Here is a book review from Mantex on New Media. He has it about right except for the last paragraph were he says that TV has no feedback..sites like the BBC and CBC are working hard on that one and do now have comments feedback sections were they encourage readers to comment. CBC also has a section for viewer photos and news of their own which they can post. All of this is in an attempt to answer some of the points below. It also should be noted that the two examples that I give are government news agencies, the British and Canadian respectively.
Mediactive - new book
http://www.mantex.co.uk/2010/12/27/mediactive/
Dan Gillmor is a blogger who back in 2004
launched the notion of the 'citizen journalist'.
Since that time, blogging has gone mainstream
and is even big business for a few.
This is his latest polemic in which he argues
that everyday folk have a golden opportunity
to fill the gap left by major news providers
as they slide into financial deficit.
His key point is that you no longer need
capital or a big organisation to start a
business. 'The barriers to entry are virtually
zero'.
Basically he wants us all to become more vigilant
and active participants in using the new media
tools at our disposal. And his other telling
argument is that we have two incredibly powerful
advantages over traditional journalism and the
broadcast media - these are the hyperlink and
the comment.
If television news reports an event, we have no
way of clicking through to check the source of
the information or any alternatives, and we
have no way of offering corrective feedback
or criticism.
http://www.mantex.co.uk/2010/12/27/mediactive/
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Here we go again with Journalism being the spoon in the mixing bowl of democracy:Some WikiLeaks Contributions To Public Discourse
| from the greatest-hits-of-cablegate dept.
| posted by kdawson on Monday January 10, @13:07 (Government)
| https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/10/1359244/Some-WikiLeaks-Contributions-To-Public-Discourse?from=newsletter
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0]Hugh Pickens writes "The EFF argues that regardless of the heated
debate over the propriety of the actions of WikiLeaks, some of the cables
have [1]contributed significantly to public and political conversations
around the world. The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident
in Afghanistan in which employees of DynCorp, a US military contractor,
hired a 'dancing boy,' an under-aged boy dressed as a woman, who dances
for a gathering of men and is then prostituted — an incident that
contributed important information to the [2]debate over the use of
private military contractors. A cable released by WikiLeaks showed that
[3]Pfizer allegedly sought to blackmail a Nigerian regulator to stop a
lawsuit against drug trials on children. A WikiLeaks revelation that the
United States used bullying tactics to attempt to push Spain into
adopting copyright laws even more stringent than those in the US came
[4]just in time to save Spain from the kind of misguided copyright laws
that cripple innovation and facilitate online censorship. An article by
the NY Times analyzed cables released which indicated the US is [5]having
difficulties in fulfilling Obama's promise to close the Guantánamo Bay
detention camp and is now considering incentives in return for other
countries accepting detainees, including a one-on-one meeting with Obama
or assistance with the IMF. 'These examples make clear that WikiLeaks has
brought much-needed light to government operations and private actions,'
writes Rainey Reitman, 'which, while veiled in secrecy, profoundly affect
the lives of people around the world and can play an important role in a
democracy that chooses its leaders.'"
Discuss this story at:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/10/1359244/Some-WikiLeaks-Contributions-To-Public-Discourse?from=newsletter#commentlisting
Links:
0. http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/
1. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/cablegate-disclosures-have-furthered-investigative
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria
4. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/how-wikileaks-killed-spains-anti-p2p-law.ars
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/americas/30gitmo.html?pagewanted=all
| from the greatest-hits-of-cablegate dept.
| posted by kdawson on Monday January 10, @13:07 (Government)
| https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/10/1359244/Some-WikiLeaks-Contributions-To-Public-Discourse?from=newsletter
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[0]Hugh Pickens writes "The EFF argues that regardless of the heated
debate over the propriety of the actions of WikiLeaks, some of the cables
have [1]contributed significantly to public and political conversations
around the world. The Guardian reported on a cable describing an incident
in Afghanistan in which employees of DynCorp, a US military contractor,
hired a 'dancing boy,' an under-aged boy dressed as a woman, who dances
for a gathering of men and is then prostituted — an incident that
contributed important information to the [2]debate over the use of
private military contractors. A cable released by WikiLeaks showed that
[3]Pfizer allegedly sought to blackmail a Nigerian regulator to stop a
lawsuit against drug trials on children. A WikiLeaks revelation that the
United States used bullying tactics to attempt to push Spain into
adopting copyright laws even more stringent than those in the US came
[4]just in time to save Spain from the kind of misguided copyright laws
that cripple innovation and facilitate online censorship. An article by
the NY Times analyzed cables released which indicated the US is [5]having
difficulties in fulfilling Obama's promise to close the Guantánamo Bay
detention camp and is now considering incentives in return for other
countries accepting detainees, including a one-on-one meeting with Obama
or assistance with the IMF. 'These examples make clear that WikiLeaks has
brought much-needed light to government operations and private actions,'
writes Rainey Reitman, 'which, while veiled in secrecy, profoundly affect
the lives of people around the world and can play an important role in a
democracy that chooses its leaders.'"
