http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html/ zh-tw Roodo Blog System All Rights Reserved http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3790493 a@a.a.b.c.pchome.com.tw(bragon) 文章回應 Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:28:33 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3783355 文章回應 Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:26:53 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3771951 文章回應 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:41:25 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3771194 文章回應 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:25:23 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3770900 文章回應 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 03:30:25 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3770642 文章回應 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:54:43 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3770403 文章回應 Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:40:03 +0800 如果報導胡亂捏造，而評論報導胡亂捏造須卻需要求證的話，這...是不是應該將「報導」與「評論」的定義重新定義啊？ 原來「進步」的第一條件就是要先把定義打破重新再來啊 :P]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3769099 文章回應 Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:00:43 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3763427 文章回應 Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:55:55 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3762001 文章回應 Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:18:46 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3754860 文章回應 Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:56 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3745380 文章回應 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:45:08 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3739995 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:19:59 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3739950 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:01:14 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3739898 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:42:33 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3738784 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:15:30 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3737978 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:43:10 +0800 ..... >我想我現在瞭解您的意思了，您說：「那我可以告訴你，能達到這種最低標準的就只能是媒體人，我想這大概就是所謂媒體學界的「自律」吧！」 >看來你我之間的認知果然有很大差距，對我來說，這最低標準是身為人都該遵守的，亦即當一個人要公開評論一件事情時，必須要有可供查證的證據。您不同意？就是因為媒體連這種最低限度的標準都越來越辦不到，所以我們才批評它，不是嗎？那為甚麼我們要容許自己去做這種事情呢？ > .... Posted by Portnoy at December 14,2006 18:47 To Portnoy, I could not finish reading your post. Read until the point quoted above, somehow my thought simply drifted away. Bye~ PS. I did try to refocus my attention twice. They faded fast.]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3736546 chieny@msu.edu(YY) 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:39:52 +0800 >又拿學歷來壓人？ 不是我拿學歷壓人，是有些夜狼，或是井底之蛙喜歡自稱作研究的去我那裡拿他們的「學術成就」壓我，我只是聲明懶得理這種人而已。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3736459 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:45:21 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3736341 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:01:35 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3736337 文章回應 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:00:41 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3735291 文章回應 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:48:53 +0800 http://www.bigsound.org/portnoy/weblog/001997.html to 酥餅： 又拿學歷來壓人？]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3734994 rworkingman@gmail.com(Portnoy) 文章回應 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:47:33 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3727433 文章回應 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:45:51 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3726990 文章回應 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:33:34 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3726426 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:55:53 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3725616 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:33:37 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3725581 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:17:35 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3725528 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:55:51 +0800 http://www.ashaw.org/2006/10/post.html 節錄一段： 「公民新聞（citizen journalism，又名participatory journalism），根據美國學者波曼（Shayne Bowman）和威利斯（Chris Willis）的定義，是指「一個或一群公民，蒐集、報導、分析、散播新聞和資訊的積極行動，目的在提供民主所需的獨立地、可信地、準確地、廣泛地、切合需求地資訊」。換言之，就是公民不再被動、單向地接收大眾媒體問題百出的報導，轉而主動、多向地發掘切合個人需求、有助社會進步的訊息。」 換句話說，現在有不少在寫BLOG的、放圖片在Flickr的、作為維基編輯的，都是在做公民新聞。 這幾年公民新聞做的很大的，是韓國的ohmynews，我國的公視也有類似的打算，但尚未推出。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3725404 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:58:39 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3724877 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:53:49 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3724873 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:51:58 +0800 因此，你將獲得進步公民媒體部落客授予的最高榮譽：「反動」獎牌一枚！XD 關於第一點咧，請參考公民媒體人的原則。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3724856 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:49:34 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3724807 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:27:10 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3724172 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:15:13 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3723839 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:32:42 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3723576 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:19:49 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3722161 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:50:50 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721741 文章回應 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:05:54 +0800 大家要不要猜一下作者是誰？ 不用猜了，正是龜兄自己啦！ 叫別人一定要去訪問當事者才可以寫文章，而自己呢？羞羞臉，雙重標準。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721159 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:33:17 +0800 對媒體的要求要很高，對blog則不必 Portnoy， 你這個研究生是在研究如何斷章取義？還是在研究如何硬拗？ 大腸本篇文章是在說你說的應該是針對媒體人的標準，而不是說你說的那句話，OK？ 你的文章別人看得懂不懂，跟是不是科班出身有何關係？你自己再回去讀看看：「各位真的覺得媒體對自己的標準有那麼高嗎?高到只能用沒有根據的推論來批評?」你這句連話都說不清楚，還好意思去酸別人的學位，你當個什麼公民媒體人啊？！ 我不知道台灣的學術訓練怎麼在你身上變得如此糟糕。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721144 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:28:42 +0800 >還真的不知道該如何稱呼那關連聯 微弱的正相關？XD]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721134 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:25:31 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721108 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:16:58 +0800 只針對媒體人的標準，本來就是如此啊（不然媒體幹嘛還要叫「新聞專業」啊？）否則我拿媒體該有的新聞道德去約束小說家，那不是開玩笑？還是我該拿軍人該受的職業規範去要求研究生？XD]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3721073 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:08:53 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720837 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:31:39 +0800 >所以我認為老師這篇是拿來試探用的，因為目前台灣沒有商業報符合上面的標準... 上面這個「拿來試探用的」結論，不知道作者是親自去訪問這位老師了，還是有當事人證詞，例如警察公佈的筆錄等。 大家要不要猜一下作者是誰？]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720593 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:40:49 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720584 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:36:07 +0800 更不用說在黑米書籤下一堆叫人無法置信的反諷演出了。 可見酥餅十分懂得反省。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720582 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:34:59 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720367 rworkingman@gmail.com(Portnoy) 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:17:47 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720132 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:44:16 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3720105 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:37:22 +0800 各位真的覺得媒體對自己的標準有那麼高嗎?高到只能用沒有根據的推論來批評? 這句偶看不懂，SORRY...]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719822 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:33:15 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719808 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:26:12 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719765 rworkingman@gmail.com(Portnoy) 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:00:30 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719404 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:46:12 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719267 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:53:45 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719234 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:29:39 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3719042 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:52:18 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3718963 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:59:13 +0800 這裡。]]> http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3718940 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:44:24 +0800 http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html http://blog.roodo.com/rpot/archives/2563413.html#comment-3718702 文章回應 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:38:01 +0800