Post #3

One thing I noticed in my research was a gap in theory. There wasn't a consistent explanation or theory within my topic of the effects of content and technical mistakes within journalism; no set theory or idea described why or how these issues formed, and most of my sources pointed to specific examples that were relevant to a small group. I wonder if this is due to the sheer number of complicating factors within the world of media and journalism, and it isn't accurate to nail down one specific issue and slap a name on it when there are so many complicating factors. This gap doesn't appear to be an issue, however, as drawing from each of these smaller, more niche examples and being aware of them is the first step to avoiding/combating them. I don't think filling this gap would benefit anyone for that same reason. Each media market has its own issues and problems, and filling that gap in one context might not fill it in another. 

Comments

  1. I think it's interesting that you were able to find a gap in theory in your research. And it's a good thing it doesn't seem to be a problem. I feel like most research gaps lead to problems or create inconsistencies which are never good. One thing I thought was interesting is that you thought filling this gap wouldn't benefit anyone. Reading your response helped me to understand your reasoning behind that. I agree that since the media market is so unique that filling the research gap wouldn't necessarily fill all of the gaps that exist.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post #1: Topic Interest

Post #4

Post #2