Sounds and Fury

美國老牌左翼雜誌The Nation發行人Victor Navasky 一直困惑公共領域在現代媒體世界實踐的可能性，於是當他在1994年第一次拜訪去德國哈伯瑪斯時，他提出了他的問題，而是答案是「早餐」。以下是對話：

"To what do you attribute the survival of discourse in this age where standards are deteriorating, where tabloidism has taken over television, sensationalism has taken over tabloidism, Murdochization has taken over the press?"
He looked at me and he said, "Breakfast." I said, "What?", and he said, "Breakfast." -- that the practice of sitting down and reading the morning newspaper over coffee is deeply embedded in the culture, and that in Europe, especially, where papers like Die Zeit and others deal in a very dense way with serious issues, you get a chance to absorb it all at breakfast, and then you can go out and argue about it. You don't stay in at night, you go to coffee houses and to the bars and deliberate about it.


大師智慧果然不同凡響。可是事實上，現在也越來越少人可以在家悠閒的吃早餐看報紙吧。很多人的閱報時間可能是在大眾捷運系統，很多人可能早餐是在上班的地方或學校吃。也正因為如此，所以國外報紙才特別把大的專題或深度報導放在週末吧。

更值得思考的可能是下面這一點：
"So, What is the role of the journal of opinion in this age of electronic conglomerated Murdoch-ized communications?"
He said, "It is very simple. It's to set the standard for reasoned argumentation. ... Who else is going to do it, if not these journals?" I said, "Network television..." and he said, "The written word is at the core of all of these other media."
評論媒體可以作為理性論證的標準嗎？
這段對話是一個前部落格的時代。現在對於部落格作為一種論述與新聞媒介的討論，似乎也正集中於其能否建立，或否需要，一套傳統媒體上所必須的規範（譬如新聞報導、採訪的準則）？應該說，這是主流媒體最喜歡質疑部落格的部分。
我想網路的討論與新聞呈現可以說比傳統媒體的好壞變異性更大。缺乏一套規範與標準，固然讓很多劣幣出現在網路上，尤其是匿名特質常常出現許多不負責任的言論；但是那一套傳統的標準卻可能只是形式主義，反應特定意識型態、或者扼殺很多創新甚至深度對話的可能。一則部落格上的文章，可以引發更多立即而深刻的辯論。不像雜誌或新聞媒體，記者可能是單向的、獨斷的提供資訊，而即使讀者有不同意見，可能也只有一篇投書機會可以反應，而這還得被該媒體先審查是否合格。所以這個「理性」的辯論其實也是被扭曲的。
最終答案是什麼？我還不是那麼清楚