Keen's book addresses a multitude of concerns as to how the internet is ruining American culture but in regards to citizen journalism, he vehemently introduces concerns over the excess of information and the threat it poses on American democracy. Amateurs threaten the marketplace and detract from mainstream, reputable sources. Keen says that finances and training are at the base of good journalism, so while the internet provides a "soapbox" for any and everyone, the tools needed to create good news are lacking and so the information that is being spread is corrupt and inaccurate. Furthermore, Keen says that the information is highly biased and sensational, posing as news when it is really entertainment. Keen touches on the layman's ability to self publish as a danger because it introduces alot of misinformation into the market, making it more difficult for people to reach accurate information. Keen devalues citizen journalism's efforts to slay the major media industry "Goliaths" as he proposes that such intervention is not needed.

While I do not agree with Keen's argument I think his book illuminates a popular and partially true opinion about citizen journalism and journalists or "amateurs bloated with hot air" as he so eloquently puts it. Keen's point of attack is really credibility, which I think is a valid one. It is true that professional journalists are more liable in the court of law than amateur journalists are but I think this speaks more to the fact that the law hasn't caught up to the digital age, to this new space that exists outside of our physical world. One thing that Keen does agree with advocates of citizen journalism on is that this new type of journalism speaks to niche markets. Keen however debunks the importance of such markets; "...professional journalists can go to jail for telling the truth; amateurs talk to each other about their cars." Keen forces contemplation of whether or not the nature of news should be to inform or to converse. Questions of the quality of political discourse arise, which really comes down to whether or not more is better or if more is just more. Reading Keen's aritcle has made it clear that I will have to clearly distinguish the difference between entertainment/recreational blogging and legitimate citizen journalism. Keen seems to oscillate between criticizing "the amateur bloggers wax on trivial subjects like their favorite brand of breakfast cereal, or make of a car, or reality television personality" and blogs & websites with missions of informing the public of news worthy subjects that are not portrayed in the mainstream. Also, it could hardly be argued that all "news" in the mainstream is newsworthy. Ultimately, I think Keen's piece is necessary as it is a popular argument and so a relevant one. I would like to use his commentary on citizen journalism as a framework for debunking common myths.

 

"Powerlaws, Weblogs and Inequality." Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet - Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. 8 February 2003. .

While the internet does have the potential to give a voice to all who are digitally connected, what purpose does it serve if that voice is never heard or if it is not heard by a robust audience? Shirky speaks about the audience distribution of blogs, with 12% of blogs accounting for 50% of the web trafficing in the webworld. The popular belief that the blog world eliminates hierarchical power structures and systems of inequality is debunked. Shirky's basic argument is "Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality." All blogs can not be equally popular all the time. What's more is that the more popular a blog, the less conversational it becomes as it becomes more difficult to maintain personal relationships with subscribers. Instead of being a conversation forum, it becomes a one-way point of entry into information.Conversational blogs then become the "long tail" of blogs, those blogs with few subscribers that can neatly facilitate interactive experiences between blog subscriber and blogger.

This article begs two questions when discussing citizen journalism (in blog format or website format): 1) should news be conversational #2) does citizen journalism threaten the same discriminatory hierachies that originally catapulted news blogs? In Andrew Keen's book, "Cult of the amateur: how the internet is killing today's culture" he insists that news is not meant to be conversational, objectional reporting is not something to be discussed and weighed in on. Media professionals are meant to act as gatekeepers to newsworthy information, society has entrusted them with this responsibility and such a responsibility is not to be infringed upon by everyone's uinformed and even informed opinions. Centralized power exists to maintain accuracy and order but the internet is based on decentralized power.

Also, if the popularity of news blogs is a result of the mainstream media's abuse of power, do online blogs threaten to recreate these same power structures and consequentially the same abuses? Theories purported by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrell suggest that this is unlikely. Accroding to Drezner and Farrell, the news blogs often do not just serve as news resources but also as part of a checks and balances system for the mainstream. Therefore, their position in the news world is fostered in relation to the mainstream media's abuse of power.

