I thought I'd begin with a posting copy from today's Pundit Round-up, particularly Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed "Connecting Nature's Dots".
http://www.nytimes.com/...
I began to wonder about Op-Ed readership and the democratization of puditry. De Sola Pool's notion of contradictory distribution models of property rights might be particularly helpful in reference to the difference between broadcast and cable, and of course now complicated with broadband and the Internet. If one accepts the premise that public opinion is constructed not unlike mass media audiences, interactivity in the form of Op-Ed punditry can be a useful tool for policy analysis.
For example, are op-eds diminishing in value because of weblogs or even twitter, just as news has been similarly dispersed? Is there or will there be no difference between news information and its deliberately framed interpretion as editorial commentary? What evidence supports those claims? How less valuable is information labeled as news and does it place greater emphasis on the property value of the transmission medium?
This continues work on a theory of virtual capital and its political economy which will be touched on here at times.
What about the Daily Beast? (0+ / 0-)
In short — and as any reader of the Okavango daily papers will tell you — we need to make sure that our policy solutions are as integrated as nature itself. Today, they are not.
Friedman's ecological metaphor would work better if he accounted for an analysis of concerns like Bushmeat whicn would deconstruct his sustainability argument because of their inherent cultural and capitalist conflict.
Is it a better form of post-colonialism to indulge a sustainability readership while on ecotourist safari or to watch the NRA's ESPN program on shooting game in the Okavango?
Seems to be a dis-integrating(white)wash, Bwana Thomas.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. -- Pogo
by annieli on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:16:55 AM EDT