Podcast som undervisning...

For øyeblikket tar jeg et 15 stp kurs ved høyskolen i Nesna som heter
Musikk og identitet på Nordkalotten. Dette kurset er bygd opp på en måte som er meget bra; lærerne er gode og stoffet er interessant. Den store forskjellen på dette kurset og andre kurs jeg tar ved høyskoler dette året er at dette kurset er basert kun på podcast.


Lærerne har spilt inn alt undervisningsmateriell og produsert gode podcaster. Nå er det ikke sikkert denne undervisningsformen passer for alle, men for min del er den midt i blinken. Det er sikkert ikke alle fag som passer på dette heller. Kurset består av 14 podcaster, hver på ca 20 minutter. Modulene er bygd opp på samme måten som et musikkprogram på radio, med to som prater om temaet blandet med musikk innimellom.

Hvis det nå skulle vise seg at denne undervisningsformen passer på flere fag, ville jeg tro at dette kan være fremtiden. Om man hadde slått sammen podcastundervisningen fra det nevnte musikkstudiet og det opplegget som brukes her på IKT avdelingen ved Nesna, ville man kanskje nærme seg noe som kunne vært den ideelle undervisningsformen for de fleste fag.

Hva er problemet med en slik undervisning da?, jo det største problemet, slik jeg ser det, vil helt klart være sosialiseringen blant barn og unge.
Det er sikkert mange fordeler og ulemper med et slikt opplegg. På den ene siden vil et slikt opplegg vil være mulig å kvalitetssikre på en annen måte enn undervisningen blir med den tradisjonelle undervisningen, på den annen side vil det være vanskelig for læreren å følge opp hver enkelt elev på samme måte som læreren klarer med tradisjonell undervisning.

Muligens passer det bedre på voksne studenter enn på barn. En blanding av tradisjonell undervisning og en webundervisning med podcast vil kanskje være løsningen.

Who will pay the journalists?

In Norway, and probably all other countries there are economic problems among the newspaper companies. More and more people read newspapers at no cost. Who wants to advertise in a paper newspaper if no one wants to buy it, and who wants to buy a newspaper if they can read the same for free on the internet?

Well this isn’t only a blac and white situation, I know. The situation is a little bit more nuanced. There are still a lot of people who wants to read newspaper in a paper edition. It will not be very wise to believe more people will go back to the paper edition.

My guess is that more people will use their laptop, cell phone, Ipad, etc to read their news. People will, of course, read news for free if they can.
Who will pay the journalists for their job? Maybe advertising, but who wants to read a newspaper with 3-4 popup advertisements for every article. According to the web page Mediebedriftene the advertising marked was reduced only in Norway with 625 mill kroner from 2008 to 2009.

So what is the solution then? Sack most of the journalists and let blogs and other stuff from private persons be the main contents?

Yes, thats probably a good idea. On one side this is maybe the only solution, normal people working as a journalist, costless for the newspaper company. On the other hand there will be hard to control the Source criticism.

There are a lot of issues to take care of in the future if this is THE FUTURE, one big problem can be the etical code of practice for the press - not necessary, the newspaper company can make rules, that to be able to write a blog, the blogger must use proper language, pictures, etc. If the blogger don't follow, that the blogger is banned from publishing anything. A lot of bloggers don't want to use their real name, and if the newspaper company accept them to use nicknames, the can of course use different nicknames.

Dagsorden - Agenda

In Norway we have a saying called dagsorden, that means the agenda the newspapers write about, or the topics in one or another news channel on the TV. This agenda can be a debate in other forum the next days, and if the case is big enough people in media debate the next week or the next month. It can even be changes in the government or changes laws of a nation.
In the modern society, the information society called the internet everything goes faster. If a newspaper or TV channels on the net post a news story to make this dagsorden, the journalists don’t have to wait until the next day to get a response on the news story. They can get a blog response within a minute, or a debate on the same page just a few seconds after the news story has been posted from their internet based newspaper. So to the problem as I see it, we have now something called minuttorden (it means the news story can get a follow up within minutes instead of a day).
Earlier the opponents could think 24 hours before they followed up the story, at least they could consider the following case before responding, they could also check out if the story is true.
With minuttorden, it is all about how fast you can give your response.
How fast can another journalist or another person do their source criticism?