The subject of multiple layers of multimedia came off as more unfamiliar and unconventional than blogging, which Rensberger only half-jokingly referred to as “old-fashioned” by the end of the conference, and which got less attention overall. Clive Thompson, who runs the blog Collision Detection and contributes to The New York Times Magazine and Wired, talked up many of its benefits, however, saying that it keeps him “hungry for fresh material” and improves the way he thinks and acts as a journalist. “There’s a cognitive advantage in having a blog,” he said. Thompson stirred up a little disagreement, though, when he pointed to a post he’d written the day before, titled “Why C-section births might cause eczema in babies.” It was based on the press release for a study in a clinical journal, which reported that babies that do not pick up enough of a certain bacteria during vaginal birth are more likely develop eczema. The release didn’t actually mention caesarean sections, however, and a few audience members questioned the responsibility of extrapolating such a conclusion. Thompson defended blogs as a place to explore ideas and pose logical questions.
Another of the meeting’s contentious moments came when Dianne Lynch, dean of the communications school at Ithaca College, delivered a speech about independent journalism. She suggested that communities without an aggressive local news outlet could hire a reporter to investigate local issues, such as school governance. This raised ethical flags with a number of journalists.
It was a lot to absorb in one conference. But despite a few misgivings about certain data, trends, and proposals, the journalists in attendance were generally optimistic about the future. There is a lot of pessimism and prognostication about the decline of science journalism at the moment, as there is in the media industry at large, but it’s hard to worry too much with such large group of talented reporters who are determined to both innovate and elevate standards.
Nice write-up, Mr. Brainard. As one of the attendees -- the one who asked "Who will cook the pressed duck?" (see above) -- I was both intrigued and often alarmed by the emphasis on "new media" and its definition, seemingly, as something that did not involve reading very many words at one time. That was the meeting's declared focus, of course, and this was MIT, so I can hardly be surprised at this emphasis. But as my pressed duck worry attests, the look at new media seemed to have a little too much cheerleading and not enough skepticism, much like the early science reporting that Rensberger talked about.
Particularly bothersome to me was the assumption -- implicit in the language used, especially by Henry Jenkins in his otherwise fascinating talk -- that reading is not "participatory." Jenkins repeatedly talked about the need to offer the reader/consumer a "participatory" form of engagement. Perhaps what he really means is social -- something that involves more than just text (or text and image) and reader. But the repeated use of the word participatory for multimedia and "interactive" media forms clearly suggests -- seems to assume -- that reading is not participatory. I would argue otherwise, for reading is a deeply participatory process. That's why you have to pay attention when you read in ways that perhaps other media don't necessarily demand.
Posted by DaveD
on Wed 27 Feb 2008 at 01:53 PM