<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A pandemonium of fragments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/</link>
	<description>Digital Enabler</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-774</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-774</guid>
		<description>I thought Born Yesterday was great: interesting and written at an important time. Not a perfect book, but then it was never going to be after that 6 week writing period. I think the importance is possibly yet to be realised but with debates going on all over the place in terms of the future of news: the rise of citizen journalism, the lack of trust people have in traditional news organisations, the civic role that news media has in society; it’s really timely.

By writing about news events at a distance Burn draws together threads and parallels which aren’t spotted at the time because of a lack of perspective. Some of those coincidences don’t really hit the mark (Madeleine McCann and Marilyn Monroe having the same initials, say) but the drawing together of news strands is a really interesting exercise. Perhaps this is the role of the professional journalist in the future: the citizen journalists collect the fragments and the journalist sticks them together into the whole.

I thought there were some interesting parallels in terms of form with BS Johnson - ie the novel as something other than fiction. None of Johnson’s book really worked, of course, but as experiments they are fascinating. Strange that as a journalist himself Johnson didn’t have a similar idea himself. Maybe he would have gotten around to it eventually.

The other great value in the book is Burn’s sympathetic writing about celebrity and media, which is excellent - his coverage of the McCann disappearance is thoughtful and balanced.

Oh, and I kind of assumed the bits about Thatcher in the park were made up, but maybe I am wrong.

(Posted this at your blog too, John)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought Born Yesterday was great: interesting and written at an important time. Not a perfect book, but then it was never going to be after that 6 week writing period. I think the importance is possibly yet to be realised but with debates going on all over the place in terms of the future of news: the rise of citizen journalism, the lack of trust people have in traditional news organisations, the civic role that news media has in society; it’s really timely.</p>
<p>By writing about news events at a distance Burn draws together threads and parallels which aren’t spotted at the time because of a lack of perspective. Some of those coincidences don’t really hit the mark (Madeleine McCann and Marilyn Monroe having the same initials, say) but the drawing together of news strands is a really interesting exercise. Perhaps this is the role of the professional journalist in the future: the citizen journalists collect the fragments and the journalist sticks them together into the whole.</p>
<p>I thought there were some interesting parallels in terms of form with BS Johnson - ie the novel as something other than fiction. None of Johnson’s book really worked, of course, but as experiments they are fascinating. Strange that as a journalist himself Johnson didn’t have a similar idea himself. Maybe he would have gotten around to it eventually.</p>
<p>The other great value in the book is Burn’s sympathetic writing about celebrity and media, which is excellent - his coverage of the McCann disappearance is thoughtful and balanced.</p>
<p>Oh, and I kind of assumed the bits about Thatcher in the park were made up, but maybe I am wrong.</p>
<p>(Posted this at your blog too, John)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Self</title>
		<link>http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-773</link>
		<dc:creator>John Self</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-773</guid>
		<description>So what did you make of Born Yesterday, Dave?  I loved it at the time I was reading it, but by the time I came to write about it (see my blog), it had declined a little in my estimation.  Still very interesting but not his best, I think - I reserve that for Best and Edwards still.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what did you make of Born Yesterday, Dave?  I loved it at the time I was reading it, but by the time I came to write about it (see my blog), it had declined a little in my estimation.  Still very interesting but not his best, I think - I reserve that for Best and Edwards still.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Booth</title>
		<link>http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Booth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davepress.net/2008/04/14/a-pandemonium-of-fragments/#comment-770</guid>
		<description>Very helpful post. The nature of media always has been to leave a scattering of fragments.  

Google or friendfeed throw these together into that pandemonium so beautifully described above. It's the digital equivalent of a press cuttings book.

But I don't look at the feeds and think they represent the people I know any more than I would think googling a friend who has never been mentioned on the web and finding nothing represents them.       

As and afterthought: there may be a small group of people springing up who's egos seem t be driving them to live their life on the web. They are as credible to me as people who try to live their lives through the pages of Hello.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very helpful post. The nature of media always has been to leave a scattering of fragments.  </p>
<p>Google or friendfeed throw these together into that pandemonium so beautifully described above. It&#8217;s the digital equivalent of a press cuttings book.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t look at the feeds and think they represent the people I know any more than I would think googling a friend who has never been mentioned on the web and finding nothing represents them.       </p>
<p>As and afterthought: there may be a small group of people springing up who&#8217;s egos seem t be driving them to live their life on the web. They are as credible to me as people who try to live their lives through the pages of Hello.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
