Comments for Kim Pearson http://kimpearson.net Civic media researcher, educator and blogger Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:22:50 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on A foundational concept for the new news economy by Why Computational Thinking Should be the Core of the New Journalism Mindset » Publish2 Blog http://kimpearson.net/?p=61&cpage=1#comment-3165 Why Computational Thinking Should be the Core of the New Journalism Mindset » Publish2 Blog Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:22:50 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=61#comment-3165 [...] few days after BCNI Philly, I came across a May 2009 piece by Kim Pearson that relates the concept to journalism. In it she articulates some insightful points, including [...] [...] few days after BCNI Philly, I came across a May 2009 piece by Kim Pearson that relates the concept to journalism. In it she articulates some insightful points, including [...]

]]> Comment on Why is the state allowed to define sex for the purpose of assigning rights? by professorkim http://kimpearson.net/?p=685&cpage=1#comment-2988 professorkim Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:46:27 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=685#comment-2988 Hey Nordette, Thanks for commenting. I actually do think there is an argument for the state to be involved in the contractual aspects of marriage. I'm also not arguing for the abandonment of gender distinctions. What I am asking is whether the distinction should be made by the state, as opposed to private parties. And I understand why the discussion of gender, as well as sexual orientation can be challenging. I think people have a right to their personal beliefs and comfort levels in their personal relationships. I'm not sure how much I would have pushed myself to understand these issues if I hadn't found myself having to help my students report on a <a href="http://professorkim.blogspot.com/2004/01/aside-new-jersey-was-trendsetter-on.html" rel="nofollow">story involving a transsexual trustee</a> on our campus. I must say, though, that I am grateful for the education, because it made me aware of an entire area of privilege that I had not understood before. Thanks again as always, my friend. Hey Nordette,
Thanks for commenting. I actually do think there is an argument for the state to be involved in the contractual aspects of marriage. I’m also not arguing for the abandonment of gender distinctions. What I am asking is whether the distinction should be made by the state, as opposed to private parties.

And I understand why the discussion of gender, as well as sexual orientation can be challenging. I think people have a right to their personal beliefs and comfort levels in their personal relationships. I’m not sure how much I would have pushed myself to understand these issues if I hadn’t found myself having to help my students report on a story involving a transsexual trustee on our campus. I must say, though, that I am grateful for the education, because it made me aware of an entire area of privilege that I had not understood before.

Thanks again as always, my friend.

]]> Comment on Why is the state allowed to define sex for the purpose of assigning rights? by Nordette aka Verite http://kimpearson.net/?p=685&cpage=1#comment-2981 Nordette aka Verite Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:06:41 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=685#comment-2981 I admit that the whole discussion of abandoning gender definitions confuses me. I know I read posts by people who believe the Semenaya case is another sign that society should abandon defining gender completely. While I think the way he handle the matter of intersex individuals right now is rather backward, I'm not sure abandoning gender distinctions completely is the way to go. I think your question however is more related to the question of why is the state involved with marriage at all, except to protect minors from being married to adults, prevent incest and financial fraud related to financial matters like property ownership and inheritance. I'm not ready for the gender discussion of what is male and female. I'm still grappling with ideas people present saying the terms heterosexual and homosexual are irrelevant. Maybe that case can be made legally, but not in personal relationships to me. I know. I was no help at all with your question. :-) I admit that the whole discussion of abandoning gender definitions confuses me. I know I read posts by people who believe the Semenaya case is another sign that society should abandon defining gender completely. While I think the way he handle the matter of intersex individuals right now is rather backward, I’m not sure abandoning gender distinctions completely is the way to go.

I think your question however is more related to the question of why is the state involved with marriage at all, except to protect minors from being married to adults, prevent incest and financial fraud related to financial matters like property ownership and inheritance.

I’m not ready for the gender discussion of what is male and female. I’m still grappling with ideas people present saying the terms heterosexual and homosexual are irrelevant. Maybe that case can be made legally, but not in personal relationships to me.

