<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for laheadle</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/laheadle/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/laheadle/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:17:30 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Rebooting The News #16</title><link>http://rebootnews.com/2009/07/13/00020.html#comment-12635267</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is fantastic and I'll spare you the praise, except to say&lt;br&gt;I'm struck by a shared concern for the art of conversation: I saw&lt;br&gt;the show itself as a conversation shepherded by two exquisite&lt;br&gt;conversationalists.  My critique is that y'all are dichotomizing&lt;br&gt;omniscience and "here's where I'm coming from" a bit sharply.&lt;br&gt;Aren't these two poles of a continuum?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Historically perhaps the dichotomy is valid; we're emerging from a&lt;br&gt;period of "excess objectivity" and learning how to incorporate&lt;br&gt;multiple perspectives.  But in terms of method, news will always seek&lt;br&gt;out a kind of reliable perspective that is essentially shared and not&lt;br&gt;individual.  The question for rebooters is how to best achieve this&lt;br&gt;shared reliability -- and how to incorporate a diversity of&lt;br&gt;perspectives as essential elements of it.  (cf. Jay's origin story --&lt;br&gt;Starting from the premise that participation is an essential component&lt;br&gt;of journalism).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Walter Lippman &lt;a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=eLobn4WwbLUC&amp;amp;dq=walter%20lippmann%20public%20opinion%20book&amp;amp;pg=PA55" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://books.google.com/books?id=eLobn4WwbLUC&amp;amp;dq=walter%20lippmann%20public%20opinion%20book&amp;amp;pg=PA55"&gt; identified an early version of the problem &lt;/a&gt; in 1922:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The powerful, socially superior, successful, rich, urban social set is&lt;br&gt;fundamentally international throughout the western hemisphere and in&lt;br&gt;many ways London is its center. It counts among its membership the&lt;br&gt;most influential people in the world, containing as it does the&lt;br&gt;diplomatic set, high finance, the upper circles of the army and the&lt;br&gt;navy, some princes of the church, a few great newspaper proprietors,&lt;br&gt;their wives and mothers and daughters who wield the scepter of&lt;br&gt;invitation. It is at once a great circle of talk and a real social&lt;br&gt;set. But its importance comes from the fact that here at last the&lt;br&gt;distinction between public and private affairs practically&lt;br&gt;disappears. The private affairs of this set are public matters, and&lt;br&gt;public matters are its private, often its family affairs. The&lt;br&gt;confinements of Margot Asquith like the confinements of royalty are,&lt;br&gt;as the philosophers say, in much the same universe of discourse as a&lt;br&gt;tariff bill or a parliamentary debate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So the challenge for rebooters is to split this center of intersection&lt;br&gt;between public and private into multiple centers which together add up&lt;br&gt;to a higher, more reliable, more democratic union.  IMHO, that is.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for a great show.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Lyn Headley</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:17:30 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>