Where was Jim when I was practically pilloried for questioning the utility of rubrics (I think I said they were the spawn of Satan or something along those lines) a few weeks ago at the WCET Conference?
@twoodwar Soon you'll be telling us how to dress, and eradicating any sense of wonder to the process. Rubrics and assessment eat babies.
— Jim Groom (@jimgroom) November 23, 2010
Really good print journalism is ego-free. By that I do not mean that the writer has no skin in the game, or that the writer lacks a perspective, or even that the writer does not write from a perspective. What I mean is that the writer is able to let the story and the reporting process, to the highest possible extent, unfold without a reporter’s insecurities or parochial concerns intervening. Blogging is an ego-intensive process. Even in straight news stories, the format always requires you to put yourself into narrative. You are expected to not only have a point of view and reveal it, but be confident that it is the correct point of view. There is nothing wrong with this. As much as a writer can fabricate a detachment, or a “view from nowhere,” as Jay Rosen has put it, the writer can also also fabricate a view from somewhere. You can’t really be a reporter without it. I don’t care whether people know how I feel about particular political issues; it’s no secret where I stand on gay marriage, or on the science of climate change, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. What I hope I will find refreshing about the change of formats is that I will no longer be compelled to turn every piece of prose into a personal, conclusive argument, to try and fit it into a coherent framework that belongs to a web-based personality called “Marc Ambinder” that people read because it’s “Marc Ambinder,” rather than because it’s good or interesting.
from I Am a Blogger No Longer (The Atlantic)
- RT @AC_Books: How to Write a Renaissance Commonplace Book http://bit.ly/9oUCPi #
- @mweller Some thoughts and ideas simply aren’t worth the time to contextualize and discuss in a rich manifold. Where that line is varies. in reply to mweller #
- @injenuity Seems to me some of this ties back to the weird and illusory idea of objectivity in reply to injenuity #
- @injenuity If stuff has value for you in context then some of it must NOT have value too. You can call it ranking, I call it reality. in reply to injenuity #
- @mweller @sleslie there’s also a terminology problem. “reductive” can be both a pragmatic shorthand and non-wholly overlapping philosophy #
- @injenuity @mweller Does it matter if that dismissal takes 1000 words or a dozen? All ideas are not equal. Should we pretend they are? in reply to injenuity #
- Continue reading 'Weekly Tweets (2010-11-21)'»
- Lack of imagination on your part doesn’t constitute failure on my part… each of us must be our own artist, our own maker… #
- @skipvia you aren’t giving me much to go on maybe Benkler’s Wealth of Networks? in reply to skipvia #
- @LisaMLane picky picky can’t say THAT’S a problem I’ve encountered before! in reply to LisaMLane #
- @mweller I’d definitely add _The Savage Detectives_ followed directly by _2666_ … in reply to mweller #