Talk:Open Journalism: Principles and Practices/Newsworthy/American Journalism

Current Interpretation
What are the differences between recency and immediacy? In a world where traditional news is printed the next day, and where, citizen journalists can write and post about an event while at the event, do these distinctions still bring anything relevant?

Currency, as relevance to current concerns, has something I like. But people's concerns will not just shape the news articles they read, but their concerns will shape how they read it and what they get from the article. So how, as a journalist, do you write to concerns. (What are concerns...)

And what role does the media play in shaping the concerns of the public? Americans would not be concerned about Darfur if the media did not show that and bring it to the forefront.

--Sarahcove 07:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A Rearticulation
(In this area, I was struggling with what is timeliness. I react to "news should be timely" as something that is obvious.  But as I tried to see why it was obvious, I couldn't build anything.  Is there any reason why I, as a reader, really need to know whether a restaurant down the street opened yesterday or opened a week ago?  Would I be less interested in it if it was reported later?  I found out about Senator Allen being caught on tape using racist language maybe a week or more after it happened and it was still interesting for me.  From the perspective of a competitive newspaper, I can see the advantage of timeliness.  You want to be the first discloser; otherwise what you say won't be news.  But, if newsworthy is "[stories] that the public crave," is this newsworthy?  Anyway, below are my attempts/questions at a new understanding of time in journalism and the different roles that can be played in different temporal dimensions.) --Sarahcove 07:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is time?
Biologically (The numbers represent different temporal moments.): --Sarahcove 07:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) An event occurs: a biological unity observes/reacts to it. This observer's first-order reactions are assessments about the event which orient it to a certain future.  For example, you are walking down the street and you hear metal crunching -- a car crash.  "Oh shit.  What was that?" as your body becomes exhilarated and you move your eyes to the direction of the noise.
 * 2) A second observer of the first observer builds story about the first observer occurrence. (someone please refine this)  "Man, that white car ran that red and spun that red car right around. But you know, accidents at this light are very common.  I've seen six already this year.  It's because that large tree covers the red lights.  I should write to the city about this.
 * 3) A third observer ...

If we claim the Internet network is a fast, well-coordinated organism. Then temporal dimensions in Citizen Journalism could exist in: --Sarahcove 07:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Citizen journalists report on an event while it happens. The technology we have today: the cell phone cameras, wifi, podcasts, bring the world to the networked web in the moment an event happens.  The network reacts to the initial event.  (Thirty-five more American soldiers died in Iraq this week.)
 * 2) People begin commenting on the event, bringing new observers to the event. We build stories and links between them.  (Citizen journalists could provide the rigor in the narratives.)  ("This is a horrible war, the government hasn't managed it well and needs to pull out." or "We need to continue and clean up the mess we have made.")
 * 3) Citizen journalists observe, make present, and refine the distinctions that are being used for observing the world and providing linkages. (How are Americans viewing their role in this war?  What are the perspectives of other world communities?  What new perspectives or interpretations can they offer us?)