Open News - When looking at open news as a whole, I'd say that it can be quality news to that local area. They can have their advantages to some areas, for example my hown town only has one small weekly newspaper (which is quite poor if i'm honest), so if the town was to have a site which was dedicated to the local news, then informing the locals of recent events would be much more relivent. As lets face it, events happening a week ago is ood news these days.
However if we were to see these sites which had endless amounts of spam attacted to the page, then our assumption into weather they are quality sites is definately questioned again.
Too Open Or Not? - I would say it's hard to answer if these sites are completely open. When we look at Wikipedia for example, we may be able to add to any page we wish, however our contributions are checked and moderated by the Wikipedia team into confirming if the text we wrote is indeed correct. So is this the same case with open news sites, as contents can remain of the front pages for weeks on end, or are we the open news moderation team?
New Institution - As with any internet site, it generates new possibilities for that group, business etc. This is the same case with open publishing. These sites such as open news ones may not be as big as the major media ones (such as BBC News), however they are most ertainly growing in popularity as the Net is a place in which everyone logged in can have their say and be heard about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
rincy
ReplyDeleteI agree that open news sites are growing in popularity, but it does make me wonder does this mean that trust in these sites is also growing, or is it just that more users are becoming confident in expressing their opinions?
ReplyDeleteGood point about location being a potential factor of quality. However, does the relevancy of the news affect its quality?
e.g. if you read a poorly researched, poorly written news piece would you consider it to be of quality if it were relevant to where you live? (Hope that makes sense!)
I think it's mostly those already knowledgeable about an area -and journalists- who look at Open News sites. They are of course well placed to act as 'moderators' through posting corrections and more reliable (hence less 'corrected') info. So maybe specialist forums are OK, whilst general 'open to junk n jerk' forums are much more dubious. So, then the question is 'how do you find select sites which are not popular, but are reliable and accurate'? And then it's do such sites deserve to be called 'news' sites if hardly anyone accesses them?
ReplyDelete