Discuss this story at:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/10/1359244/Some-WikiLeaks-Contributions-To-Public-Discourse?from=newsletter#commentlisting
Links:
0. http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/
1. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/cablegate-disclosures-have-furthered-investigative
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-pfizer-nigeria
4. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/how-wikileaks-killed-spains-anti-p2p-law.ars
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/americas/30gitmo.html?pagewanted=all
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Can't stop the comments on the excellence of this journalism. It is the one and first break through in our time and shows what journalism's roll is in a real democracy. Beyond the reports then is the responsibility of the electorate to consider and honor the truth and then make choices.
Secrecy is the problem, not leakers
Thu, Dec 23 2010 09:46 CET byCharlie Beckett 91945 View
WikiLeaks is now at the centre of a global battle between media and those in power but what's new about what Julian Assange is doing? WikiLeaks is much more than just another journalistic scandal, it is a challenge to the way that power and news media operate in the Internet Age.
In some ways WikiLeaks is a traditional investigative news operation. It gets its information from a source and the journalists decide what they will publish. It needs a platform, an audience and revenue just like any other newsroom. It can also be sued, censored or attacked. But because it is trying to operate online outside of normal national jurisdictions it is harder to hold to account. It can use mirror sites and multiple servers to avoid physical restraint.
It also disseminates data on such a vast scale and directly to the public so it is posting a different threat to those in authority used to being able to influence if not control the media. It is independent and not run for profit and the people who work for it are ideologically motivated. This all makes it much harder to clamp down.
Oxford University Internet analyst John Naughton says that what WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. It is not that what it publishes will endanger lives or make government impossible. It is that it forces power out into the open. That is why those in power are attacking it. WikiLeaks worries them because it protects its sources and gives the evidence directly and in great detail and scale to the citizen.
It is also a challenge to mainstream media. As Columbia University digital journalism expert Emily Bell argues, it forces journalists and news organisations to demonstrate to what extent they are now part of an establishment it is their duty to report. In other words, WikiLeaks exposes the degree to which normal journalism has lost its watchdog role.
Mainstream journalism stands accused of failing to be critical enough of those in authority. Over the economic crash of 2007 and over intelligence and the Iraq war, it failed to challenge the conventional wisdom. It was not a conspiracy or a failure of resource. It was because journalism can be too responsible, balanced and passive. Sometimes journalism needs to be disruptive, critical and even partial.
No-one denies that what WikiLeaks has revealed about the Iraq war or the diplomatic cables is true. It is important because it has revealed specific abuses such as the collateral damage video of US military executing civilians. But the latest release of diplomatic communications are even more significant because they show how power works, not just what it does. It gives an insight into the values, priorities and knowledge of authority that helps us to make much better-informed judgements of what those in power actually do. Surely, that is precisely what journalism is for?
It is encouraging to see how WikiLeaks is now working with mainstream news media organisations on their latest stories. It is good that the expertise within those newsrooms can be used to help filter, explain and contextualise the raw data. It can then be presented in a way that allows for proper responses by the authorities and the public. That kind of interaction is exactly what should happen over these issues, not the knee-jerk attempt to kill the messenger.
Instead of blocking access to websites and hiding behind firewalls it would be sensible for those in power to consider a more mature and transparent relationship with their citizens.
Of course, some of these revelations may compromise safety and security. There should always be limits on free expression. Responsibility comes with rights for the journalist. However, even when it is damaging, disclosure should always be welcomed. It's why it's the First Amendment.
