February 24's Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert spoke about many of the topics we have been discussing in class. He discussed watchdog journalism with Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com and the hype surrounding possible presidential candidates with the election so far away, with Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Mr. Greenwald's comments at 8:30 about what journalism should be, describe watchdog journalism, which is so elusive today. Colbert counters with a possible definition of soft news, which is so pervasive today. What is interesting is that Mr. Greenwald's description of what wikileaks does, fits the definition of watchdog journalism. Is wikileaks filling the gap and performing the functions that watchdog journalism should be doing? If so, should Julian Assange be penalized as they are currently trying to do (not including the rape allegations)?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Duality of Social Media
There and positives and negatives to social media. They are explored in the 2/21 New York Times article "N.F.L. Labor Dispute Plays Out on Twitter." The article says that football players, agents and some owners are utilizing twitter to give their own opinions on the ongoing negotiations. Twitter is functioning as a microphone for people who would otherwise not have one. However, being able to spread your opinion to millions instantly is not always good. A slip of the finger on the keyboard can be disastrous.
What was said in this article can be applied to politics which affects more people and is more volatile, with careers being broken on typos and slips of tongue. Then again, thanks to social media we are offered the "unfiltered" thoughts of politicians.
I wonder if politicians are told the same thing that the NFL players were told by the "NFLPA Guide to the Lockout," that their tweets are taken seriously and can have dire consequences if they are not properly thought out.
What was said in this article can be applied to politics which affects more people and is more volatile, with careers being broken on typos and slips of tongue. Then again, thanks to social media we are offered the "unfiltered" thoughts of politicians.
I wonder if politicians are told the same thing that the NFL players were told by the "NFLPA Guide to the Lockout," that their tweets are taken seriously and can have dire consequences if they are not properly thought out.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Subconscious Instigation
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the TV show "This Week" that the United States is going to set up Twitter accounts as well as Facebook profiles in other languages in an effort to reach out to the social-media savvy youth in different countries. This is a great way for the US to speak directly to the youth in many countries, some of which are revolting. However, this reaching-out can be dangerous for the United States.
"In its first Twitter feeds in the Iranian language Farsi on February 13, the State Department accused Iran of hypocrisy by supporting the revolt in Egypt but seeking to prevent anti-government demonstrations in Iran." Such a statement can be dangerous for the United States because this statement can be viewed as instigating the youth of Iran to revolt. Such a revolt will lead to further suppression and possibly the death of Iranians.
This combination of social media and politics is going to be a high pressure balancing act for the US. They must balance their idealogical desire to communicate with the youth and to reach out to them with the realpolitik knowledge that their statements can leads to further crackdowns on the youth and possibly death.
"In its first Twitter feeds in the Iranian language Farsi on February 13, the State Department accused Iran of hypocrisy by supporting the revolt in Egypt but seeking to prevent anti-government demonstrations in Iran." Such a statement can be dangerous for the United States because this statement can be viewed as instigating the youth of Iran to revolt. Such a revolt will lead to further suppression and possibly the death of Iranians.
This combination of social media and politics is going to be a high pressure balancing act for the US. They must balance their idealogical desire to communicate with the youth and to reach out to them with the realpolitik knowledge that their statements can leads to further crackdowns on the youth and possibly death.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Your Conclusion vs. The Media's Conclusion
The current evolution of news from print to on-line is simply the latest in the evolution of media. The original forms of media were announcements and official decrees from the ruler, which were read aloud in town squares by the town crier. With the proliferation of print newspapers and an increase in the literacy rate, that changed because people were able to read what the message was and were not required to listen to the town crier. Besides the unemployment of the town crier, there were serious ramifications. For example, Martin Luther's "95 Thesis" were written in the vernacular and were nailed to the door of the local church, a public place. People were able to read his grievances on their own, instead of being told what they were by someone else. Since people read and processed the raw data on their own, without the analysis of another person, they arrived at their own conclusions (so many people arriving at the same conclusion caused the spread of protestantism).
Today, it is possible for people to view a live stream of something as it is happening. The individual is then able to process the information on his own and arrive at his own conclusion without the outside influence of the media. This may lead to a profusion of conclusions about the same topic, something that is less likely to occur if people are reading an analysis of the event in the media. However, it may bring autonomy back to the people and allows us (people) to think for ourselves and use our own minds to figure out what is happening.
Try this experiment to see if you would rather arrive at your conclusion because of your own analysis of the event or through reading someone else's analysis of the event and adopting their conclusion. Watch a sporting event with the TV on mute. At the end of the game decide on your own who was the best player, what was the best play, what was notable about the game etc... and compare that to a writeup about the game that is found somewhere. After comparing, you can decide if you liked doing your own analysis or reading someone else's analysis. Many times, arriving at your own conclusions rather than adopting someone else's, removes the politics and the political bias from the media.
Today, it is possible for people to view a live stream of something as it is happening. The individual is then able to process the information on his own and arrive at his own conclusion without the outside influence of the media. This may lead to a profusion of conclusions about the same topic, something that is less likely to occur if people are reading an analysis of the event in the media. However, it may bring autonomy back to the people and allows us (people) to think for ourselves and use our own minds to figure out what is happening.
