A word on language
Got a fun email this morning, pointing out that nowhere in my research proposal do I mention “readers,” “ethics,” or “integrity.” All true.
Search this blog, and you’ll discover that I tend to eschew “readers” in favor of words like “community,” “users” and (occasionally) “audience,” words that I hope convey a slightly different or more intense form of engagement. This murkiness of language might reflect the fact that the notion of the “audience” is suffering from a mild 1991 problem of its own.
And while both “ethics” and “integrity” are under-used here, I do try to emphasize “values” and “standards.” More on that in a moment.
No related posts.
“Readers” is compromised in at least two ways. First, readers in the emerging model are writers as well as readers, actors as well as audience. (Heck, “writers” are both, too.)
Also, the emerging unit of news is not necessarily or primarily alphabetic text — which is not to say that it has always only been alphabetic text. Once you start thinking about the digital world, you have to think about engagement with multiple media and different kinds of representation of data, not just video and audio, but maps, tables, charts. “Reader” or even “Viewer” are not necessarily the most informative or accurate terms to describe the eyeball-cog-agents of this media universe.
Tim
13 Oct 08 at 5:11 pm