[quote=Rich Toscano]
I’m not really sure what mainstream media trends have to do with the piggington forums getting a comment voting system… but regardless… if we had one, you could have downvoted my comment. See how handy that is? ;-)[/quote]
True.. it is easy, but that also supports my contention. A simple thumbs down instead of having to put thought into one’s response, evaluate ones position critically and to craft a hopefully cognizant reply supporting ones position of disagreement. Not that it always occurs here. It becomes a ‘popularity’ contest (kind of like how elementary school was).. which is how the main stream media seems to currently work (ie. Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry”). Easy is not always better.
The main stream media went downhill when they became ‘for profit’. I remember something was passed a long time ago that allowed them to become ‘for profit’ vs nonprofit (not that the owners of older newsprint didn’t make a good profit – ie. Hearst). I think the switch happened around the ’70s.
Gordon’s theories may all seem feasible, but another article in Philadelphia’s City Paper makes some good points about the sustainability of Internet journalism: “Interactive writers can quickly become slaves to instant ratings.”
Essentially, the fact that Internet content can be posted immediately will drive journalists to begin writing for popularity, instead of the investigative journalism society needs. “AOL’s narrowcasting encourages even the most diligent reporters to become entertainers,” says the articles author.
Of course I could have just down-voted your comment.. but then that would not have given anyone ideas as to why I downvoted, and might not have resulted in people thinking about their position on the subject either. It might degrade into an angry popularity upvote-downvote competition.
