Do blogs run the threat of replacing conventional media?
No. That was my opinion before reading "the epistemology of blogging" and after boring myself to tears trying to take in the intellectual words of a man with a love of rambling with crap my opinion remains no.
This radio interview brings up no real issue other then the depth of the unnecessary thoughts of Australia’s brains. How stupid do they think the world is? Sure, the people of today aren’t geniuses. But I think it is pretty well known that you don’t pay too much attention to what you read on the internet, and the amount of people that do are far too insignificant a number to affect the existence of conventional news.
Next point, these days so many people spend their day at a computer screen - even a check out chick spends the day staring into a computer screen of sorts. How many people really want to come home and read copious amounts of nonsense from bloggers? They watch the news whilst cooking dinner, and that’s something people have done for a long time.
These days the world is down to trying to simplify everything, they want it as to the point and quickly as possible, so a threat of blogs full of opinion pieces really doesn’t seem to be a likely threat to that of conventional news. If by some chance it does, who cares? If it becomes dominant enough to take over then obviously everyone is going to think it’s just great at the time, so putting depthy thought into the matter now is unnecessary.
I always knew there was a good reason as to why I don’t waste my time listening to things like that, now I’m reminded why. There are much better things to do.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
No beige hat ... by Nick Wade
This week we were given the opportunity of an interview with Park Ranger Steve Woodhall. Sorry to disappoint this blogs many avid readers but no Steve Woodhall didn’t have a beige broad brimmed hat, he didn’t have aviators, he didn’t have long socks and most shocking of all he didn’t have a gun. Steve Woodhall is quite frankly the last person you’d expect to be wearing the green jumper of a Park Ranger.After our friendly little chat with Steve I found all my preconceptions of Park Rangers and their adventures utterly shattered leaving me broken and empty. As it turns out Park Rangers are pacifists who care about nature (who knew).
Though I disapprove of the lack of gun and aviators Steve answered all our interview questions patiently and in detail which makes me eternally grateful as now my job of blogging about the interview has been made much easier.
While some in the class asked Steve important questions about economy and tourism impacts on nature, being a male teenager my mind was set on one thing and one thing only…conflict. So it wasn’t surprising to know my questions centred around what kinds of problems and dangers a Park Ranger faces in his job on the frontier of nature. As it turns out the leading problem facing Park Rangers in our area is the spreading of weeds, which can consume thousands of dollars each year as the Park Rangers valiantly battle against the spread of the scourge.
You see once upon a time in the area surrounding Mount Canabolas the farmers enjoyed fertile soil where their crops grew and flourished in the volcanic soil. Life was good and everyone was happy, completely oblivious of the horrors that lay ahead. One fateful day a fire (some speculate it was from hell) ravaged the land destroying the farmer’s precious crops and leaving them broken and helpless. It didn’t take long for the homicidal weeds of the land to seize the opportunity and infect the now bare and empty soil, crushing any hope the farmers had of regrowing. Thus it is that to this day the noble Park Rangers fight for the farmers very lives…stock.
I learned today that you don’t need aviators to be a hero (shocking I know) and I now plan to hang a poster of Steve on my wall at home.
Photo of blackberry flower (a noxious weed) by Tony Wills and published here under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Source:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blackberry_flower_01.jpg
Dog Baiting by Chelsie Webster
My extended family have all lived on the land at some point. My closest uncle is an active farmer, and I know all too well the issue of wild dogs. Wild dog or not, as soon as a dog walks onto a farmer's property, the farmer is allowed to destroy the animal. When I spoke to Steve Woodhall from the National Parks and Wildlife, we discussed the issue of dog baiting. I don’t see it an issue at all, however a lot of people see it as cruel and inhumane – the baited meat takes an agonising hour to kill the dog after it has consumed the bait. In control programs, up to 16 tonnes of meat laced with 1080 poison is placed in areas where it is most likely to be found by wild dogs and not other native animals.
