Friday, January 30, 2009

Blogatores versus jornalistas

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Quando le jornalista Fred Vogelstein, un reporter de "Wired Magazine" voleva scriber un articulo sur Mike Arrington, un blogator qui travalia in Silicon Valley, le famose centro informatic de California, ille voleva facer interviews traditional con omne le personas qui poterea contribuer information pro le articulo.

Ecce le problemas que ille debeva confrontar: Primo, le blogator Jason Calacanis le diceva que ille non parlarea con Vogelstein directemente e que ille solo responderea a su questiones si Vogelstein los presentava a ille via e-mail, e Calcanis responderea del mesme maniera. Vogelstein non voleva communicar de iste maniera.

Tunc le blogator Dave Winer diceva a Vogelstein que ille non parlarea con ille per telephono. Winer tunc suggereva que ille inviava su questiones via e-mail, e Winer responderea a illos publicamente in su blog.

Proque vole le blogatores communicar assi? Secundo Calcanis in un e-mail a Vogelstein, "Io non vole que jornalistas usa principalmente lor proprie parolas pro summarisar lo que io dice con solmente un parve numero de parolas mie."

Tal planctos se ha facite sovente ante que Calcanis inviava su e-mail a Vogelstein. Ma le Rete ha cambiate le relationes de communication inter jornalistas e blogatores. Secundo Jay Rosen, un professor a New York University, "Interviews traditional ha essite un exercitio injuste inter jornalistas e le subjectos de lor interviews proque il es le jornalistas e lor redactores qui controla le versiones final de lor articulos."

E secundo le blogator Jef Jarvis, "Io mesme pote controlar lo que io dice e assecurar que un jornalista non potera distorquer su contexto."

Jornalistas insista que le spontaneitate de un interview conversational es essential pro introducer nove themas a un discussion, e facer isto es multo plus difficile in interviews per e-mail.

Illes anque crede que lor interviews conversational es importantissime pro melio informar lor lectors de affaires public importante. E le personas con le quales illes parla provide un servicio importante al publico con lor participation spontanee, que provide beneficios a omnes.

Ma secundo Rosan, "Le jornalistas ha le obligation de probar que illes vermente representa le interesses del publico e non lor proprie interesses e prejudicios personal o le interesses e prejudicios del proprietarios de lor jornales e magazines."

Il es anque ver que le blogatores, como le jornalistas, pote haber lor proprie prejudicios. Ma secundo le nove regulas del joco de communication, illes nunc pote controlar illes mesmes le canales trans le quales illes communica e le forma e contento de lor proprie communicationes.


Bloggers Versus Journalists

When the journalist Fred Vogelstein, a reporter for "Wired Magazine" wanted to write an article on Mike Arrington, a blogger who works in Silicon Valley, the famous California computer-science center, he wanted to do traditional interviews with all the people who could contribute information for the article.

Here is the problem that he had to confront: First, the blogger Jason Calacanis told him that he would not talk directly with Vogelstein and that he only would answer his questions if Vogelstein presented them to him via e-mail, and Calcanis would answer in the same way. Vogelstein did not want to communicate in this way.

Then the blogger Dave Winer said to Vogelstein that he would not talk to him on the phone. Winer then suggested that he send his questions via e-mail, and he would then answer them in his blog.

Why do bloggers want to communicate like this? According to Calcanis in an e-mail to Vogelstein, "I don't want journalists to primarily use their own words to summarize what I say with only a small number of words of my own."

Such complaints have often been made before Calcanis sent his e-mail to Vogelstein. But the Net has changed the communication relationships between journalists and bloggers. According to Jay Rosen, a professor at New York University, "Traditional interviews have been an unfair exercise between journalists and the subjects of their interviews because it is journalists and their editors who control the final versions of their articles."

And according to the blogger Jef Jarvis, "I myself can control what I say and make sure that a journalist will not be able to distort its context."

Journalists insist that the spontaneity of an interview is essential to introduce new subjects into a discussion, and doing this is much more difficult in e-mail interviews.

They also believe that their conversational interviews are very important for better informing their readers of important public affairs. And the people they talk with provide an important service to the public with their spontaneous participation, which provides benefits to everyone.

But according to Rosan, "Journalists are obliged to prove that they really represent the interests of the public and not their own personal interests and prejudices or the interests and prejudices of the owners of their newspapers and magazines."

It is also true that bloggers, like journalists, can have their own prejudices. But according to the new rules of the communications game, they themselves can now control the channels through which they communicate and the form and content of their own communications.

No comments: