Journalism and Memory
Journalism and Memory
复制标题
新闻与记忆
DOI：
10.1057/9781137263940_12
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hoskins A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hoskins A
曾经我们可以将记者视为“记忆的代理人”（Zelizer，2008），这种代理人（在组装，解释，出版世界新闻）现在已经扩散到数字网络的许多人，而不是少数人？从这一点来看，后稀缺文化的信息雪崩如果不破坏的话，肯定至少应该放松二十世纪战争的标志性轨迹与最近和新出现的灾难和冲突的看待和嵌入方式的紧密耦合。今天的新闻和记忆？在下文中，我将思考为什么这些数字化的期望似乎还没有完全实现，以及为什么当代的记忆热潮，由摄影新闻的视觉和再视觉轨迹驱动，似乎仍然在如火如荼地进行。关于数字时代的到来在塑造今天的新闻业和新闻业方面的作用，以及这对将影响力移交给非专业人士意味着什么，人们提出了很多主张。除了“公民”，我们还有业余爱好者的新闻和“信息实干家”的新兴“不对称”力量（Gowing，2009）。解放的隐喻密集而快速;新闻业今天以“多媒体”（Deuze，2004），“数字”（Jones和Salter，2011）（包括一份名为“数字新闻”的新期刊），“参与”（Singer等人，2011），'公民'（Allan and Thorsen，2009; Wall，2012）和'公民身份'（Tunney and Monaghan，2009）。新闻业的这种解放被认为是--至少部分是--从机构媒体怪物、企业集团、大亨的世界以及丹·吉尔摩（Dan Gillmor，2006）所称的'大媒体'--CNN、新闻集团、路透社和图片社中解放出来。小型媒体，由高度移动的和联网的录音和通信设备组成，越来越多地被包装成“智能手机”，形成了一种新的业余内容流，既挑战又刺激了当代新闻业。这种可访问的，负担得起的和普及的技术被认为是复杂的大媒体在决定什么是看到和不被视为“新闻”的主导地位。正如Merrin（2008）所说，“自上而下的信息提供被同行生产的关系所取代，世界新闻被自我新闻所取代。”突然间，曾经由少数人为多数人提供、编辑和分发的东西，被“新的大量”（霍斯金斯和奥洛夫林，即将出版）的例行和日常编辑、张贴、传播、链接、喜欢、混合和补救数字化所复杂化。
Is it not the case that whereas once we could conceive of journalists as ‘agents of memory’(Zelizer, 2008), this agency (in assembling, interpreting, publishing news-of-the-world) is now diffused to the many, rather than the few, of the digital network? Following from this, surely the information avalanche of post-scarcity culture should at least loosen, if it does not undermine, the tight coupling of iconic trajectories of twentieth-century warfare from the ways in which recent and emergent catastrophes and conflicts are seen and embedded in journalism and remembered today? In what follows I consider why these digital expectations do not as yet appear to have been quite fulfilled and why the contemporary memory boom, driven by photojournalistic trajectories of vision and re-vision, still appears to be in full swing. A great deal is being claimed about the advent of the digital in shaping whatever journalism is and does today and what that means in handing over influence to non-professionals. In addition to the ‘citizen,’we have news of the amateur and the emergent ‘asymmetric’power of ‘information doers’(Gowing, 2009). The metaphors of liberation fall thick and fast; journalism is today prefixed in terms of ‘multimedia’(Deuze, 2004),‘digital’(Jones and Salter, 2011)(including a new journal entitled Digital Journalism),‘participatory’(Singer et al., 2011),‘citizen’(Allan and Thorsen, 2009; Wall, 2012) and ‘citizenship’(Tunney and Monaghan, 2009).This liberation of journalism is seen to be–in part at least–liberation from the institutional media monsters, the world of conglomerates, moguls, and that which Dan Gillmor (2006) calls ‘Big Media’–the CNNs, News Corps, Reuters and the picture agencies.‘Small media,’then, consisting of highly mobile and networked recording and communication devices increasingly packaged as ‘smart phones,’shape a new flux of amateur content that both challenges and stimulates contemporary journalism. Such accessible, affordable and pervasive technologies are seen to complicate the dominance of Big Media in determining what is seen and not seen as ‘news.’As Merrin (2008) puts it,‘The top-down provision of information is replaced by peer-produced relationships with news of the world being replaced by news of the self.’Suddenly that which was once sourced, edited and distributed by the few for the many is complicated by a ‘new mass’(Hoskins and O’Loughlin, forthcoming) of routine and everyday editing, posting, circulating, linking, liking, mixing and remediating digital