Hard News: Quantum Faster
379 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
oddly enough, not even the most clever clogs of journos is a card carrying mastermind on every subject they're tossed at.
I'd be happier if they did a little more research to find out, rather than parroting the talking points in the press release.
-
Al, I think there's world of difference between stories about something that happened to a person or family and the spun world of politics and commerce.
-
again, for sure. I can only discuss my experience.
everyone brings their own when they're writing, as well as that of the contact list they have assembled.
it all comes down to time and i guess a sense of responsibility to your audience, as with everything, that will differ widely if not wildly.
but I'm not here to defend my work mates, I'm just waiting for a lift.
-
it all comes down to time and i guess a sense of responsibility to your audience
Quite. I really do feel for journos these days having to balance community accountability, professional pride and established standards against the same pressure to deliver timely content in the face of steadily diminishing resources.
-
amen - except you didn't mention the crap pay.
still, wouldn't want to do anything else. I even got to go on a ghost hunt this year. dead 'ard news me these days.
anyway, thar she blows.
cheery-bye.
-
yeah, sure, but I think we're talking about different things here. I was replying to danielle's 'knowing history' line.
for mine, life experience is far more useful when you're face to face with the mother of a dead child than an understanding of what some French philosopher has to say on deconstructionalism.
It's often overlooked how much of journalism is interacting with people, sometimes in unusual circumstances. My experience certainly helps me conduct myself better.
But I do think having some key historical narratives in your head is useful in doing many kinds of journalism (not least, running media panel discussions on TV shows). At the least, you know where to start in the clippings file. You'll also see angles and make connections that aren't immediately obvious.
Of course, much of that is a product of age and experience. I'm okay with political basic political history from about 1972. Before that's a blur ...
That's why the exodus from journalism by experienced practitioners is such a concern.
-
The lack of investment into harvesting and sharing treasured knowledge from experienced practitioners is not unique to news media. Sadly.
-
do think having some key historical narratives in your head is useful in doing many kinds of journalism
Absolutely agree.
And the point of the pomo theory brigade is surely that those narratives themselves need examination from time to time. How were they shaped? Whom do they serve? Do the entities they present really have an objective reality? (By that last, I mean for example whether looking at things like whether people called "leaders" really represent the groups they ostensibly lead, whether those groups deserve to be lumped together as one, that kind of thing).
Grasping the big picture is vital and important, so is deconstructing the picture and seeing whether you can do something else with the material.
-
as for what danielle was referring to, the most dangerous situation is often when someone is writing about something they think they know pat. that way lies the tar pits.
I think it's safe to say that historians don't think they know anything pat. That's why they're always arguing with each other. It's also why the only history books anyone actually reads are usually written by journalists. :)
-
It's also why the only history books anyone actually reads are usually written by journalists. :)
Thank you Thank you Thank you for the most uplifting comment I've seen all week.
(OK, I'm a journalist in the middle of trying to write a history book and wondering whether its worth it).
-
I would like to think journalists have at least been exposed to Foucault's ideas. For example his ideas on biopolitics and how target populations are constructed as problematic and therefore require surveillance and interventions. So medical and other specialities develop to control them and profit from this apparent expertise over another group. And other citizens are encouraged to take on surveillance and intervention of these powerless groups of people too, which perpetuates it all.
This has been useful in my own understanding of autism for example, but equally important in understanding health, crime, economics, biotechnology, justice etc
-
I hope you appreciate my restraint in not actually calling you to the rescue there ysterday, Hilary. :-)
*I only said that so Gio would splutter. Italianly. Because that's where he's originally from.
Hah!
-
What I value most from the cultural theorists I've tangled with is the understanding that culture is negotiated, and is never context-free. I just wish there were more simple ways of saying that.
-
Check out Mark's pisstake link on t'other thread about "How to Handcraft an Achingly Self-Referential Virtual Commodity Fetish Object (For Fun and Profit!)".
In this easy-to-follow seven-step Instructable, you will learn how to turn a weightless virtual commodity into a lovingly handmade piece of artisanal craftwork fated to collapse into its own meta-indexical core like the semiotic black hole it is.