 

Shirky's book discusses the rise of amateurism, covering everything from collective thought and publishing (i.e. Wikepedia) to the ways in which digital technology (i.e. phone and email) has transposed itself into real world law and interactions. In his chapter, "Everyone is a Media Outlet"  Shirky discusses the definition of professionalism and how it relates to certain professions. His argument is that the internet has upset the very foundation of certain professions (i.e. photography, journailsm). By definition, professionals do not exist in mass. Not everyone is a professional photographer just because they take a picture, just like not everyone is  journalist because they convey information to the public, even if it is newsworthy information. That technology and the internet has provided a platform for the world to access is undeniable but the ways in which the world is now able to access this information (i.e. news blogs, photosharing websites) threatens to revolutionize certain professional systems.

Shirky's chapter is imperative to any discussion of citizen journalism because he differentiates between professionals and non-professionals who perform professional acts such as the blogger who is dedicated to providing the public with accurate newsworthy information but holds no credentials and is not recognized in the journalistic profession. Professionals, in any field, are identified as such not just through the work that they create but through their training, through their peers and through their scarcity. Shirky reframes and takes a step back from the ethical arguments over the responsibilities of citizen journalists to an argument about whether or not they are professionals in the first place and what implications the answer to that question makes. This would seem an insignificant question, but in fact it helps sort through a host of issues. The definition of a professional renders citizen journalists as unprofessional because professionals do not exist in mass, which begs the question of whether or not the citizen journalist can be afforded certain journalistic privileges. 

What's more is that the internet has now given the citizen the ability to determine what is newsworthy, to give face to issues that may have previously been ignored by professionals due to financial or editorial restrictions or bring under-the-radar events or public opinion to the forefront, or rather front page of print.

The purpose of this project is to analyze the recent phenomenon of citizen journalism. The internet has created a new platform for the creation and distribution of information. The layman or amateur is now able to perform professional functions through news websites, blogs, photo sharing sites, etc. Newsworthy material is no longer guarded by a select few people who the general public must depend on to remain informed. With this new power that the layman has yielded comes responsibility though... or does it? Should the layman be held accountable by the same standards as a traditional journalist, if they are in fact performing the same function? Furthermore, is it really possible for an amateur to perform the same function as a professional? This is to say much of what makes a professional is based on the technology they have access to, a journalist is not simply a journalist simply because he writes or even because he has studied journalism but because he is a part of a recognized industry. Other issues surrounding the move of traditional print news sources move to the internet are to be discussed. What threat do citizen journalists pose to traditional papers' websites? Can anyone really compete with the Washington Post or the New York Times? Perhaps most importantly the question of why citizen journalism became so popular will be addressed. I hypothesize that technology has a great deal to do with it. People create blogs and offer their opinion to the digitally connected world simply because they are now able to. High quality camera phones and digital cameras allow us to interact in a way and with an immediacy that was never possible before, so why not indulge. But, beyond egotistical motivations I think cross media market monopolies must be held accountable. The homogenization of news material, amongst other things, has forced the "amateur" to take news gathering into his own hands. With the help of the FCC and deregulation, media conglomerates are now able to own mostly all of the venues of information for entire markets. Television stations, radio stations (i.e. Clear Channel) and newspapers are all owned by the same company in some markets, which begs the question what is being fed to the public? If we depend on these limited resources to inform an ever growing populace, everything from what the local weather will be like to how we will vote for the future of our country, then a lack of diverse opinions threatens democracy. I this very homogenization is part of the reason that the citizen has taken things into his own hands to become an autonomous news source.

Overholser, Geneva. "On Behalf of Journalism: A Manifesto for Change." Philadelphia: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. 2009.

Overholser's article follows a June 2005 gathering of journalists and scholars at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and many of her arguments stem from the discussions at that seminar. While maintaining a realistic and attainable vision of the future of journalism (and practical admission that "journalism as we know it is over"), Overholser argues that journalism is ideally a marshall of democracy and necessary to American freedom and must (and will) continue to exist, just in a new form. By discussing the responsibilities of journalists - as ethical, objective, professional, accountable sources - along with the responsibilities of the public and the government to support journalism in its ideal form, Overholser asserts that "what's needed is wide-open thinking about how consumers use information, and where they are getting it, and how old media companies can fulfill those needs while bringing the best of their traditions onto new platforms."