I know. I was no help at all with your question. :-)

]]> Comment on Class notes on the History of Haiti by professorkim http://kimpearson.net/?p=596&cpage=1#comment-2957 professorkim Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:55:23 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=596#comment-2957 The trackbacks below are invaluable. How might news organizations do a better job of explicating the gender issues underlying the causes and possible solutions to the present calamity? The trackbacks below are invaluable. How might news organizations do a better job of explicating the gender issues underlying the causes and possible solutions to the present calamity?

]]> Comment on Class notes on the History of Haiti by Haiti: Thoughts on Women « Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine http://kimpearson.net/?p=596&cpage=1#comment-2956 Haiti: Thoughts on Women « Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:09:04 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=596#comment-2956 [...] published a list of partner organisations and are calling on everyone to educate themselves on the history of Haiti, [here's a start] the intersection of gender violence and disaster  vulnerabilities, identify [...] [...] published a list of partner organisations and are calling on everyone to educate themselves on the history of Haiti, [here's a start] the intersection of gender violence and disaster  vulnerabilities, identify [...]

]]> Comment on Class notes on the History of Haiti by Black Looks » Haiti: Thoughts on Women http://kimpearson.net/?p=596&cpage=1#comment-2955 Black Looks » Haiti: Thoughts on Women Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:16:51 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=596#comment-2955 [...] published a list of partner organisations and are calling on everyone to educate themselves on the history of Haiti, [here's a start] the intersection of gender violence and disaster  vulnerabilities, identify [...] [...] published a list of partner organisations and are calling on everyone to educate themselves on the history of Haiti, [here's a start] the intersection of gender violence and disaster  vulnerabilities, identify [...]

]]> Comment on What should journalists know of philosophy? by Don Hart http://kimpearson.net/?p=451&cpage=1#comment-2950 Don Hart Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:54:30 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=451#comment-2950 Kim,I did an elaboration last week and it never showed up here. You and I do not agree about many foundational things here – so I don't know whether I can be helpful in this discussion. For example, I am very skeptical about “curriculums” (for journalism, or philosophy, or college). I am skeptical about reducing learning to “courses.” On other levels I am skeptical about the practice of journalists. I see members of the White House Press Corps asking really naïve and stoopid questions every day. [Whenever a “leader” is asked a question – that is an opportunity for authority to spin an answer. Spin is all that will ever result from questions about “what?” and “why?”] On a deeper level, there simply is NO “what” – there is only “what-under-a-description” (I have a neighbor/friend who believes that we simply SEE what people do (he is a retired superior court judge). I find that simplicity dangerous in judges AND journalists. Derrida taught us that there is nothing beyond the text. How do we get journalists to understand and act on that? My point was that A COURSE (either in philosophy or in lit. crit.) won't bring it about that journalism students give up all those dead-white-european-christian-male assumptions that foster the culture of Pat Robertson and George Bush. Finally (and then I'll shut up) the “why?” question is also quite dangerous. There just is NO (universal) psychology – we must get people to the level of understanding psychology as based in a culture. I read Aristotle in high school and it took me 25 years to GET OVER that. I think your students should read Richard Rorty (and to DO that, they might have to read 66 other books first) (but I'll bet you that Mort disagrees with that suggestion). Kim,I did an elaboration last week and it never showed up here.
You and I do not agree about many foundational things here – so I don’t know whether I
can be helpful in this discussion.
For example, I am very skeptical about “curriculums” (for journalism, or philosophy, or
college). I am skeptical about reducing learning to “courses.”
On other levels I am skeptical about the practice of journalists. I see members of the White House
Press Corps asking really naïve and stoopid questions every day. [Whenever a “leader” is asked
a question – that is an opportunity for authority to spin an answer. Spin is all that will ever result
from questions about “what?” and “why?”]
On a deeper level, there simply is NO “what” – there is only “what-under-a-description”
(I have a neighbor/friend who believes that we simply SEE what people do (he is a retired
superior court judge). I find that simplicity dangerous in judges AND journalists.
Derrida taught us that there is nothing beyond the text. How do we get journalists to understand
and act on that? My point was that A COURSE (either in philosophy or in lit. crit.) won’t
bring it about that journalism students give up all those dead-white-european-christian-male
assumptions that foster the culture of Pat Robertson and George Bush.
Finally (and then I’ll shut up) the “why?” question is also quite dangerous. There just is NO
(universal) psychology – we must get people to the level of understanding psychology as
based in a culture.
I read Aristotle in high school and it took me 25 years to GET OVER that. I think your
students should read Richard Rorty (and to DO that, they might have to read 66 other books first)
(but I’ll bet you that Mort disagrees with that suggestion).

