This was already the glaringly obvious thing to say after my previous post: the hierarchy of internet users.
In fandom it separates those who like something enough to call themselves a fan, from those who make a living from their fandom or who participate in fan activism (such as those who campaigned to get Family Guy back on TV during its hiatus, for just one example).
When this idea is also attributed to news on the net, it's plain to see that despite the rapid spread of ideas and articles, there's still a notion of hierarchy between known news outlets and what Marr deems 'citizen journalists'.
But then, aren't they are also totally different kinds of literature, each with a different kind of 'grammar' and textual code and meaning and purpose?
It has to be noted that Andrew Marr used 'Internet rumours' as justification for asking Gordon Brown if he was on painkillers.
ReplyDeleteThe lines between citizen journalism and the 'traditional' news are blurry. There are good and bad examples of each.
Is 'blogging' a distinct practice? Is it not just 'writing stuff down' - the same as journalism?!
You are correct to a point - it is indeed blurry. Especially when more and more journalistic organs are full of fluffy editorial pieces and blogs of their own. Also what separates someone like Ben Goldacre's articles from his blog posts? It's a different style for each (and I think he's an example of someone good at what he does. I can't think of anyone bad.)
ReplyDeleteI also meant to add in that in fandom you also have the top of the hierarchy - the text itself: The TV show, or the movie, or whatever. But it's a sliding scale. For example, Samuel L Jackson was a FAN of Snakes on a Plane, but he happens to be a Hollywood star, so it made the movie happen.
I'll finish with the Snakes on a Plane references now!
But it's a sliding scale, albeit subjective. I still consider The Huffington Post to be a blog. Sometimes I even get it mixed up with The Onion.