I find this the easiest way to bring these dogs under control – wild dogs, domestic dogs roaming the land and hybrids (dingo x domestic dog) destroy countless head of sheep and calves, and while a farmer may only lose a few head from their stock, these numbers add up to thousands a year. Steve Woodhall said that with dog baiting comes an increase in pests such as kangaroos – however, it is the risk a farmer is most likely willing to take, culling the dogs in favour to save a few cattle, and opting for culling the kangaroos in their own time.
I don’t see it as an issue, and I think the majority of people that do, need to spend time with a battling farmer, and consider the fact that these animals are the sole income for most farmers and it is not fair to have these wild dogs destroying their stock.
But in the end, I have more important things to worry about. And considering I live in suburbia, wild dogs aren’t an issue. And if a wild dog does wander into my street, I am most likely to give it a home – as long as it is semi vicious and resembles a pit bull.
I find this the easiest way to bring these dogs under control – wild dogs, domestic dogs roaming the land and hybrids (dingo x domestic dog) destroy countless head of sheep and calves, and while a farmer may only lose a few head from their stock, these numbers add up to thousands a year. Steve Woodhall said that with dog baiting comes an increase in pests such as kangaroos – however, it is the risk a farmer is most likely willing to take, culling the dogs in favour to save a few cattle, and opting for culling the kangaroos in their own time.
I don’t see it as an issue, and I think the majority of people that do, need to spend time with a battling farmer, and consider the fact that these animals are the sole income for most farmers and it is not fair to have these wild dogs destroying their stock.
But in the end, I have more important things to worry about. And considering I live in suburbia, wild dogs aren’t an issue. And if a wild dog does wander into my street, I am most likely to give it a home – as long as it is semi vicious and resembles a pit bull.
Photo of restrained pit bull terrier by Tatiana Sapateiro used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pit_bull_restrained.jpg
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife push on tourism by Casey Macpherson
During our short interview with Steve Woodhall of the Western River Region National Parks and Wildlife the topic of the recent push on tourism within New South Wales National Parks arose, giving a bit of an insight into Steve’s opinion on the possible increase in tourism and its effects on the National Parks.
After being asked of the opinion of him and other rangers he responded that it is a mixed bag for them. Touching on both the detrimental effects of increased traffic throughout the parks and the positive effects of people getting out and getting an understanding for nature conservation. Although much more time was spent discussing the effects of having all of the extra traffic, and within that mentioning that the rangers had no say in the push on increased tourism. The way I read this statement and from bits and pieces I have seen on the internet, I gather this push is a not so well researched government idea, with Steve saying if extra funding was allowed then adequate prep for popular tourist area’s could be done prior, saving extensive damage to areas and making the job of conservation much easier and in the long run possibly cheaper.
In his argument of for tourism Steve mentioned things like its great if people are going to go get a feel for the nature and wildlife and if their doing some walking getting some exercise that’s also great, however I feel these things don’t relate to what the National Parks are about. Sure it’s great if people go and get a feel for the wildlife and nature, however the advertising for activities and holidays within national parks don’t appeal to those interests. Where will it lead once an income comes from new found tourism? Will our national parks still stay about preservation of nature, or like most things will profiteering take control.
After being asked of the opinion of him and other rangers he responded that it is a mixed bag for them. Touching on both the detrimental effects of increased traffic throughout the parks and the positive effects of people getting out and getting an understanding for nature conservation. Although much more time was spent discussing the effects of having all of the extra traffic, and within that mentioning that the rangers had no say in the push on increased tourism. The way I read this statement and from bits and pieces I have seen on the internet, I gather this push is a not so well researched government idea, with Steve saying if extra funding was allowed then adequate prep for popular tourist area’s could be done prior, saving extensive damage to areas and making the job of conservation much easier and in the long run possibly cheaper.