The danger is that we are now heading towards a future where governments from Beijing to Washington will welcome more controls on the Internet. This would then limit the power of the most liberating technology the world has seen since the invention of printing itself. It would be nave to expect those in power to embrace radical accountability. So we need to fight for transparency and embrace the opportunity that initiatives like WikiLeaks represent.
I recognise that WikiLeaks is not itself entirely transparent but I think that it is becoming more so and other better versions will follow. The real problem in the world is secrecy not leakers.
Charlie Beckett is the founding director of POLIS, the journalism think-tank at the London School of Economics and UN Global Expert. He blogs at www.charliebeckett.org and you can reach him on Twitter at @charliebeckett.
Source: Global Experts (www.theglobalexperts.org), a project of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Copyright 2010 Global Experts/UNAOC
Secrecy is the problem, not leakers
Thu, Dec 23 2010 09:46 CET byCharlie Beckett 91945 View
WikiLeaks is now at the centre of a global battle between media and those in power but what's new about what Julian Assange is doing? WikiLeaks is much more than just another journalistic scandal, it is a challenge to the way that power and news media operate in the Internet Age.
In some ways WikiLeaks is a traditional investigative news operation. It gets its information from a source and the journalists decide what they will publish. It needs a platform, an audience and revenue just like any other newsroom. It can also be sued, censored or attacked. But because it is trying to operate online outside of normal national jurisdictions it is harder to hold to account. It can use mirror sites and multiple servers to avoid physical restraint.
It also disseminates data on such a vast scale and directly to the public so it is posting a different threat to those in authority used to being able to influence if not control the media. It is independent and not run for profit and the people who work for it are ideologically motivated. This all makes it much harder to clamp down.
Oxford University Internet analyst John Naughton says that what WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. It is not that what it publishes will endanger lives or make government impossible. It is that it forces power out into the open. That is why those in power are attacking it. WikiLeaks worries them because it protects its sources and gives the evidence directly and in great detail and scale to the citizen.
It is also a challenge to mainstream media. As Columbia University digital journalism expert Emily Bell argues, it forces journalists and news organisations to demonstrate to what extent they are now part of an establishment it is their duty to report. In other words, WikiLeaks exposes the degree to which normal journalism has lost its watchdog role.
Mainstream journalism stands accused of failing to be critical enough of those in authority. Over the economic crash of 2007 and over intelligence and the Iraq war, it failed to challenge the conventional wisdom. It was not a conspiracy or a failure of resource. It was because journalism can be too responsible, balanced and passive. Sometimes journalism needs to be disruptive, critical and even partial.
No-one denies that what WikiLeaks has revealed about the Iraq war or the diplomatic cables is true. It is important because it has revealed specific abuses such as the collateral damage video of US military executing civilians. But the latest release of diplomatic communications are even more significant because they show how power works, not just what it does. It gives an insight into the values, priorities and knowledge of authority that helps us to make much better-informed judgements of what those in power actually do. Surely, that is precisely what journalism is for?
It is encouraging to see how WikiLeaks is now working with mainstream news media organisations on their latest stories. It is good that the expertise within those newsrooms can be used to help filter, explain and contextualise the raw data. It can then be presented in a way that allows for proper responses by the authorities and the public. That kind of interaction is exactly what should happen over these issues, not the knee-jerk attempt to kill the messenger.
Instead of blocking access to websites and hiding behind firewalls it would be sensible for those in power to consider a more mature and transparent relationship with their citizens.
Of course, some of these revelations may compromise safety and security. There should always be limits on free expression. Responsibility comes with rights for the journalist. However, even when it is damaging, disclosure should always be welcomed. It's why it's the First Amendment.
The danger is that we are now heading towards a future where governments from Beijing to Washington will welcome more controls on the Internet. This would then limit the power of the most liberating technology the world has seen since the invention of printing itself. It would be nave to expect those in power to embrace radical accountability. So we need to fight for transparency and embrace the opportunity that initiatives like WikiLeaks represent.
I recognise that WikiLeaks is not itself entirely transparent but I think that it is becoming more so and other better versions will follow. The real problem in the world is secrecy not leakers.
Charlie Beckett is the founding director of POLIS, the journalism think-tank at the London School of Economics and UN Global Expert. He blogs at www.charliebeckett.org and you can reach him on Twitter at @charliebeckett.
Source: Global Experts (www.theglobalexperts.org), a project of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. Copyright 2010 Global Experts/UNAOC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
