wow. there was really nothing about news or criticisms of any kind other than someone complaining about baseball pushing their tv show off its slot. I read one blog that started off: "for years I’ve heard people talk about how they wish reality T.V. would disappear, i completely understand..." i thought, ok, here's some criticism on tv... maybe. but no, it was a long spiel about all the reality tv shows she liked. Do these people's blogs show signs of reform? do these people show signs of having any kind of education in knowing what news is? no, and that's bad since the blogs are supposed to be places for news comments/opinions. since that's the case, the bloggers prevent any real possibility for deliberation and debate on important issues. could the blogs as they currently are now spark reform of media? the way these people use the blogs'sites, i don't think they are even aware of there being a problem.

It seems like most of us were pretty bored by the content featured on the statesman and austin metro blogs, so I won't labor the point.

As to why we don't talk about pizza and pogs at length-- I think that as new forms of media develop and engage the public, the need for media literacy becomes a necessity. Nichols & McChesney address this concern (133) as part of their media reform agenda, but how do adults (who are not privy to the new programs that are popping up in elem. and mid. schools) gain this education? We post to this forum because it's interesting and because we all love participation grades. We also have a topic for discussion that appears within a context to which we are all able to relate. The internet as a form of public communication is still pretty new and people are struggling to place it within a larger context. If a "blogger" posts a new section to her blog, and it offends or engages a second party, she may rest assured that she will probably not run into that party the next mon, wed, or fri at 10am. In which case, said blogger might find it best to begin her entries with "Dear Diary..." The "blogger" has no assurance that her position will be challenged or affirmed or even read. One could argue that burgeoning novelists, musicians, etc. face the same concerns; they, however, have examples and idols. There are guidelines, only as restrictive as they allow them to be, that make the process a little easier to understand. To the same end, if I want to find a good book, I know where to go. I can ask friends, read book reviews in familiar newspapers, browse bibliographies from trusted sources, etc. If I want to find a good blog about knitting or triathalon training, a simple google search would suffice. But what if I want to read insightful thoughts about today's news or media reform? N&M attribute a stalling media reform movement to the lack of organization among groups who should all share concern for that movement. Until the public knows where to go on the web to find the information they want, blogs will remain irrelevant and trite.

I also think that blogs elicit boring conversations because the word is too close to "blah." Really, it's a terrible, terrible word.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to ask if new citizen blogging sites are meeting up to the standards of the type of activism McChesney and Nichols are advocating. The obvious reason that the blogs fail to demonstrate the type of grassroots discussion McChesney and Nichols want is simply that they are not geared toward that end. Both the AAS and metroblogs do not explicitly promote the end of achieving media reform. Also, I think the citizens blogs largely lack the direction that blogs on news sites may have (since they are typically in response to an article)--that's not to say that blogs on national news sites are much better. However, I think McChesney and Nichols are imagining a deeper level of citizen engagement. For example, they point out on page 132 that "a good deal of citizen outrage at media assumes the form of boycotts and protests that intend to shame the media giants into reforming their ways." They proceed to talk about a movement for media literacy and educating various groups within the population about how the media system operates. So, in order to get the type of grassroots networking that McChesney and Nichols encourage, there would need to be a focused attempt to call to the problem of corporate media ownership to the attention of a crowd, say for example, of bloggers. The website would need to provide the background of the issue and convince bloggers that they can empower themselves to promote the necessary change. Bloggers, left to their own devices, cannot be expected to discuss issues that are rarely covered in the media.

I think just in the same way our posts here are guided, a blog/message board is only useful in situations where people have something to comment about. If the blog runners asked public opinion on public issues, people might read up on it so they can have something to say and then discuss it openly in a space where anonymity is key. More informed and more involved.

While blogs are generally an area to post what you had for breakfast and such, the potential exists for blogs to become a better forum for information and communication. However, I'm not sure what it would take to create an interesting, informative, and popular blog community. I'm sure on some level this already exists, but it's just like posting on a message board. What good does it really do? I don't think that the AAS blog gives a sense of community. The metro blog is of higher quality, but there are only 9 bloggers. I don't see how that can really contribute to the community either.