In his argument of for tourism Steve mentioned things like its great if people are going to go get a feel for the nature and wildlife and if their doing some walking getting some exercise that’s also great, however I feel these things don’t relate to what the National Parks are about. Sure it’s great if people go and get a feel for the wildlife and nature, however the advertising for activities and holidays within national parks don’t appeal to those interests. Where will it lead once an income comes from new found tourism? Will our national parks still stay about preservation of nature, or like most things will profiteering take control.
About Steve Woodhall by Kate Lucas
Steve Woodhall, the ranger for the National Parks in the Bathurst region was a guest speaker at TAFE today. He spoke about his role as the ranger of the national parks and the different things it involves.
Steve works in the general area around Bathurst where 23-25 major areas are situated. There are similar offices across New South Wales which basically do the same thing as the Bathurst National Parks offices which is controlling animal population and similar things.
Steve also volunteers as a fire fighter for the state, although if there is a major fire, he is able to go and help out.
Photo of Mount Canobolas, from the Pinnacles. Photo taken August 2005 by Takver and released under the GNU FDL Mont Canobolas, en Nouvelle Galles du Sud en Australie
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mount_Canobolas.jpg
Shedding tears for the conventional media (not) ... Nick Wade
On the radio program the Philosophers Zone it was argued by Professor Alvin Goldman that blogging threatens the conventional news media and that this threat could potentially impoverish society. I tend to agree with Tasmanian Professor David Cody that while conventional media provides the public with the raw news it’s the blogosphere that gives us a deconstructed analysis of the day’s events.
I can’t see blogs posing any serious threat to conventional media and the fact that people worry about it proves that western society undoubtedly has its priorities in order. Gone are the days of starving African children on infomercials begging for food now we can shed a tear over the underprivileged media, infomercials packed full of men in suits mercilessly forced to take a limozine instead of a private helicopter. If anything the blogosphere is helping the average consumer by creating competition for the media and preventing them from having a monopoly which would be the real tragedy for society. The sheer power the media would have over what people were able to see without the competition of the internet and the blogosphere is terrifying. Just knowing that uncensored and unbiased reports of current events do exist out there in vastness of the internet is a comfort to the average consumer not a threat. Who among us hasn’t noticed the supposedly impartial news is a wee bit biased. Were being fed the stories we want to hear, rather than the stories that are true. Were being encouraged to feel strongly about the situation by being not so subtly encouraged to pick a side based on emotion, regardless of the facts.
So readers have no fear the blogs are here to help, we won’t bite, about the only thing the blogosphere could hurt is the medias precious ratings.
I can’t see blogs posing any serious threat to conventional media and the fact that people worry about it proves that western society undoubtedly has its priorities in order. Gone are the days of starving African children on infomercials begging for food now we can shed a tear over the underprivileged media, infomercials packed full of men in suits mercilessly forced to take a limozine instead of a private helicopter. If anything the blogosphere is helping the average consumer by creating competition for the media and preventing them from having a monopoly which would be the real tragedy for society. The sheer power the media would have over what people were able to see without the competition of the internet and the blogosphere is terrifying. Just knowing that uncensored and unbiased reports of current events do exist out there in vastness of the internet is a comfort to the average consumer not a threat. Who among us hasn’t noticed the supposedly impartial news is a wee bit biased. Were being fed the stories we want to hear, rather than the stories that are true. Were being encouraged to feel strongly about the situation by being not so subtly encouraged to pick a side based on emotion, regardless of the facts.
So readers have no fear the blogs are here to help, we won’t bite, about the only thing the blogosphere could hurt is the medias precious ratings.
The main danger of blogs is... Fran Vinall
The main danger of blogs is, of course, that they will replace conventional media as a source of entertainment or news. Critics fear that since blogs are more accessible and more widespread than the mainstream media, the public will stop relying on newspapers and magazines, and instead turn to blogs for their information. Truth be told, if this phenomena does occur, and there are many a problem in it doing so, would this really be a bad thing?
