 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ The Peterloo massacre was the Guardian’s finest hour. A pity it was in 1819.  .
As one might expect from a Guardian Editor, her definition of the purpose of journalism is badly skewed to make her the hero.
Journalism, I think, has several functions, but the most important is to be a source of public trust and truth, which is essential to democratic exchange. Someone (I think it was Nick Clegg) recently said that our ability to communicate with one another in civil society depends upon there being an agreed standard of public truth and fact. Reputable journalism is the “brand” which establishes this.
The secondary and tertiary purposes are to test and explore the meaning of facts - the so-called opinion piece - and to simply exchange information about the social life we lead (“what dogs are best for flat-dwellers”).
A fourth purpose, less essential perhaps but also benevolent, is to be a space for good writing and writers.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
 |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ The Peterloo massacre was the Guardian’s finest hour. A pity it was in 1819. .
|
Never fear: in the twenty-first century, there are still plenty of massacres to afford newspapers the opportunity to have new finest hours.
| Mugwump wrote: | | A fourth purpose, less essential perhaps but also benevolent, is to be a space for good writing and writers. |
A curious aspect of the past is how magazines and even newspapers would serialize literature, possibly including great literature. Nowadays, that does not happen (does it?), but it seems some very good writers work for news media until they're successful enough to ditch that and live off their novels (or poetry, or whatever) alone.
Last edited by K on Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The least it seems some good writers work for newspapers until they're successful enough to ditch that and live off their novels or poetry or whatever is where it's at. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ The Peterloo massacre was the Guardian’s finest hour. A pity it was in 1819. .
|
Never fear: in the twenty-first century, there are still plenty of massacres to afford newspapers the opportunity to have new finest hours.
| Mugwump wrote: | | A fourth purpose, less essential perhaps but also benevolent, is to be a space for good writing and writers. |
A curious aspect of the past is how magazines and even newspapers would serialize literature, possibly including great literature. Nowadays, that does not happen (does it?), but it seems some very good writers work for news media until they're successful enough to ditch that and live off their novels (or poetry, or whatever) alone. |
Oh the Guardian had one in its home town, Manchester, about eighteeen months ago. The Manchester Arena attack killed 22 people. Unfortunately, it was carried out of behalf of an ideology, Islam, about which the Guardian is usually quiescent and uncritical. That was not the case in 1819.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I did a very brief search regarding the question of serialized literature (in newspapers) nowadays, and the suggestion is:
Michael Chabon, Gentlemen of the Road (2007), published in New York Times Magazine.
For journalist-writers, the suggestions include:
Will Self, Tom Wolfe.
Oh, and according to the American Press Institute,
"News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.
The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments."
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/purpose-journalism/ |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I like that API description (perhaps because it is close to what I wrote above).  It’s certainly better than the pompous self-important definition of the Guardian editor.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There's a tool for book analysis corresponding to the "trends" tool looked at previously...
What conclusions, if any, would you draw from the pic below?
SAP's BA, Fig. 7-1: [log in to view] |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ that the idea of “rights” is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.
Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | There's a tool for book analysis corresponding to the "trends" tool ...
SAP's BA, Fig. 7-1: ...
|
Here's what you get when you go to the website and try it for yourself (presumably reproducing SAP's figure above). [Log in to view.]
Because "civil rights" dominates, I repeated the example without this term, so you can see the lines for the other terms in clearer detail. I suppose, whatever conclusions you draw from SAP's pic should be the same conclusions you draw from these pics --- but behavioural economics suggests that may well not be the case.
What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| SAP starts by saying this: [Log in to view.] |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I was probably going to make a general statement like this: If you claim less, there might be more chance of your statement being reasonable and maybe even true, but then it might also be not particularly noteworthy. People might ask: "So what?"
I have some reservations, though, even about SAP's first three sentences (shown above). Can what you see in the figures above really be described as a "cascade", or a "contagion of rights"? Maybe this is "just semantics", but semantics matters. What is your idea of a cascade? I suppose you can have a cascade in which the later things just peter out... If a health-threatening contagion just dies out like that, though, presumably it's not one that threatens to end civilization. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ that the idea of “rights” is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.
Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some. |
And that law is built on rights and bills of rights because the language of serious negotiation and lasting peace can only ever be one of robust principles.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ that the idea of “rights” is both infinitely elastic and expandable and endlessly divisive, being exploited for, and by, sectional groups.
Liberty under the law, guaranteed by parliament and the constitution and defended by a patriotic people, is a far more powerful and noble set of ideas, being accorded to all citizens, not some. |
And that law is built on rights and bills of rights because the language of serious negotiation and lasting peace can only ever be one of robust principles. |
Sure, but whose principles, based on what type of moral understanding, and how universal in its application ? Is a law against blasphemy in a modern Muslim nation contrary to human rights ? Is the right to life inviolable ? Between abortion, warfare and capital punishment, many people in our society apparently think not. So how universal are these principles across cultures ?
There are deep abiding human principles about justice and laws that seem deeply encoded in the human soul - that it be proportionate, non-arbitrary, equitably judged, that crime be avoidable etc. That seems to function across cultures, in a way that is less obvious for “human rights”.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