Overholser's article is comprehensive, realistic, and yet hopeful. Her refreshing outlook is that journalism has changed for good, but that that change is a welcome chance to re-evaluate, throw out the tired and unhealthy aspects of 'old world' media, and recommit to the "core values of the craft." She examines several options for the future of journalism – non-profit status, local ownership, media ownership rules, greater professionalization of 'citizen journalists' by means of agreed-upon standards – and all with the outlook that since the public will demand goof work, journalism will be here for the long haul. Overholser adeptly suggests that the problem with modern journalism isn't in the journalists, but in the public; and we must be encouraging better civics and news literacy education to help the public play their role better. It isn't journalism - the protector of democracy and leader in civic education - that is in danger of death, it is the media news conglomorates, and Overholser seems optimistic that their deaths may not injure democracy much.

Thesis: As news and journalism shifts to the internet, new technologies will inherently alter the core of journalism  in methods of research and accountability, in distribution models, and especially in how journalism interacts with its audience and learns to utilize 'citizen journalists' and produce more user-driven content.

Bercovici, Jeff. "'Citizen Journalists' Don't Get a Pass on Ethics." Conde Nast Portfolio June 2008 .

This brief article serves as a introduction to the controversy surrounding citizen journalist Mayhill Fowler. Fowler recently received media attention because of her coverage of Barack Obama; she audio recorded Obama's comment about "bitter" small town voters. Obama was not made aware by Fowler that this recording would be published. Bercovici charges Fowler's recording and publishing of Obama's comment as unethical, hence the title of the article. Bercovici also bring in, very briefly, the opposing commentary, made by NYU Journalism Professor, Jay Rosen; "Fowler didn't have much time to identify herself as a journalist (in the latter instance) and, moreover, because she's not a journalist in that sense that she's only one of very many unpaid contributors to Off The Bus. "I'm not sure we can tell all 1,700 contributors, 'You're all reporters for the Huffington Post... That's not really true.'"

This case highlights, perhaps the largest, controversial issue of blogging. According to Bercovici, Fowler acted unethically by failing to inform Obama that his comment would be recorded and potentially published. but the larger issue being discussed is whether or not news bloggers should and can be held to the same standard as professional/traditional journalists. Had Fowler been a professional journalist, any question of ehtics would have been easily decided - she would be charged with acting unethically but because Fowler does not hold the official title of journalist, can we still hold her to the same professional standards.

Holding citizen journalists to a professional standard implicates more than issues of ethical practice but also issues of content. That is to say, is it fair to expect the highest quality (professional even) news reporting from citizen journlists but not hold them to the same ethical standard that we hold professionals to. Can we consider a citizen journalist a professional in some regards and not in others? I would propose that the answer to this question is no, but that is not to say that Fowler acted unethically. The role of the citizen journalist is very unique to the modern world, with the internet and technological advances, the internet has not only created a new space that must be governed rather precariously but it has also given rise to a new populous of peole who occupy that space. The citizen journlaist is one of the new characters that occupies that space and consequently the guidelines that dictate their roles in this new space are different from those of a traditional journalists. Bercovici's last line, "Being a "citizen journalist" doesn't mean you get to pose as a citizen and then publish as a journalist." effectively rams this controversial point home because the very title "citizen journalist" indicates that one can do exactly that, straddle their citizen and journalist roles but which aspects of each should citizen journalists exercise.

Newspaper Revitalization Act 2009.<http://cardin.senate.gov/pdfs/newspaperbill.pdf> March 24, 2009.

If it pases, this proposed legislation by Senator Cardin will allow certain newspapers with 'educational' value to restructure as non-profits and benefit from tax-exemption under IRS code 501(a).

This proposal is one of many ideas that are currently on the table to 'rescue' the faltering newspaper industry. According to many sources, this legislation will not suffice to solve the problems of journalism (for a full critique see "Saving the News"), but it may provide a new avenue for some newspapers. Furthermore, the bill may suffice to protect enough investigative journalism to protect democracy, while other solutions turn to helping media turn a profit and meet the needs of the public.

Kramer, Joel. "Lessons I’ve learned after a year running MinnPost." Nieman Journalism Lab. March 19, 2009.

This anecdotal article by Joel Kramer provides insight into some of the challenges to professional online journalism. His brief and readable story of running the online news site, MinnStar, addresses issues such as user commentary, video integration, and start-up costs.