The key issue critics have with blogs is that they can be written by anyone, about anything. All well and good, when it comes to blogs like cake wrecks, showing funny pictures of professional cakes, or personal blogs about what you ate for lunch and what your favourite Beatles song is.
But this is not so good when it comes to things like politics. Blog writers are writing up their opinion on the fat cat world of politics, and their opinion is only ever one side of the story. Take, for instance, Etalkinghead’s directory of political blogs. The links are these: conservative, liberal, independent (of ideology,) religion, humour, etc. Basically, the reader can choose whichever side he or she agrees with and only peruse blogs on that topic, nodding and sipping tea over a blog instead of a newspaper. Journalists have a responsibility to be non-biased and present both sides of the story.
Well, that’d be nice anyway, wouldn’t it. The facts are though, that as the media becomes less of the voice of the people and more of the voice of Rupert Murdoch and a few other kingpins, it is becoming increasingly biased. I saw a news report a few months ago about the government cutting money spent on wildlife, or a shelter closing down, or something like that. The report was given with the news reader holding a baby wallaby, shoving it into the camera and pleading “what about poor Joey here??” This is hardly non-biased reporting. Newspapers have the same one-sided bent. A recent article about Qantas, published on Ninemsn reports “The spokesman told ninemsn the plan centred on growth and retaining jobs. However, he admitted that "no company can rule out job cuts",” implying the spokesmen had let this information slip and was ashamed to say it. It seems like minor wording, “admitted” as opposed to “said” or a number of other words, but the implications are there when perhaps they shouldn’t be. Blogs are in no way delving into new territory by having a biased slant
The other, more annoying, thing about blogs is that many of them are amateur written. This can be easily avoided however, by digging out the blogs that interest you and avoiding the rest. Blogs provide the public with a chance to both get their opinion out into the world, but also to read a wide variety of opinions and insight they wouldn’t have access to in the world of mainstream media. Blogs allow the knowledge of every user of the internet to be accessed – they are most definitely a good thing.
The key issue critics have with blogs is that they can be written by anyone, about anything. All well and good, when it comes to blogs like cake wrecks, showing funny pictures of professional cakes, or personal blogs about what you ate for lunch and what your favourite Beatles song is.
But this is not so good when it comes to things like politics. Blog writers are writing up their opinion on the fat cat world of politics, and their opinion is only ever one side of the story. Take, for instance, Etalkinghead’s directory of political blogs. The links are these: conservative, liberal, independent (of ideology,) religion, humour, etc. Basically, the reader can choose whichever side he or she agrees with and only peruse blogs on that topic, nodding and sipping tea over a blog instead of a newspaper. Journalists have a responsibility to be non-biased and present both sides of the story.
Well, that’d be nice anyway, wouldn’t it. The facts are though, that as the media becomes less of the voice of the people and more of the voice of Rupert Murdoch and a few other kingpins, it is becoming increasingly biased. I saw a news report a few months ago about the government cutting money spent on wildlife, or a shelter closing down, or something like that. The report was given with the news reader holding a baby wallaby, shoving it into the camera and pleading “what about poor Joey here??” This is hardly non-biased reporting. Newspapers have the same one-sided bent. A recent article about Qantas, published on Ninemsn reports “The spokesman told ninemsn the plan centred on growth and retaining jobs. However, he admitted that "no company can rule out job cuts",” implying the spokesmen had let this information slip and was ashamed to say it. It seems like minor wording, “admitted” as opposed to “said” or a number of other words, but the implications are there when perhaps they shouldn’t be. Blogs are in no way delving into new territory by having a biased slant
The other, more annoying, thing about blogs is that many of them are amateur written. This can be easily avoided however, by digging out the blogs that interest you and avoiding the rest. Blogs provide the public with a chance to both get their opinion out into the world, but also to read a wide variety of opinions and insight they wouldn’t have access to in the world of mainstream media. Blogs allow the knowledge of every user of the internet to be accessed – they are most definitely a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)