Hoyt uses as his evidence a comment by "Ray in Mexican Colony of LA" about urination to make his point. Ray wrote "The Times “have all the displaced ILLEGALS from the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Building ... and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront [sic] of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.” And Hoyt quotes The Caucus (NYT political blog) editor longing for days when "we never heard their voices." And he ends with this:
I read this right after I read an article about the EnoughisEnough campaign to force Viacom and other media companies to institute "universal creative standards" for content, censoring bad language, stupid stereotypes and other positive depictions of the worst of society.Martin Nisenholtz, senior vice president for digital operations of The New York Times Company, said: “A pure free-for-all doesn’t, in my opinion, equal good. It can equal bad.”
I believe that’s especially true if you’re The New York Times and you are trying to maintain a rare tradition of civility. A site with many Rays in Mexican Colony of LA might carry the name of The New York Times, but it would no longer be The New York Times.
I'm dismayed with both situations. While I appreciate that the NYT should hold itself to a certain standard of civility, the comments of these Times editors struck me as decidedly elitist. And the idea of begging media companies to place a lot of content restrictions on content seems dangerous and alarmist to me.
And yet, the most disturbing part of all of this is what it says about us -- We the People who want to denigrate immigrants and create videos that glorify drug dealing or demean women or perpetuate ignorance.
Instead of asking The New York Times and Viacom to censor us, let's examine the conditions in society that lead to such content. Instead of curtailing speech, let's appeal to the artists, bloggers, article commentators, and anyone who talks about this stuff over coffee in the morning. We finally have avenues to mass disseminate... in other words, to have a real voice and play a real part in the construction of public information exchange, dialogue and knowledge. Let's stop blowing it.
What else can we say about what is going on here?
9 comments:
Very interesting post-- just one comment. Sue mentioned the quote by the Times-guy as elitist, and I can see her point in that how come the Times should have the authority to decide what is "good" or "bad" discussion.
However, as much as we talk about the internet as a "democratizing" force where everyone is given a voice, it is at least currently something many poorer people in the country do not have access to (ie. undocumented or under-documented immigrants). Computors, internet, english-skills, technology--they can all be very expensive and very unaccessible. these are all things more open to people commenting on the blog in this example.
Now,the NYTimes paper-version itself was perhaps even more expensive and less-accessible.
Either way, it doesn't seem that those with less socio-economic power have their way no matter who is in charge of discourse. When BET execs decide what is best for music videos, harmful images are distributed. When a person in L.A., who doesn't need to be an exec to get his voice out, harmful discoures is distributed.
Can we come to any conclusion? It's cynical to say that no matter what humans make harmful desicions to those in their own society.
I guess in a democracy, every opinion is supposed to matter, though in most cases every opinion is not listened to--even with technological innovations like the Internet. Will people have to organize themselves on the internet to get their voices heard as they have for other media outlets like t.v., newspapers and movies? Is then the internet no better than any other media outlet?
This post was depressing.
This post made me depressed.
Sound the alarm, and rally the troops, we're going to knock that pompous Hoyt off his high horse. All kidding aside, there are some fundamental issues here. I think Lule's discussion of 'News, Myth, and Society' offers some interesting perspective.
Lule sees the primary "role of news is to enact social dramas that sustain social order." (p36) He defines social orders as how a particular society is organized and kept together. He also discusses social order's structure, mentioning hierarchy, power, and rights, etc. In Hoyt's view, NYT has foolishly compromised its position within the public discourse hierarchy. Instead of 'sustaining social order' as its position as the preminent news source in the world, Hoyt believes NYT has surrendered its legitimacy to the arena of internet posting.
However, as Lule points out, "social order is not some kind of fixed, unmoving system." And this change and Hoyt's reaction is about a single fact. With this change the public's voice has become stronger, while Hoyt believes his 'voice of reason' will be (at least partially) drowned out or lost in the amateur fray.
I think we may be missing something here. Even despite Hoyt's lamentations against including the public discourse on the articles, it has arrived nonetheless. So yes, Hoyt may be (arrogantly) opposed to the voice of the public yet the NYT has responded to it anyway. This can be argued as a true triumph of the people, and heralds the internet's democratization of discourse. Hoyt has lost his monopoly of voice, and resists these social changes. Because now when he states his opinion on the issue, the public can respond challenging his authority. This is the nature of a power struggle at its most obvious.
Lastly, I think Hoyt is taking a mistaken position on this issue. He sees this situation as a zero sum game, if public wins he loses. As is often the case, it would be more productive to embrace this change than resist it. If Hoyt engages the public by responding or at least taking their opinions into account he could better represent himself as a voice of the people. Hoyt need not be the dictator of discourse, whining the internet has begun a revolution. After all, if you can't beat them, join 'em. right?