Kramer's most important point for my thesis is his process of screening user commentary with volunteer moderators. As he puts it, "We took plenty of heat from web-savvy readers for this decision. But as readers have watched the quality of comment on respected sites that don’t require real names, many are now grateful for our approach. Recently we published our 7,000th comment. Some sites with looser standards appear to be reconsidering their no-holds-barred policies." This MinnStar policy may or may not be forward thinking, but it is an example of one version of user interaction with news sites. MinnStar doesn't use citizen journalism the way, say, TalkingPointsMemo, does, but according to Kramer, they are exploring possibilities. This demonstrates the lack of an industry standard for harnessing citizen journalists, but emphasizes the growing awareness for policies and methods for intertwining professional quality journalism and usergenerated content.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The State of the News Media: an annual report on american journalism."

This annual report from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports on the state of online jornalism. With substantial charts and research, the overview is an accurate discussion of both where many news organizations stand currently and where they may be (and some are) heading in the furture. The report's thorough treatment of both online content and economic viability address both the demands of the public and the needs of news reporting organizations.

The report provides valuable support for my thesis with its statistic and solid reporting. One particularly valuable section is the survey on "Top Issues in Online Media vs. Media Over All." The chart demonstrates that though the top three news story subjects (election, U.S. economy, Iraq War) are mirrored between online and all media, beyond that the statistics vary. Online, users have more say regarding which issues are covered, it is easy to track exactly which stories are most read, most shared, most commented on; in a print newspaper, information is much more general. This chart exposes how media overall may not be addressing the issues that are actually of most interest to their constituents. And, of interest to my thesis, it supports the idea that as more media incorporates methods for users to share and comment and contribute to media stories, the gap between stories that interest users and ones that do not interest them will widen as sites like Digg bring user approved content back to the top over and over, while stories of no interest to readers die after one day (or hour) on the front page.

Keller, Bill. “Not Dead Yet: The newspaper in the days of digital anarchy.” Lecture delivered at The Guardian in honor of Hugo Young. November, 29 2007. guardian.co.uk

In addition to providing an intellectual analysis of the future of journalism, Bill Keller’s address (appropriately for his audience) begins sentimentally, with anecdotes about Hugh Young, The New York Times, The Guardian and journalism as a profession. But halfway through the address Keller provides the meat of his discussion, which is his educated opinion about the future of newspapers and journalism.

Keller's main argument emphasizes that the differences between the investigative reporting of The New York Times or The Guardian and GoogleNews or Wikipedia's "legions of bloggers." "What is absent from the vast array of new media outlets is," Keller argues, "the great engine of newsgathering – the people who witness events, ferret out information, supply context and explanation." Though Keller rightly points out that opinion and journalism are different, he falsely accuses all internet commentors and 'citizen journalists' of being holed up behind computer screens rather than being active human participants in the world. Certainly there are differences between bloggers and journalists, but what Keller seems to mistake is that journalists must be associated with The Times or The Guardian or The Boston Globe in order to be investigative journalists, or even to "witness events," "ferret out information" or "supply context and explanation."

European Publishers Council. "Hamburg Declaration Regarding Intellectual Property Rights." Berlin: European Publishers Council. June 25, 2009.

This brief statement from the European Publishers Council (EPC) argues for "urgent improvements in the protection of intellectual property on the Internet." Without providing an answer to the problem or even asserting a path toward improvement of the situation, the statement simply places the onus of blame on sites that index their content. Meanwhile, the statement applauds national and internation governments for their efforts to protect international property.

Practically speaking, this statement is fairly ineffectual. Google's response has been essentially, "Go ahead and stop us from indexing your content" – a response that clearly demonstrates how vital news aggregation is to online media. Without offering a solution that will help users find content online while also crediting the correct sources, the EPC doesn't have much weight to throw around. This statement, instead, serves as a thermometer of the rising tension between investigative journalists and news aggregation websites.

Alterman, Eric. "The News Business: Out of Print: The death and life of the American newspaper." The New Yorker. March 31, 2008.

