| The Way We See It |
| Cover |
| Arts and Entertainment |
| Culture & Fashion |
| Economics & Money |
| Philosophy & Literature |
| Politics & Law |
| Science & History |
| The Way They See It |
| Psychology Research Network |
| The Way You See It |
| Travel Blogs |
 |
|
|
||||
|
| ||||
|
I remember as if it were yesterday. Sitting in front of the television as the nightly news intro music caught my interest. I watched it every night, and watched as much of the big three (Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather) as possible. I was fascinated by their unending finesse in delivering the news to millions of people everyday. They took complicated problems and somehow uncomplicated them. They were masters of journalism, of communication, and people respected them (and still do) for their work. But, we must look at these three legends in the context of history. Before them, print media, newspapers and magazines, were the darlings of the journalism world. It was not until most American homes had access to televisions that the nightly news became the primary resource for the nations’ information. And, although print media remains the darling of some, it’s not for most. Today the big three is finding itself in a similar situation to that of newspapers of fifty years ago: a technological shift that is reforming the way Americans and people around the world receive their news again: the Internet. Undoubtedly, this is a novel and advantageous medium for disseminating information. That is, until we realize we are losing the importance of integrity. Now anyone can be a Tom Brokaw, in a sort of way. This had led to a fragmented, niche market where people seek out news organizations that fit their world view. But, how is that news? Therein lies the problem. While information has proliferated, knowledge and integrity has not. We cannot, however, forget the power and potential the Internet has. We simply must find a way to correct the large amount of misinformation available on-line. In other words, we need to return to the style of journalism that Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather and other print media have always practiced. That’s where my idea for EdgeWise enters the scene. At EdgeWise we believe in retention of past values of journalistic integrity, an embracing of present participatory journalism, and a desire to move towards the future fusing them together. Therefore, the goal of fusion journalism is three-fold: to become a connective force among academia, to bridge and fuse the gap between traditional and participatory journalism, and to do this in such a way that we are not just reporting on an issue but we are also finding ways to solve them. We see EdgeWise as both a magazine with articles and an engine of new ideas for the future generation in solving its myriad of problems. Our hope is to engage as many artists, educators, lawyers, politicians, entertainers, housewives and housemen, doctors, etc. in the process of fusion journalism to works towards the optimal solution to today’s problems. We also believe EdgeWise to be a referendum on democracy and on education. Working through this process, we believe we can reform both. We plan to do this by engaging in thorough, uncensored debate among some of the smartest, most motivated people the current generation has to offer to narrow down issue topics. Through traditional-style research journalism we then produce stories from different academic perspectives in hopes that the readers will be the ones to find the connections and insights by discussing the articles with other readers and the writers themselves. We then hope to fuse these two types of journalism to formulate answers and maybe even policy for the issue at hand through a final fusion article, written by the EdgeWise readers. Together we can achieve these goals and works towards the edge. |