-kyle
I can kind of see both sides here. I mean, it's probably wrong to ban comments, but on the other hand, have you seen the comments people write? My hometown newspaper in no way compares to the New York Times, but ... people comment with really insensitive and rude things, and most are ignorant. I would argue, however, that the readership of the New York Times is more well-versed and educated and less ignorant.
This reminds me of something Katz and Lazarsfeld said: "There is need to inquire not only into the media exposure patterns of opinion leaders and the extent to which their own opinions and decisions are shaped by the media, but also into the different kinds of "uses" to which the media are put by leaders in each realm, as compared with non-leaders."
But if leaders are restricting non-leaders from using types of the Internet, how will non-leaders ever get their voice out? Cristina has a really good point: the Internet is supposed to be open to everyone, but it's not - maybe the Internet itself is becoming too elitist, which makes it no better than television and other media. And, will a new medium surface that actually IS a forum for more public discussion with less facilitation and censoring? Or will every new medium turn into an elitist forum?
-Abby R.
To begin, I'm completely on board with the Times decision to open its articles up for comment. While this does open many potentially dicey issues regarding censorship of obscene or objectionable posts, I think the Times has a good strategy for regulating it. That all reader submissions must be screened before appearing on the site doesn't strike me as elitist, but rather simply practical.
On many of the sports sites I look at (they do not appear to regulate posts) legitimate discussion surrounding the article or issue at hand becomes simply bogged down by people bashing the person or team in question. It is pretty easy to tell that these posters are simply trying to be disruptive, and most of the time they are quite effective.
One problem I see with the Times regulating system is that it will soon become swamped if more and more articles are opened up to reader discussion. It seems unlikely that in the future every single post will be able to be reviewed, as hiring a staff to do this would be very expensive. However, even if the majority of posts are regulated and some obscene or inappropriate posts do slip through the screening system, it shouldn't become to big of a distraction. As Hoyt said, the Times readers are some of the most "intelligent and sophisticated people on earth," and one would think they would be able to ignore such comments.
All in all, I think it is very important that the Times open its articles for comment in order to create a more active readership. As Croteau and Hoynes wrote, "If audiences are active interpreters or media and if different audiences have different backgrounds, social networks, and defining experiences, then it is likely there will be multiple interpretations of the same media text."
I think have readers be able to convey these "multiple interpretations" to other readers on the site is a valuable outlet for public discourse.
I agree with Sue’s point on the importance of examining the conditions of society that lead to the disturbing content Hoyt pushes to censor. Analyzing the mass communication process according to Stuart Hall’s model in Encoding/Decoding reveals how society has always affected the creation of media content, even before the prominence of internet feedback and discourse.
Hall would argue that even if not voiced through an online blog, the production structures of the mass media has never been a closed system. Journalists and the media use topics, treatments, agendas and definitions from the wider social and political structure of which they are apart of to create their message. Thus the audience is both “the source and the receiver of the television message and creation occurs from a cyclical process (196).
Hall also mentions that along with journalists drawing from their social worlds to present their story, communication always involves a decoding of the message by the reader. They translate the story, integrating the events within their own social relations and producing the message’s meaning (196).
From Hall’s model of the cyclical communication process, Hoyt’s argument to quiet uncivilized public discourse on the NYT’s site shows he does not understand how mass media messages affect readers. Audiences have always formed their own opinions after digesting information and most likely expressed these thoughts and opinions to others around them. Now readers just have the public arena of the NYT’s blog to reveal their understanding of the story versus a conversation with their friends. And drawing on Katz’s suggestion of the “two-step flow of communication” the past personal interactions regarding media messages may actually have had a larger affect on viewers then a stranger posting their radical reaction online.
My comments go back to McChesney and others who advocate for a democratization of media as opposed to power elite influences. Whoever heard of more voices being bad for discourse? As McChesney and others were quick to add, it will take awhile for Internet blogs and online newspapers with reader forums to catch on. But it will take the same trial and error and responsive process that greeted radio broadcasting in the 1920s and 1930s where regulation came about only with crowded, overlapping frequencies and a need to mae some order of chaos.
Tradition also finds it hard to give up control. In the case of online journalism, perhaps editors don't have the control they do over the paper op-ed pages or don't have the time or staff to deal with it. But if the NY Times or others want to have online journalism, it may require online editors or at least trained professionals to write Web material.
Kenneth Walsh, US News & World Report White House correspondent, spoke to Prof. Robinson's 800 class this week and said that Web writers would need journalistic training as the content becomes more popular. He encouraged journalists to maintain the skills associated with writing good quality stories within short times frames because of the need for more Web journalism to meet demand.