In this article, Alterman discusses the advantages, disadvantages, history, debates, and differing opinions concerning the migration of journalism from print to the internet. He begins by laying the scene, briefly calling on the history of print journalism while discussing current trends and the current bleak state of affairs for print media. The bulk of the article outlines the differences – good and bad – between internet blogging and news aggregation sites and traditional newsroom journalism. Alterman’s main argument centers around the Huffington Post, a political news and gossip website, as an example of the future of journalism. Central to Alterman’s discussion is the role of the reader/consumer of news. Using the contrast between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey's differing ideas of idylic political journalism, Alterman argues that the Internet is the swing from Lippmannesque (boys club, top down media) to Deweyish (public opinion driven, community contribution media) philosophies of journalism. Alterman’s prognosis is gloomy, particularly since he dwells on the fact that many online news sites prefer to aggregate news from print media, heresay and user commentary rather than funding their own investigative journalism.

Alterman’s argument addresses the central theme of my thesis: the difference between traditional journalism and internet-generation journalism. His discussion of 'the mullet strategy' (where websites like The Huffington Post keep a closely edited front page but allow users to fill their subpages with unedited commentary and opinion), is an excellent analysis of how media companies might control but still incorporate public contribtions. Alterman's article also raises an important issue concerning the future of journalism: that The Huffington Post flags stories from other news sources but "shoulders none of the costs" of investigating and writing the story. This issue is indeed central to the discussion, but Alterman's argument falters when he claims that The Huffington Post's hiring of Thomas Edsall, a forty-year veteran of The Washington Post, as its political editor is a "rare" example. For a foward-looking article such as this, Alterman could be expected to see that such hirings might very quickly become industry standard. And as print journalism aficionados move toward 'citizen journalism' sites, their presence will provide credibility and professionalism for the front page, and probably beyond.

McLeary, Paul. "How TalkingPointsMemo Beat the Big Boys on the U.S. Attorney Story." Columbia Journalism Review. March 15, 2007.

This article by Paul McLeary overviews the role the news and gossip website TalkingPointsMemo played in breaking a news story about illegal firings of U.S. Attorneys. The article focuses on the ability of TalkingPointsMemo to bring a story to light in a different way than was possible for traditional journalists. TalkingPointsMemo, McLeary points out, harnessed their online sources effectively to tap a "variety of sources that had been largely untapped by the mainstream press" and to break the story before most traditional press rooms.

The method of journalism outlined by McLeary serves as an example of a possible model for future journalism. TalkingPointsMemo's success with the U.S. Attorney story exemplifies a hybrid method of journalism wherein 'citizen journalism' is combined with an editorial process to create reliable stories quickly and effectively. McLeary points out that sites like TalkingPointsMemo that display a "model of reporting [that] ... straddl[es] the divide between old school shoe-leather reporting and the more aggregate method of Web reporting" are rare, but if the effectiveness continues, the scarcity won't last long.

Victor Pickard, Josh Stearns & Craig Aaron. "Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy." May 12, 2009. www.freepress.net.

This article thoroughly outlines the state of affairs of journalism and news in America today and offers a comprehensive summary of most of the possible options for moving forward successfully. They examine the struggles of American newspapers today – in dealing with the economic downturn, internet competition and mistrust of the media. The authors address options as typical as media consolidation, the ‘do nothing’ approach and foundation support, and as creative as online micropayment, postal and print subsidies, municipal ownership and prepackaged bankruptcies. They argue that there is not a single ‘right’ answer that will solve the problems facing journalism today, but that a strategic national solution is necessary to protect the ‘lifeblood of democracy,’ journalism.

The authors' arguments are all firmly in favor of journalism, adamantly arguing that the practice is necessary to American democracy and that a natioanl strategy is necessary to preserve the practice. Their argument that investigative journalism is a cut above and better than opinion and commentary on the internet is certainly accurate, but they do not allow that opinion, commentary, and user interaction with news can enhance, support, and alter journalism significantly (and certainly sometimes for the better). It does not allow for journalism to morph with the changing media, for investigative journalism to find new methods of research and discovery just as it is finding new methods of publication. But that aside, the methods discussed are both clear, comprehensive, and realistic. Anyone striving to protect and preserve traditional journalism techniques should certainly read this article for an overview of the options.

Kaufman vs. Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, INC., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrannt County and Muslim American Society of Dallas. No. 2-09-023-CV. January 22, 2009.

