Post-media journalism
I think that Henry Copeland may have just coined a term in his nice welcome-back post about me: “post-media journalism.” Hmmmm. I like it. It beats social-media for what follows in news is more than media and more than social. We don’t know where it will end up, except that it comes after media. I also like the term because it blows up the definitions (and brains) used by the incumbents. They define themselves by their medium. But the media doesn’t matter now. The conversation does. The connections do. And the map of them is where news goes next. I think.
Tags: postmedia
September 25th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Actually, I would prefer the term “post-journalism media,” given how much of the journalism dogma of the past century has been found to be untrue, unwanted by news consumers, and unable to survive in a newly competitive environment, e.g. objectivity, the discipline of verification, the public’s right to know, and the limited ability of journalists to deliver real truth given their limited resources. (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)
September 25th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Herbert Marshall McLuhan long ago exposed the charade of ‘media-journalism’ in his most popular work– “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” (1964).
McLuhan would have well understood current flaps over TV news-anchors Dan Rather & Katie Couric; they are not journalists, but media performers. Their alleged news-content/journalism is trivial compared to the impact of the huge media stage (..circus ?) they use to communicate with the masses. The internet medium is much less fertile to celebrity performers & pretenders.
MSM “news-content” is unimportant… and usually non-existent.
The medium is the message.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“Journalism” was perfect but is now perfectly debased.
Neo-journalism? “New” journalism in name but really journalism as it should have been all along, plus the frisson of fear from the partial connection to neo-conservative.
What is a web log but a journal in it’s original, purest form?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I don’t think you can be ‘post-media’. I am not sure you can be post-journalism either. That’s like being ‘post-economic’ or ‘post society’. Mainstream mass journalism was a type of media and now its changing. I think ‘Networked Journalism’ is a label for ‘post-mainstream mass news media’ that covers most bases. But people have always communicated about topical issues and events outside of the professional news media. The difference now is that ‘citizen media’ is being enpowered and blossoms in to new forms.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
The medium is no more the message
September 26th, 2007 at 1:18 am
[...] term las ik bij Jeff Jarvis: It beats social-media for what follows in news is more than media and more than social. We don’t [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis skrev igår om post-media-journalistik. Vi är i en tid då mediet i sig inte spelar roll. Det är konversationen som är det viktiga. [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
[...] think Mr. Jarvis likes this general idea of maps, which I’ve been publicly and privately writing about for upwards [...]
October 1st, 2007 at 6:05 am
[...] Post-media journalism [...]
April 5th, 2008 at 5:02 am
[...] betekent niet dat journalisten overbodig worden. Ook experts verdwijnen niet. Maar post-media-journalisten moeten begrijpen dat ze het niet meer moeten hebben van de macht van hun medium, maar van de kracht [...]
April 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
[...] betekent niet dat journalisten overbodig worden. Ook experts verdwijnen niet. Maar post-media-journalisten moeten begrijpen dat ze het niet meer moeten hebben van de macht van hun medium, maar van de kracht [...]