As Croteau and Hoynes, authors of Media/Society, and other scholars have asserted, people also tend to be more active consumers of media than the hypodermic theory or skpeticism about Web comments would suggest. It seems contributors would write discourse in appropriate ways. Anything less should get editorial attention first, if the goal is informed discussion.
As far as censorship, our in-class violence in media presentation today was excellent. The mock trial/debate voiced the need for responsible media and perhaps better self-regulation. But censorship of certain violent programs or texts implies direct causal relationships between media effects and extreme individual behaviors. If that was so, there would be thousands of crimes committed every day in reaction to a violent program. Censorship also says parents are free of any role in what children consume, also a troubling precedent.
The two sides need to collaborate on new guidelines rather than have productive interactions end with win-or-lose court decisions.
I also find myself in the middle on this debate. On the one hand, I agree with the McChesney democatic view of the media, and I think the more people involved in commenting on the media and the issues it covers is a good way to combat the hypodermic needle effect. At the same time, I think there needs to be a gatekeeping structure in place to make sure the level of discourse doesn't degenerate, as it did in this example, to name-calling, ultra-extremism, and the dissemination of ignorance.
But establishing a gatekeeping function in this type of communication is difficult. In all likelihood, the Times won't want to add staff ($$$) to supervise the posts. Another option would be to allow those reading the comments to complain or file a notification if they find a post to be offensive. Yet this also poses a problem, because people might take to reporting people with whom they disagree on political of philisophical grounds.
A perfect world would involve people being able to police themselves, but I just don't see that as realistic. I think, for the time being, the best solution is to simply ignore people who spout inflammatory comments just for the sake of doing so.
-Andrew
According to Katz and Lazarsfeld in their two-step flow of communication, opinion leaders interpret media messages and disseminate that information to the public. These opinion leaders “tend to be more highly exposed to the mass media than are the non-leaders,” (448). Today, however, it seems to me that non-leaders are becoming just as exposed to mass media and information as opinion leaders.
So, for the NYT example, what are usually considered non-leaders are stepping more into the opinion leader role. Commenters on NYT articles are able to actively interpret media messages and disseminate those interpretations via the space that the NYT has provided them. While they possibly do not have the same reach as traditional opinion leaders, their opinions, even if somewhat extreme or controversial, will help spark discussion both online and offline.
I don’t think the ‘voice of reason’ that Hoyt is so concerned about will be lost. Increased discourse will only lead to greater understanding of an issue or event. Hoyt needs to stop worrying about control and focus on the benefits of engagement and interactivity.
These two subjects really bother me.
The comments of the Times editors strike me as elitest as well, but on the other hand what are they supposed to do when members of society take advantage of the free comment situation. Because some members decide to take advantage of the situation, they ruin it for the rest of society.
I do not know how to set limits on this type of situation. I’m all about freedom of the press and the public, but when sides take advantage of the situation the outcome is worse for everyone. In class we’ve discussed the internet and how it has opened a box of worms in terms of the definition of journalism and regulations it allows and this is yet another example of the fine line. The posts by NYT columnists lends them some credibility because of the NYT name and their small amount of editor censorship. The public on the other hand can range from citizens very informed and concerned about a subject to Ray in Mexican Colony in LA. Does their background define their rights or should it? I think that even though Ray might be informed and concerned, the manner in which he expressed his feelings was very distasteful.
The reading from Katz Lazarsfeld articulated my feelings on the NYT and on “EnoughisEnough” when it said, “there is a need to inquire not only into the media exposure patterns of opinion leaders and the extent to which their own opinions and decisions are shaped by the media, but also into the different kinds of ‘uses’ to which the media are put by leaders in each realm, as compared with non-leaders.” (p 454)
The subject of the “EnoughisEnough” is different from the NYT because the NYT editors are censoring internet comments on their columnist’s works. This situation is a lack of censorship from the Viacom executives on their music artists. The reason that this situation is different is because the “EnoughisEnough” people are criticizing the executives instead of the artists from their own culture who are responsible for these stereotypes and for putting them down.
The public calls for freedom of expression but abused their rights in both cases. I would like to put down Clark Hoyt and others like him and rally for freedom of expression but I can’t because I sympathize with his ploy when idiots respond to NYT comments in inappropriate ways. I can also identify with the Viacom executives and their lack of censorship with their music artists because if the situation was the other way around and artists were censored in their music, the backlash would be just as severe. Why do members of the public have to be so insensitive! Ugh….I am frustrated.
Post a Comment