« Kent Bye's interesting ideas | Main | N.Korea denounces Boing Boing »

March 04, 2005

Comments

Brad Lena

Keith,

I have an appreciation for raw numbers as they represent falling barriers to global communication spread among an ever increasing percentage of humanity. By any objective historical measurement, the Internet, digital printing and a whole host of communication technologies have given more voice to more people than ever before in an incredibly short time span. This is undeniable and I find it encouraging. Apparently you have serious reservations about the trajectory of access and participation. I refuse to claim the mantle of the arbitrator of the pace of diversity in regards to this unprecedented phenomenon. Regarding the explosion in published titles you say “200,000 titles produced by a limited set of voices, produces a limited amount of information; 500,000 titles would do the same.” This comment is not supported by the evidence. The publishing world, magazine and books, is fragmenting into a myriad of constituencies covering an ever increasing spectrum of topics, opinion and points of view. Let’s not even consider the enormous quantity of research papers posted on the web by scholars. You’re also concerned as to “How many were published by women? How many by people with disabilities, how many by people of color? What might we learn from one of those authors that we could not even imagine given our own set of experiences?“ The question may be, given the current opportunity, why aren’t women, the disabled and people of color motivated to participate and are they restrained/constrained externally or internally? If you’re currently suffering from diversity deprivation, and if you’re old enough, you must have been absolutely apoplectic when it was just ABC, CBS and NBC. I for one get nervous when privileged elites believe they have the “opportunity to affirmatively move it in a better direction.”

Keith Jenkins

Ah Brad, maybe a point of agreement!

" I for one get nervous when privileged elites believe they have the “opportunity to affirmatively move it in a better direction.” "

That is exactly how this thread got started; with my questioning why a group of what you would describe as 'privileged elites', were getting together at conference after conference to discuss the evolving roles of blogging and journalism on the internet, and almost all the participants were white, male and American.

Some, like Rebecca, have taken that question to heart and begun looking for ways to expand these types of discussions so that they don't remain 'elite'.

Given what you and others have said about there already being opportunities for everyone to participate, you are right to wonder "why aren’t women, the disabled and people of color motivated to participate and are they restrained/constrained externally or internally?"

I would argue that diversity is not just about women, people of color, and the disabled; but figuring out this 'participation thing' is what this discussion is about.

Mama JunkYard

In response to this question:

So how do we get more diverse voices into the blogosphere?

I don't think it is the absence of diverse voices that is an issue, it is the fact that some people feel that we are invisible.

The Kenyan Blogs Web Ring is an example of some of the diverse voices that exist in the blogsphere.

In the same way that I managed to find this blog, people who really seek diversity can do so by searching either on google, ringsurf or even following links.

Just becasue people don't know/don't care we exist doesn't mean that we don't exist

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Global Voices


  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

  • Donate to Global Voices - Help us spread the word
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2004

license

My book:

Consent of the Networked
Coming January 31st, 2012, from Basic Books. To pre-order click here.
AddThis Feed Button