At a Bookworks discussion yesterday on art writing and magazines one of the audience asked about the way in which the opportunity to blog might have changed the nature of publication from a collaborative activity to an isolated one. I hadn't thought about this much before, since I have been exercised more about different questions of quality (quality as a minimum thresholds rather than quality as a characteristic of something) and most writers and authors I have worked with seem to have composed in isolation anyway.
Although I have been thanked often enough for my input it seems to be stretching it a bit to call the editorial role collaborative in the sense of joint production or authorship. Unless I've really had to hold the author's hand.
But here I am, writing away with no feedback before publication (and probably not much afterwards either). Of course feedback (or criticism) comes afterwards and is not intended, on the whole, to change what is written, only to comment on it.
Debate and discussion before publication is quite a different matter, and I wonder if that is in danger of becoming a more precious and rarer activity.
Wednesday 12 November 2008
Friday 7 November 2008
Humanitarian Communication in the Global Media
Went to the second of a series of panel discussions at LSE yesterday organised by POLIS, on humanitarian communication in the global media age.
Reminded me of the panels at US academic conferences that I used to go to, but with rather less discipline on timekeeping.
Bruna Seu presented some detailed research on how readers of charity appeals respond to them as consumers rather than as moral agents, and how that enables them to do nothing.
Denise Searle gave a more practitioner-based set of comments on what works for humanitarian agencies and what does not, and what problems this throws up for them as they struggle for visibility.
Nick Stevenson was more conceptual in his presentation, though also less accessible in his language, and suggested (I felt) that the other two presentations did not step out of the consumer culture or marketplace metaphor that he himself wanted to challenge. He was arguing, I thought, that the politics of humanitarian issues is excluded from the kinds of appeals that Oxfam and other agencies put out; even though of course agencies like Oxfam are devoting more and more energy to advocacy and campaigning issues.
All in all I thought it was a really interesting set of presentations, and I only wish (as always) that there had been more of an actual discussion as part of the evening.
There is one more in the series, on 13 November, on 'the mediatisation of humanitarian crises'. But the title says something already about the academic tone of the discussion. I think there is much for professional communicators to talk about on this topic, but they won't come along to talk about mediatisation.
Reminded me of the panels at US academic conferences that I used to go to, but with rather less discipline on timekeeping.
Bruna Seu presented some detailed research on how readers of charity appeals respond to them as consumers rather than as moral agents, and how that enables them to do nothing.
Denise Searle gave a more practitioner-based set of comments on what works for humanitarian agencies and what does not, and what problems this throws up for them as they struggle for visibility.
Nick Stevenson was more conceptual in his presentation, though also less accessible in his language, and suggested (I felt) that the other two presentations did not step out of the consumer culture or marketplace metaphor that he himself wanted to challenge. He was arguing, I thought, that the politics of humanitarian issues is excluded from the kinds of appeals that Oxfam and other agencies put out; even though of course agencies like Oxfam are devoting more and more energy to advocacy and campaigning issues.
All in all I thought it was a really interesting set of presentations, and I only wish (as always) that there had been more of an actual discussion as part of the evening.
There is one more in the series, on 13 November, on 'the mediatisation of humanitarian crises'. But the title says something already about the academic tone of the discussion. I think there is much for professional communicators to talk about on this topic, but they won't come along to talk about mediatisation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
