choice. So in this case I think it’s a good thing that they filter the footage for us.

A Critical question to the article of Dan Gilmor.

Question: Gilmor argues that “not even a well-staffed big-city newspaper can hope to cover every aspect of civic life, but it has readers whose information and perspectives could contribute much to improving and broadening the coverage.” Do you agree?

Answer: I can see the point of Gilmor. Off course it would come in very handy for a newspaper to have free workers like that, a journalist is way more expensive. But that’s exactly my point why a newspaper shouldn’t use those so-called journalists. A journalist doesn’t get paid so much for nothing. They actually study how to provide news, there are actually some rules to it. One of those “rules” is that there has to be some objectivity. I believe Gilmor doesn’t see it like that  according to his  quote    “ I dropped mini-essays onto it without worrying about compromising the objectivity that beat journalists at traditional news organizations try to maintain.”. Like I mentioned on my last critical question, it is already so hard to believe what is true and what isn’t true. If we all start posting all sorts of news and nobody really has  a clue whether is true and objective, what would be the truth (if there is something like A truth).

A Critical question to the article of Luuk Middelaar

Question: The article isn’t really optimistic. Middelaar argues in this article that “There’s no way out of the world of money, not even for the people who think they’re fighting against it.” It makes me wonder if this is really true?

Answer:  I’m thinking and I’m thinking but I don’t seem to get much further than agreeing with Naomi Klein when she’s says that “as long as one searches for an economic way out of the economy,  one will keep turning around in circles.” I think that’s true, you can’t fight economy by using the economy. But there has to be a solution. There are still people living on this planet who live without the economy. Like for instance Indians in South-America. They live there in a autonomic community without any money or governmental regulation. They have there own rules. In the United States of America there are also Indians living but I have to admit they can only live there because the government gave them their piece of country. Allright so far I’m not really making  a point here. But why should we stop globalisation? It’s true that the Global labour and environmental standards should be regulated by law and governments, a democratic government that is. I tend to think that there is indeed no way out, it’s already too late. So maybe I shouldn’t ask myself it there really isn’t a way out, maybe I should ask myself “Is globalisation such a bad thing?”……

A critical Question to the article of Alan Warde

Question: Warde claims in his article that there are two alternative casual claims to the relationship between culture and the economy. First; culturalization implies that culture has become more central in economic relations, a process usually implicitly considered good because no one is against more culture. The second suggests that economic relations are now more central to culture. What claim would you choose?