-
What I value most from the cultural theorists I've tangled with is the understanding that culture is negotiated, and is never context-free. I just wish there were more simple ways of saying that.
Well, you put it pretty simply, didn't you? By the same token, teasing out context, what context means in society, culture and the media is not a simple matter. A lot of people seem to think it should be clear as day or written in a quasi-journalistic language that everybody can understand, but they conveniently forget that that language is not just effective in communication, it's also often ambiguous in its imprecision and limiting of what you can say. Not everything can or indeed should be reduced to the poverty of discourse of your average Listener lead story.
-
No, but there is no reason to retreat into the dense prose of some PoMo writing. If you have a clear point to make, then you should be able to state it clearly. I suspect that some theorists are just using difficult words to sound clever and to conceal the paucity of their thinking.
-
Those who advocate the deconstruction of the work of lesser mortals tend to take it badly when it's their turn to be deconstructed.
-
I suspect that some theorists are just using difficult words to sound clever and to conceal the paucity of their thinking.
No doubt. But there are people like that in any field of endeavour, using the specialist's language as a bludgeon. In the case of postmodernist thinkers (itself a pretty limiting label, but it will do in the context of this discussion), that complaint is used in a blanket manner, mostly by people who can't, won't and resent having to deal with the kind of questioning that those ideas entail. Derrida's writing is dense, so - at times - is Foucault's. Yet their thinking, I would argue, is profound and relevant. It's up to others perhaps to distill it in simpler ways for a larger audience, but we shouldn't expect them to have done it themselves, to have sacrificed complexity in favour of having a larger audience, or of attracting less antipathy (some will remember the shameful obituary of Derrida by the NYT, and the polemic that followed). We don't ask it of physicists, please oh Mr Einstein could you make relativity easier to understand, and interestingly we don't ask it of other philosophers in that very lineage. Nobody really complains that Wittgenstein was such a dense writer.
-
I agree, Giovanni - making it too simple loses the point. But there has to be a "way in" before it can become a more broadly engaging, less elitist conversation.
It takes more work and skill to find simple words (and it is something I really want to get better at). I reckon dense academic wankery reflects lack of ability or time more than a desire to obscure or to preserve an exclusive club.
I also believe there is a place for beauty and grace in the language that explores our complex contexts. I wonder if some of what I have read sounds any more fittingly magical in French? You might know - is anyone weaving Maori or Pacific ideas, words and ways of telling stories into the evolving practise here?
-
I wrote that before seeing Giovanni's last post.
-
I find Wittgenstein very lucid, but perhaps that is just me.
The comparison with Einstein is not just, because everything in Relativity is mathematical. Its claims can be demonstrated or disproved. The same could not be said of Derrida or any philosopher.
"... that complaint is used in a blanket manner, mostly by people who can't, won't and resent having to deal with the kind of questioning that those ideas entail." Perhaps some people think the questions do not make sense, let alone the answers.
-
We don't ask it of physicists, please oh Mr Einstein could you make relativity easier to understand
Good point - and look how many decades it took for quantum experts to catch up with some of his ideas.
-
Sometimes "clarity" does not illuminate the messy beauty of the world, despite its tempting reassurance of truth.
-
I would like to see Russell interviewing Giovanni about the importance of Foucault. Perhaps ask Jim Mora along too as he often drops Monsieur F into his afternoon conversations.
As for those comments about journalists or historians writing history. The more history the better I say - all the more history to contest.
-
I reckon dense academic wankery reflects lack of ability or time more than a desire to obscure or to preserve an exclusive club.
I think someone has said this before, but I'll repeat in paraphrase.
Academic papers aren't normally written for a non-academic audience, so there's no point taking the time and length to bring the language down to a layman's level.
In the most case it doesn't represent lack of ability or time. Lots of academics can write and speak wonderfully on their topic, but they're simply applying a horses for courses approach. If only 100 people read a journal, why would you write for the million that don't read it? That's an entirely different book.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.