The AAS blogs seem like a big fat personal ad program. Nobody really discusses anything of any real importance. MetBlog does a much better job. I wonder, how do you become a blogger on MetBlogs? I didn't see any information on that. Metblogs also has a discussion board set up (www.metboards.com) that it seems anyone can use. I would wager that more people know about the AAS blogs than the Metblogs, and they are of lower quality. So how do we get popular discussion forums where people won't post about their new shoes?

I think what Nichols and McChesney are getting at, is that, yes, it's great if people look at mass media critically, but that is not enough. In order for change, people must become active. While blogs are maybe not the best means of communication, they do have the potential and possibility to inform. This is an arena where ideas can be shared, even if most of the ideas regard pop culture or other irrelevant information. If someone needs to post a media reform manifesto, they have the power and arena to do it. Ultimately they are the ones responsible. I personally found the "This Week in Austin" section of metblog rather informative. But we have to look at who are these bloggers? What do they know? What do they care about? Imagine if Bernie Sanders was one of them. Could his blogs be like an on-line version of the Montpelier town hall meeting? The great thing about these on line discussion is that it's easy to post links to more information.

On the other hand, TIMO on metroblogs is really good at bringing up issue after community issue.

I just see a couple of problems here. One is the issue of marginalization. Is this blog popular enough to take the subject out of the margins, make it normal and not fringe - different from just another politically active liberal Austinite blog?

I just took a cursory glance at posts that seemed interesting - mostly TIMO's because so many of his seemed tied to local issues. It's possible that the others were not so partisan. Even if it is mostly liberal I suppose it could probably overcome this issue if it could just unite all the liberal factions in Austin -no easy feat. If it could rally all the environmentalists, civil rights/gay activists, NORML (people interesting in changing drug laws/decriminalizing drug offenses), living way/pro-worker, minority groups, and all the many many other liberal groups in Austin around media reform it could accomplish something. The book mentions the left side of the Democratic party. This could really revitalize it and mend some all the fractures. All the groups have something in common. Their issue is being ignored in the traditional media.

I was thinking about the 1960s civil rights movement. What would have happened if it happened today? Where would the newspapers put the images of children being hit with firehoses and attacked by dogs? Where would they put marchers being beaten and gassed simply for believing they should have more equality in voting rights? How would they cover them? Would they make the protestors look like chaos makers? What spin would they put on it? It is scary.

On campus if we could get all the groups that congregate on the mall to see that they can form together around media control, that would be amazing -truly.

From the reading, one of the first points on their "media-reform" agenda is to "establish a full tier of low-power noncomercial community radio and television stations across the nation." (134). We have these in Austin, but how well does this stuff do? Austin is one of the best places in the world for startup stations and local stuff but it doesn't even do that well here. Music does great, small films do well. Public, small TV? Not very well at all. There are a few local radio stations as well, but I couldn't even tell you what they were. This stuff is around but doesn't fair well. People want "great shows, great music, etc" and that costs money. Money comes from advertizing, and advertizing is a form of business that consumes every market. There is no getting around this.

As for these online blogs, I found them all but useless. I'm not sure what 1/2 of them were talking about, but I found no enlightening information as far as learning anything about my community or even these people's political interest. I think MySpace has more fulfilling information on it, every once in a while you find a political hot-head on there that might actually make a few good points. That can open my eyes everyonce in a while. But MySpace is National (if not international now?) and isnt' going to establish much community. I don't think the blogs above are going to form any bonds or organization that will help their fight.

I believe one big thing that Nichols and McChesney believe need to happen is to organize communities. They say that the best way that it can be done is by organizing current activist groups already in existance and using their already established membership to fight the ongoing battle to change the media. On page 127 they use a quote from Jeffrey Chester of the center for digital democracy which I believe sums it up, " All of the issues we talk about are interlinked. We are fighting against alot of the same corporations " (127)

I looked over both of the statesmans sites and was met with such blog text as conversations about shopping carts being used as benches and one womans story of splurging this weekend on food and buying a new pair of shoes. I failed to see any groups joining forces to talk about important issues non the less media issues. Unless I am missing something about these sites i do not believe they contribute to the reforms that Nick and Chesy hope for. Partly it is because of the poor organization, if I cant glance over the site in 10 minutes and figure out what it is really about then it has failed in my mind and to at least me personally it failed. Not to mention that it did not look as if there was a huge amount of activity within the blogs.