When it comes to "bloggers" and others who cover the news without receiving payment, I think that is 100% a personal choice. I don't understand any reason for mockery or ridicule directed towards these select people from critics, because these "bloggers" are clearly engaging in activities that they find enjoyable, interesting, and/or therapeutic. One of the best things about the Internet is being able to interact with people all around the world from the comfort of your own home; it is very beneficial to all to be able to contribute valuable knowledge to society via the Internet. Arianna Huffington states, "the critics of new media [who] clearly don't understand that technology has enabled millions of consumers to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation." In my opinion, Huffington has hit the nail on the head. With that being said, I think any sort of mockery by critics in this sense is unnecessary and inappropriate, because in essence, it does not affect these critics as individuals one bit.
"Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks, or even months in their stories, all under the tattered veil of 'fair use,' " Rupert Murdoch said. "These people are not investing in journalism. They are feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others...To be impolite, it's theft." In this case, I definitely agree with Murdoch. There is a big difference between contributing to the World Wide Web in comparison to cluttering it up with unnecessary repetition. If you really enjoy something that has been published by a fellow "blogger," there is absolutely nothing wrong with re-posting the piece while adding your own thoughts and ideas, AS LONG AS YOUR ATTRIBUTE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE! Search Engines are very advanced, and a simple background check will easily prove who the original composer was; it's doesn't help anyone to plagiarize, and it is especially offensive to those who initially posted their own views.
Overall, I understand there is a possibility of charging people to view the news online. It is more convenient to access than newspaper are, and there has always been a price on purchasing those. "In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites...The critics say people won't pay," Murdoch said. "I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don't get something for nothing." I, too, share the belief that people are willing to pay for something convenient, beneficial, and original. On the other hand, I do not agree with putting a price tag on blog posting and similar sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). "Bloggers" should be able to take advantage of expressing themselves and their ideas online without having to cover costs. If these sites began charging their contributors, I believe the usage will decline dramatically, and the entire site will go to waste.
Note: Image from: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=computer+cartoon&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20
Ricki you should change the link at the bottom into one or two words instead of the ugly looking address
ReplyDelete