The readings this week deal with the process of publishing and how it differs from formal publishing practices to Web 2.0 and more informal ways of publishing our own material like on Twitter and Facebook. The other readings look at the proposed metering of online content with particular reference to the New York Times.
I found the publishing house websites very interesting as I didn't realise how strict and formal the procedures were for sending a preliminary idea for publication. Before the publishers can even accept the piece, they must be sent all sorts of information including the genre, the intended audience and other details. As we can gather from the later readings, the processes for publishing formally against those for publishing on the web for example are as different as the final product.
To use Charlie Brooker's brilliant Youtube video as an example, the freedom Youtube and other Web 2.0 sites allow potential publishers is vast. Here, Brooker uses the self-publishing site to present a satirical news story, explaining step by step how inane news stories are created. He has used the website as an outlet for a creative, and in many ways educational, video about media practices.
However, an issue is raised concerning how much freedom Web 2.0 allows. Quite often, it is a great tool for creative minds who might have trouble getting past the red tape of a big time publishing house. Blog sites like the Huffington Post are an example of where strict bureaucratic guidelines have been subverted to bring news and views to the people. But sometimes too much freedom can be a bad thing. An example is seen in neo-Nazi groups and extreme religious organisations who, through Web 2.0, have a platform for their radical, and often unwanted, views. These views can easily offend and even create legal issues and Web 2.0 unfortunately fosters their publication where a publishing house would almost certainly refuse to accept them.
No comments:
Post a Comment