Try this experiment to see if you would rather arrive at your conclusion because of your own analysis of the event or through reading someone else's analysis of the event and adopting their conclusion. Watch a sporting event with the TV on mute. At the end of the game decide on your own who was the best player, what was the best play, what was notable about the game etc... and compare that to a writeup about the game that is found somewhere. After comparing, you can decide if you liked doing your own analysis or reading someone else's analysis. Many times, arriving at your own conclusions rather than adopting someone else's, removes the politics and the political bias from the media.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Does A Lack of Broadband Internet Affect Your Ability to Take Part in the Democratic Process
The New York Times article "Digital Age Is Slow to Arrive in Rural America" leads to some interesting questions and opens up my eyes to something I never thought about. As the (proud) owner of a smartphone, I assumed that dial-up internet was a thing of the past along with VHS players and audio cassettes. Apparently that is not the case, even in America. I believe this lack of broadband internet is not simply an issue of people not being able to watch youtube videos with no buffering time but something larger.
In an age where so many pieces of the democratic process are on the internet, it is possible to posit that these people are left out of the democratic process. If you do not want to go to that extreme, it is possible to say that they are less involved in our great democracy than someone who follows the White House or President Obama on twitter while streaming C-SPAN. In previous years it was possible to say that there were different venues by which people were able to get involved in the democratic process: they can read the newspaper, watch something on TV or listen to the radio. However, nowadays when newspaper readership is down, TV ratings are also down and most content was moved online, people with dial-up internet or no internet at all, are at a serious disadvantage.
On the flip side, it is possible to say that because rural America does not have alternative ways to learn about what is going on in politics, rural Americans are more likely to attend town meetings about local politics because it is one of the few ways for them to get involved.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18broadband.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.jsonp
In an age where so many pieces of the democratic process are on the internet, it is possible to posit that these people are left out of the democratic process. If you do not want to go to that extreme, it is possible to say that they are less involved in our great democracy than someone who follows the White House or President Obama on twitter while streaming C-SPAN. In previous years it was possible to say that there were different venues by which people were able to get involved in the democratic process: they can read the newspaper, watch something on TV or listen to the radio. However, nowadays when newspaper readership is down, TV ratings are also down and most content was moved online, people with dial-up internet or no internet at all, are at a serious disadvantage.
On the flip side, it is possible to say that because rural America does not have alternative ways to learn about what is going on in politics, rural Americans are more likely to attend town meetings about local politics because it is one of the few ways for them to get involved.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18broadband.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.jsonp
Monday, February 7, 2011
Fox News= Business= Better News?
Megyn Kelly, of Fox News Channel was asked:
Fox makes a big deal about how its daytime shows aren't political at all, how they're just news shows. But do you think the act of deciding what to cover and what not to is in itself a political act?
It's not political. Television is a service, but it's also a business. And in choosing what you're going to put on your program, you have to figure out what's going to appeal to your audience and what's going to rate. When I came to Fox, I noticed that we wouldn't ignore stories having to do with home-schooled children being discriminated against. Will you see those kinds of stories on our competitors? I don't think so.
Her response has me thinking. We were discussing whether or not Fox News was politicized in the news it represents. Apparently according to her, Fox News is a business and whatever brings in viewers (and by extension advertising dollars) will get aired. To me, that is better than being political. If they are political, they are so across the board, bombarding us with similar news stories because that is what the viewers want. However, if they are showing whatever will bring in the largest audience, they will be all over the place. Imagine: if conservatives watch Fox News in the early morning hours, liberals in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, we will get an eclectic array of news, which may be exactly what we should get. It will make us well rounded viewers, up to date on news which affects all segments of the population. They would be presenting as much of the news as possible, fulfilling the New York Times' slogan "all the news that's fit to print" (even though its not printed). If only it would be possible to get that many liberals to watch in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, to cause them to change their programming to bring in the advertising dollars.
Fox makes a big deal about how its daytime shows aren't political at all, how they're just news shows. But do you think the act of deciding what to cover and what not to is in itself a political act?
It's not political. Television is a service, but it's also a business. And in choosing what you're going to put on your program, you have to figure out what's going to appeal to your audience and what's going to rate. When I came to Fox, I noticed that we wouldn't ignore stories having to do with home-schooled children being discriminated against. Will you see those kinds of stories on our competitors? I don't think so.
Her response has me thinking. We were discussing whether or not Fox News was politicized in the news it represents. Apparently according to her, Fox News is a business and whatever brings in viewers (and by extension advertising dollars) will get aired. To me, that is better than being political. If they are political, they are so across the board, bombarding us with similar news stories because that is what the viewers want. However, if they are showing whatever will bring in the largest audience, they will be all over the place. Imagine: if conservatives watch Fox News in the early morning hours, liberals in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, we will get an eclectic array of news, which may be exactly what we should get. It will make us well rounded viewers, up to date on news which affects all segments of the population. They would be presenting as much of the news as possible, fulfilling the New York Times' slogan "all the news that's fit to print" (even though its not printed). If only it would be possible to get that many liberals to watch in the afternoon, feminists in the evening and senior citizens at night, to cause them to change their programming to bring in the advertising dollars.
Up or Down, Right or Left?
If only all things in life were as simple as up or down, right or left. Imagine if all questions only had 2 possible answers, like the flip of a coin. It can either be up or it can be down. You are at a dead end, you can either go right or go left. Such a life would be a simple life, but where would the fun be in that?
Imagine if every question in life had multiple answers. What would you do if a flipped coin can land up and down at the same time? What if at a dead end, you are able to go right and left? Such a life would be too confusing. There must be a balance.
Not all questions have a definitive answer, nor do they have no answer. Each question must be approached on its own and solved methodologically like a puzzle. Such puzzles make life interesting.
Imagine if every question in life had multiple answers. What would you do if a flipped coin can land up and down at the same time? What if at a dead end, you are able to go right and left? Such a life would be too confusing. There must be a balance.
Not all questions have a definitive answer, nor do they have no answer. Each question must be approached on its own and solved methodologically like a puzzle. Such puzzles make life interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)