BlogAbout This Blog and Its Transparency
I just returned from a lively debate this evening during one of my classes at Emerson College on the controversial issue of Wikipedia and its credibility. Instead of going into details, I thought I’d take a minute to share my views on some of the ideas found here on this blog. The purpose, I hope is to help promote transparency in my intentions.
This blog is a learning process for me. One that I hope others will find to be useful in some way. In no way do I claim to be an authority on the ideas shared on this site. The purpose is to draw from previous literature and examples on the topic of community media in general and in particular within studies of community television in the U.S. Through sharing my views here my hope is to learn from others and their experiences working in community television and beyond.
So please, visit my works cited page and read what others have spent a lot more time researching on the topics discussed here. I simply hope that this blog can be a starting point for some to help raise awareness about the existing contributions of community media studies to the larger field of academic scholarship.
If none of this means anything to you, that’s OK too.
Posted in Community Media, Internet, PEGTV, Public Access Media, Public Access TV |
March 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Where is it implied that all blogs, or all things written, have authority? It is the responsibility of the reader to assess the value in the written word. Yes, the Internet vastly increases our exposure to the written word, and it is our responsibility to figure out how to deal the benefits of this exposure.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Thanks for your comment, Eric.
As you know, some scholars are concerned that Wikipedia and other social media tools can lead some to confuse “facts” with opinion, “trusted research” with untested theories, etc.
I believe these tools make it possible to begin conversations or join existing ones.