Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Not a revolution (yet): Data journalism hasn’t changed that much in 4 years, a new paper finds
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
May 24, 2010, 10 a.m.

David Weinberger: How information became the “dominant metaphor” of contemporary intellectual life

Every week, our friends at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society invite academics and other thinkers to discuss their work over lunch. Thankfully for us, they record the sessions. Over the next week or so, we’ll be passing along some of the talks over the past few months that are most relevant to the future of news.

First up: David Weinberger. The Cluetrain Manifesto author and Internet philosopher discusses information — as a paradigm, as an irony, as a way of comprehending ourselves and the world. Given the fact that we don’t understand, in any meaningful way, what information actually is, Weinberger says, it’s worth considering how it became the “dominant metaphor” of our intellectual life — and how the metaphor is changing as we enter the digital age.

If you don’t have time to watch, Ethan Zuckerman liveblogged the talk, and David posted an early draft outline of it.

POSTED     May 24, 2010, 10 a.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Not a revolution (yet): Data journalism hasn’t changed that much in 4 years, a new paper finds
“Our findings challenge the widespread notion that [data-driven journalism] ‘revolutionizes’ journalism.”
One of India’s most famous newspapermen is turning to digital with a political journalism platform
Shekhar Gupta said he named his new venture The Print to signal to readers that its standards would be high: “We feel there is a belief that once you go digital, the bar is lowered.”
The New York Times released new staff social media guidelines, so phew, thankfully that’s settled
“In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.”