This court of appeals decision from Texas rules on the case of Kaufman, the author of an online article asserting that Islamic extremists and terrorists were invading Six Flags during their Muslim Family Day. The court decided in favor of Kaufman, arguing that his article did not refer to any of the groups that filed suit against him, and that a 'reasonable reader' would in no way link the groups and implicate the Islamic groups in question with the groups mentioned by Kaufman as terrorist affiliated. The court asserts that "...an internet author's status as a member of the electronic media should be adjudged by the same principles that courts should use to determine the author's status under more traditional media." It's decision classifies Kaufman as an 'online journalist' and argues that his legal rights are thus equal to those of traditional journalists.

Though the court's decision in favor of Kaufman holds little bearing on my thesis, their ruling affects the validity and status of online journalism because it equates it with print and traditional journalism. They argued that a blogger writing without an editor and without performing investigation and substantiation of their claims would not necessarliy be considered an online journalist and would not necessarily receive the same legal rights as online journalists like Kaufman. The questions is, of course, what makes Kaufman a 'journalist'. The court quoted U.S.C.A 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) (West Supp. 2009), arguing that media includes "any 'person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the way materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'" By this measure, bloggers who discuss news (as opposed to just personal experience and opinion) are certainly included in the realm of online media.

relationships among people via-social network maps

To help convey the changing nature of Town Lake's shorelines, this map provides a comprehensive look at dozens of projects either planned or in progress. Shown are both city projects on public land (A-G) and developments on privately owned land (1-24). Projects noted on map are explained below.

epstein writes about hollywood, diamonds and everything else.

sometimes he writes for slate 

CDT is run
by the Berkeley China Internet Project out of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Washington Post site dedicated to the film. Includes links to other sites with information about Watergate and the film, as well as the original news story by Woodward and Bernstein.

    Chapter 6 of Journalism in the Movies deals with films about conspiracy and paranoia. Ehrlich argues that the collapse of the Production Code, Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, and other factors contributed to a general feeling of mistrust and angst in the 1970’s and that this feeling was reflected in the films made during the decade. To make his argument, he focuses on movies that center around the media and with journalists as crusaders against evil and corruption. Specifically, he compares the style and content of All the President’s Men and Network. While All the President’s Men portrays the men who work for the newspaper as “a shining beacon of truth,” Network focuses on a television network that is part of a larger evil involving the rest of corporate America. Additionally, while the former film was produced in documentary style, the later is exaggerated and satirical.
    More than any other aspect of the film, the image of the two young reporters remains in the minds of those who have seen it. Yet, as has been discussed at length, there is a controversy surrounding the accuracy of the portrayal of the journalists. Ehrlich analyzes the validity of this controversy by comparing he actual events of Watergate with the account of the journalists’ role in these events in the movie. According to Ehrlich, Nixon was reelected despite Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation, and he did not run into serious political trouble until the Senate hearings that occurred a year after the first article was published in the Washington Post. In fact, Nixon did not resign until after the book by the same name as the film was published. So, Ehrlich concludes, the reporters were certainly not responsible for Nixon’s fall from glory. However, the film accentuates their role by establishing the main characters as “fearless foes of corruption” in a mysterious and believable “documentary-noir” style executed by director Alan J. Pakula. The movie is relatively straightforward in its analysis of good and evil. The office of the Washington Post is brightly lit, while most of the rest of Washington D.C. is shrouded in darkness.
    As a result of their portrayal in All the President’s Men, Woodward and Bernstein have become the central players in America’s collective memory of Watergate. The screenwriter, Goldman, cut out parts of the book involving the senate hearings and many government figures who helped bring down the president, assuming that the audience could “fill in the rest of the story for themselves.” In 1976, this may have been the case. However, the movie has helped to determine which aspects of the story have been transferred “from fact to legend,” and the parts that we are expected to fill in become markedly less glamorous without the benefit of handsome actors and the infusion of drama through “shadowy scenes.” Even today, Woodward and Bernstein “remain securely ensconced in American mythology.”

Penn's favorite Arts & Entertainment DP Thursday insert is online!

This is a very short article about the influences of blogs upon journalism and users of the internet. it primarily talks about the unresolved issues of open source media without digging very deep into some of the causes for such issues.