Q1. As Bohnsack and Schmidt note, when we are doing the interview the matter of social-desirable answer seems to be unavoidable, how can we deal with this kind of innate limitations of these method?
Q2. As Curtin and Maier suggest in their paper, educating numbers in journalism school is becoming important to raise a good journalist, then, how far or to what degree should journalism school teach numbers to their student?
Q3. Reader’s findings on ethical differences at large and small newspapers are very interesting and providing useful paths to understand journalism in reality. Reader did nice interview with 28 professional newspaper editors. However, it seems to me that interviews seem to reveal the things what the newspaper editors just want to reveal. If qualitative interview do not go far, that is, it do not have any difference with simple survey, where can we find advantages of qualitative interview?
Q4. Deuze’s paper, Popular journalism and Professional ideology, and Lewis’ paper, Seeking health information on the Internet, succeed to reveal various aspects of popular journalism and changing usage of health information. They show both what the qualitative research can do nicely and its limit. It provides many valuable understandings regarding to the field which is not well introduced to the readers, but hard to generalize. It seems to me that accumulation of such kinds of research, like many peace of puzzle provide the whole in the end, will enable us to reach more precise and proper view of the whole landscape. Can it be justified?
Q5. Although I admit that there is a fine line between traditional journalism and popular journalism nowadays, especially in terms of the tendency of infotainment, we should set a more distinctive line. What will it be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment