On that day, I think I had to break away before I was able to elaborate on my assertion that journalists do feel threatened by bloggers.

But I want to make it clear that I am not one of those journalists who feels threatened by bloggers and other forms of participatory or citizens’ media. I’m very much of the ‘the more the merrier’ crowd.

Let me expand on what I said. Certainly some journalists are threatened by bloggers. I talk to a lot of journalists who feel that bloggers threaten their control over the news agenda. And I use that construction of it very purposefully.

Certainly both bloggers and journalists filter information. We highlight what we feel is important. Yes, there are all kinds of choices that we make. And that is a valid point for debate, those choices.

But that is not what I’m talking about. I am talking about control or maybe authority. I have heard a lot of journalists sputter on: “Who are these bloggers?” Implicit in their question: “Who are they to challenge me?”

I dunno. I’m not threatened by questions. I’m also not that overly precious about my position, my authority or what I do. And I’m very much of the opinion that any person who reads my stuff or hears me on the radio can ask me a question. I welcome it. It keeps me relevant and engaged, and at least it lets me know that someone is reading/listening/watching.

But there are journalists who do get caught up in bubbles (Washington, Westminster, the elites people have referred to), and they don’t take kindly to having those bubbles burst.

Also though, Dan Gillmor (author of the book We Media) made an important point that day during Global Voices and that is a lot of journalists feel economically threatened right now. He is very right to point that out. That’s not about authority. That’s about being able to feed yourself and your family in a world that is rapidly changing. I can’t argue with those concerns.

But that issue isn’t about bloggers, or at least bloggers alone. But, it does highlight why some journalists respond to what they perceive as a threat like a cornered animal. Bloggers just give them some folks to growl at.

I’ll leave it at that. Thanks Oso. Good discussion.

cheers,
k

ps I’ll only add that I’m writing this as a journalist and not a representative of the company that currently helps me pay my bills.

Though he probably hates labels as much as I do, I think I have heard Joel describe himself as a conservative.

Iria,

Good points. “Elitist” is one of those very difficult to define words. In fact, dictionary.com has a definition very much different from what I was meaning:

n : someone who believes in rule by an elite group [ant: egalitarian]

But they do mention three “qualifiers” that make sense: perceived intellect, social status, and class. By perceived intellect alone, you could definitely fit in with your recent posts about Twelfth Night, Derek Walcott, and Faust. Not only that, but you are finishing your graduate studies at one of the world’s most prestigious universities. I personally wouldn’t call you an elitist (I hate the term), but the fact that neither of us can stand MSN Spaces and usually prefer not to Instant Message does emit a certain image that some would describe as “elitist.”

As far as contextualizing Alvarez, Duquenal, and Octavio: it’s another difficult topic. One reason I love the anonymous internet is because it focuses on ideas and interactions rather than the personal details of who lies behind behind the idea. But context – or at least experience – does matter. And I hope that whatever road digital identity ends up taking, it steers us in the direction of honesty and openness about who we are and where we came from. Then we will probably all realize how much we can benefit from both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective of every situation.

Yes, there is a need for more diverse “voices” in the global conversation, but it is not by excluding those who are wealthy and well-educated that we are going to reach diversity. It’s by expanding access to technology, improving education, and outreaching toward the poor that we are going to make it works.

One other important thing that we need to recognize is that nobody “speaks objectively”, and only those elected to do so may be accountable for representing the “average Venezuelan out on the street” (or any other country citizen, for that matter). Thus, we may have right to point out that Venezuelan Ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez, comes from a wealthy family and got his graduate education in Europe, and he has never lived in a “rancho” (maybe, he never has visited one), so he does not represent well Venezuelan’ poor point of view, but saying the same about Duquenal or Octavio is just bigotry, and does not help to get the conversation going. (No to mention how annoying it is to hear an upper class, U.S, educated, U.S. citizen, who does not live in Venezuela, to say he knows better how Venezuelan poor think about our country political situation).

Is it necessarily bad that these self proclaimed embassadors for the “opressed” are part of the “elite”? With their connections, political knowhow and technological knowledge they can have the message reach the highest bidders for social projects and speak in the same language to the “Global Upper-Class Multilingual Elitists from Capitol Cities.” who coincidentially also happen to hold the largest checkbooks.