XARK 3.0

  • Xark began as a group blog in June 2005 but continues today as founder Dan Conover's primary blog-home. Posts by longtime Xark authors Janet Edens and John Sloop may also appear alongside Dan's here from time to time, depending on whatever.

Xark media

  • ALIENS! SEX! MORE ALIENS! AND DUBYA, TOO! Handcrafted, xarky science fiction, lovingly typeset for your home printer!



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2005

Statcounter has my back

« Stewart nails the White House "War on Fox" | Main | How blessed are you? »

Friday, October 30, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Katherine Warman Kern

Great post. Now I'm going to read it again and consume all the links too.

"Could it be that human beings process different types of information in different ways, with different needs at different times?"

So maybe we will see a 180 degree switch. Instead of bloggers linking to mainstream media, the role for mainstream media will be soundbites that direct us to the longer form content of personal interest.

Also, this post has hints of the new form of longform narrative wanting to emerge - "the whole story." When a professional curates the contributions from different points of view of a community to tell a multi-dimensional story.

Katherine Warman Kern


I'm fast approaching the belief that the people who do not get the changing world of information and its consumption do not WANT to get it.

"Could it be that human beings process different types of information in different ways, with different needs at different times?"

Seriously? Information professionals haven't figured that out yet? A phone text is not an essay is not a tweet is not an expert analysis of a complicated subject?

One size does not fit all. It never did. It's just that people didn't have the choices they have now.

You don't need to let us know how that works out for you. We know the end of the story.

Brian Jordan


Thanks for standing up for brevity and presentation of logical arguments (without the fluff).

Perhaps if it took less time (and cost less money) to determine what the real thesis of a piece of writing was: (1) readers could consider multiple arguments faster and more inclusively, (2) the exclusivity [and people-who-have-lots-of-time and can-read-long-stories-ism] of argumentation can be eliminated, and (3) bullshit-artists would not thrive -- or would at least be easier to discount.

State your claims, give references, and prepare to engage.


Tor Hershman

If narrative is dead.....how do you account for THIS!!!


Deb Wenger

Speaking as the "instructor [who] challenged the assertion that teaching good writing is a fundamental function of a journalism education" I say, "Bravo!"

You articulated this argument far better than I ever could have - probably thanks to your background in long-form narrative :)

My point, as you've clearly assessed, is that journalism schools need to reconsider even their most deep-rooted assumptions.

It's only then that we can figure out what today's journalists need to know and how to teach it. Then we need to do go through this process again and again and again as technology and audience needs - and yes, audience desires - continue to evolve.

The comments to this entry are closed.