Submitted by amyclark on Tue, 01\/05\/2010 – 2:34pm<\/p>\n
Session Reporter: <\/strong>Chris Thomas<\/p>\n Conversationalist 1: <\/strong> Amy Clark<\/p>\n Conversationalist 2: <\/strong> Chris Thomas<\/p>\n Amy and I are already acquainted but hadn\u2019t spoken in a while, so it was great to catch up! First, I think we were surprised to note that both of us feel somewhat isolated in our jobs \u2013 hers in a nonprofit organization (Washington Low Income Housing Alliance); mine as a radio news producer (Public News Service). We both are hoping for a sense of community and a healthy dose of \u201cgreater purpose\u201d in attending the (un)conference. I think it\u2019s cool that Amy is taking the time to learn more about how the news biz works. She sees this get-together as \u201cpart of a larger movement,\u201d and wants to know more about what it takes \u201cto make important stories appear.\u201d<\/p>\n We both acknowledge the sometimes-uncomfortable blurring of lines between news and opinion, as well as between reporters and community\/nonprofit groups that provide story ideas, and we feel there must be continued separation in order to maintain legitimacy. We also acknowledge that\u2019s getting tougher to do.<\/p>\n Amy shared an interesting observation about the recent Seattle housing levy (local ballot issue). Her group had a blog response team monitoring online commentary\u2026and chose specifically to ignore the Seattle Times online \u201cLetter to the Editor\u201d posts. She says the Times\u2019 reader commentaries have \u201cdevolved\u201d to the \u201clowest common denominator,\u201d full of vitriol, racism and sexism. We discussed whether it\u2019s intentional that the paper\u2019s management has allowed this to happen in the interest of not censoring anyone. Amy also wonders to what extent blogs and rants \u2013 or even run-of-the-mill newspaper stories \u2013 are \u201cclosed loops\u201d nowadays, read only by an audience predisposed to whatever views are already being espoused. \u201cWhen a story comes out about what we\u2019re doing, for instance,\u201d she says, \u201cWe all send the link to our supporters, our mailing lists. But is anyone else reading it? Is that really meaningful \u2018outreach\u2019?\u201d It\u2019s a good point.<\/p>\n On the topic of how journalism helps communities, Amy notes that The Stranger\u2019s political endorsements were more on-target (well, except that tub of Crisco in lieu of either candidate) than the Seattle Times\u2019. \u201cThe Stranger is certainly not as legitimately unbiased,\u201d she says, \u201cbut its staff understood the public better than the Times.\u201d<\/p>\n We discussed where the lines are drawn for advocacy versus \u201cstraight reporting,\u201d and both of us believe a sense of legitimacy is hard to come by in all types of news today because of our culture of cynicism. We\u2019re blogging more\u2026and talking less. Not sure that\u2019s a good thing.<\/p>\n Both of us found that we\u2019re skeptical about whether all the new technology is helpful, or just more clutter in our busy lives. Amy wants \u201cproof that Twitter is worth my time.\u201d I bristle at the thought of any technology that makes me peck out shorthand rather than writing\u2026out\u2026the\u2026words.<\/p>\n In our short conversation, we even managed to peer far beyond our own community, at the journalists killed in other countries for printing and broadcasting news. Amy said we could be looking to emerging nations for inspiration and proof of the potential power we hold in our hands.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Submitted by amyclark on Tue, 01\/05\/2010 – 2:34pm Session Reporter: Chris Thomas Conversationalist 1: Amy Clark Conversationalist 2: Chris Thomas Amy and I are already acquainted but hadn\u2019t spoken in a while, so it was great to catch up! First, … Continue reading