]]> Comment on What should journalists know of philosophy? by professorkim http://kimpearson.net/?p=451&cpage=1#comment-2922 professorkim Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:00:34 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=451#comment-2922 Please elaborate, Don. Why should they not take a philosophy course like Romano's? Lit-crit study isn't a standard part of the journalism curriculum as it stands now. Why would it be helpful? Right now, most journalism students get some grounding in utilitarian theory, (it's not unusual to have them read Aeropagitica) to help them understand why there is a First Amendment. They get ethics, often taught in terms of codes and case studies. My favorite media ethics text, <a href="http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007288259x/student_view0/case_studies.html" rel="nofollow">Media Ethics: Issues and Cases</a> (Mc Graw Hill) does that, but also explores a variety of ethical approaches, eg, Aristotle's Golden Mean, Rawls' Theory of Justice, Communitarianism. I my race, gender and news class, I also add critical feminist theory to the mix, but I don't use Herrnstein Smith. Please elaborate, Don. Why should they not take a philosophy course like Romano’s? Lit-crit study isn’t a standard part of the journalism curriculum as it stands now. Why would it be helpful? Right now, most journalism students get some grounding in utilitarian theory, (it’s not unusual to have them read Aeropagitica) to help them understand why there is a First Amendment. They get ethics, often taught in terms of codes and case studies. My favorite media ethics text, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (Mc Graw Hill) does that, but also explores a variety of ethical approaches, eg, Aristotle’s Golden Mean, Rawls’ Theory of Justice, Communitarianism. I my race, gender and news class, I also add critical feminist theory to the mix, but I don’t use Herrnstein Smith.

]]> Comment on Jay Rosen’s Explainthis.org Would Have Journalists Answer Users’ Questions by alex kessinger http://kimpearson.net/?p=557&cpage=1#comment-2916 alex kessinger Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:22:03 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=557#comment-2916 I think the idea is to get people who are interested in doing the leg work, as well as journalists, to answer the questions. I think the idea is to get people who are interested in doing the leg work, as well as journalists, to answer the questions.

]]> Comment on What should journalists know of philosophy? by Don Hart http://kimpearson.net/?p=451&cpage=1#comment-2904 Don Hart Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:46:55 +0000 http://kimpearson.net/?p=451#comment-2904 Romano deserves the heat he is getting for his proposal. Philosophers should NOT focus on journalism and journalism students should NOT take a philosophy course like Romano's. Unfortunately (?) journalism IS "a way that culture is constructed" so journalists must accept some responsibility for the culture that they (help) construct. If we had more sophisticated journalists would we have a more sophisticated culture? I doubt it. If we had more sophisticated consumers of journalism would be have more sophisticated journalists. Of course. Reflection and meta-thinking is a good thing (even for journalists), but I think that students can get what they need there from lit-crit study. I wish that every journalist in the country read Barbara Herrnstein Smith, but I doubt that Fox would be happy with that (or even the NYTimes). Romano deserves the heat he is getting for his proposal. Philosophers should NOT focus on journalism and journalism students should NOT take a philosophy course like Romano’s.
Unfortunately (?) journalism IS “a way that culture is constructed” so journalists must accept some responsibility for the culture that they (help) construct.
If we had more sophisticated journalists would we have a more sophisticated culture? I doubt it. If we had more sophisticated consumers of journalism would be have more sophisticated journalists. Of course.
Reflection and meta-thinking is a good thing (even for journalists), but I think that students can get what they need there from lit-crit study. I wish that every journalist in the country read Barbara Herrnstein Smith, but I doubt that Fox would be happy with that (or even the NYTimes).

]]>