Citizen journalists get rewarded
Here is an interesting report from the BBC about this new wave of journalism which comes, as from here, cell phone photographs but also from blogs, web pages and internet discussion boards.
The judges were unanimous in choosing the winning image.
Enlarge Image
A picture taken moments after a bomb exploded on a number 30 bus in London's Tavistock Square on 7 July 2005 has won the first citizen journalism award.
Second prize went to a shot of the Buncefield oil terminal fire taken by a passenger in a plane.
The awards, set up by Nokia and the UK Press Gazette, aim to highlight images shot by citizens witnessing events.
The popularity of camera phones means more images of significant events are reaching news organisations.
I witness
Increasingly the well-known pictures of significant events around the world, such as the bombings in London on 7 July 2005, are coming from citizens rather than professional photographers.
The shot taken of the immediate aftermath of the Tavistock Square bomb was widely publicised in newspapers and on the BBC. The judges of the award were unanimous in choosing it as the winner.
Vicky Taylor, BBC News Interactivity editor and one of the judges, said: "I went with the pictures which were taken by people almost by chance. They did not set out to photograph an event, it just happened in front of them."
David Otway's shot of Buncefield won second prize
Ian Reeves, editor of Press Gazette, said "It's clear from the quality of the entries to these awards that citizen journalism, however you define it, is going to play an increasingly significant role in the industry."
The person who took the Tavistock Square photograph elected to remain anonymous and asked for the prize to be donated to one of the London bombings charities.
The third prize went to another photograph taken of the aftermath of the 7 July bombings. The image was taken by Alexander Chadwick in the tunnels of London's Piccadilly Line as commuters made their way to a station from the bombed train.
To be eligible for the award, pictures had to be taken between 1 May 2005 and 20 April 2006. They also had to have been published in a known magazine, newspaper or broadcast or seen on a self-published blog, citizen journalism site or photo-sharing service.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
WHEN NEWSPAPERS FALL FOR POLITICAL "DROPS"
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/truth-loses-when-only-half-the-story-will-do/2006/07/02/1151778807051.html?
"Next time you see an 'exclusive' tag on a story about state
politics, stop and have a closer look. The chances are that the
story, far from being a feat of journalistic endeavor, is what we
call in the trade 'a drop,'" writes Anne Davies in the Sydney
Morning Herald. "You'll be able to tell it's a drop because it's
likely to quote one side of politics only. This is often a condition
of the drop." Drops, especially those in Sunday papers, help
politicians influence the week's media agenda. Presenting
government-sanctioned leaks as "exclusives" also helps newspapers
gain a marketing edge over their rivals. Uncritical reporting of a
drop, Davies concludes, "may be of mutual benefit to newspapers and
politicians, but it's certainly not in the public's interest."
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4947
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/truth-loses-when-only-half-the-story-will-do/2006/07/02/1151778807051.html?
"Next time you see an 'exclusive' tag on a story about state
politics, stop and have a closer look. The chances are that the
story, far from being a feat of journalistic endeavor, is what we
call in the trade 'a drop,'" writes Anne Davies in the Sydney
Morning Herald. "You'll be able to tell it's a drop because it's
likely to quote one side of politics only. This is often a condition
of the drop." Drops, especially those in Sunday papers, help
politicians influence the week's media agenda. Presenting
government-sanctioned leaks as "exclusives" also helps newspapers
gain a marketing edge over their rivals. Uncritical reporting of a
drop, Davies concludes, "may be of mutual benefit to newspapers and
politicians, but it's certainly not in the public's interest."
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4947
Here is a really great story from the CBC on how a Canadian thinks a war should be fought in the 21st century. What are the chances?
DON MURRAY:
War by other means
July 11, 2006 | More from Don Murray
Don Murray is one of the most prolific of the CBC's foreign correspondents, filing hundreds of reports - in French and English - from China, Europe, the Middle East and the Soviet Union. He is currently based in London as the senior European correspondent for CBC Television News.
During his 30 years with CBC, Murray has covered a multitude of major stories, including the advent of perestroika and glasnost and the collapse of the Soviet Union. He wrote A Democracy of Despots, a book documenting that collapse and the rebirth of Russia. While in Berlin, he covered the peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia and, in London, covered the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. He authored Family Wars, a major feature article for the International Journal paralleling the troubles in Northern Ireland and the war in Bosnia. In recent years he has covered the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Von Clausewitz would have approved. The great 19th-century military thinker, the author of On War, was German and clinical. Among his many insights was this one: "When we speak of destroying the enemy's forces we must emphasize that nothing obliges us to limit this idea to physical forces: the moral element must also be considered."
The moral element. This was at the heart of the matter on the field in Berlin and in distressed conversations in France in the wake of its team's loss in the soccer World Cup final against Italy.
What had the Italian player Marco Materazzi said to the incomparable French captain, Zinedine Zidane, that caused him to lose his moral compass and commit a professional foul with 10 minutes to go in the tight game? Zidane headbutted the Italian and was shown a red card by the referee. He was thrown out of the game. France's penalty kicker was banished. Ten minutes later, they lost on penalty kicks.
The French coach, Raymond Domenech, understood immediately and bitterly. The player of the game, he said, was Materazzi: he had destroyed France's chief weapon.
Materazzi had not used physical violence; the French agreed on that. He had used mental violence: he had used words. But which words? Across France, the suppositions and rumours run. He had called Zidane, whose parents are Algerian, a terrorist. He had insulted Zidane's mother. In the crowd, Hamid, like Zidane a Frenchman of Algerian origin, fixed on this second interpretation. Of course Zidane had to react. Materazzi had wounded his family, his very self-esteem.
But in acting, Zidane had lost the battle. Italy lifted the prize. In that country, joy was unconfined. As the team returned in triumph to Rome, the streets filled. This was not the second coming, but the fourth coming of the World Cup to Italy. For Italian fans, it was almost a glimpse of paradise even if the descent to soccer hell may soon follow. Four of Italy’s top domestic teams, for which several of the World Cup stars play during the season, are wrapped in the tentacles of scandal involving match fixing and referee tampering. Within days, the teams may be relegated to the minor leagues.
Paradise glimpsed is far better than Paradise Lost, butted away, many in France think, by the head of Zidane.
Consolation and absolution
The day after the fatal game, the French team had to endure the purgatory of official thanks for being second-best. It began with handshakes from France's embattled president, Jacques Chirac, who can only dream of the popularity the French players enjoy. Then, in the garden of the presidential palace, came consoling words for Zidane. You are a genius of international football, Jacques Chirac told him. You have a great heart and great commitment. France loves you.
The players then travelled five minutes down the road to the Place de la Concorde where once the guillotine had stood. What awaited them was not execution but absolution. A crowd of several thousand faithful bathed them in applause and thanks as they stood on the balcony of a luxury hotel. This raucous outpouring of esteem was directed particularly at Zidane. The talismanic captain had played his last game; he had already announced he was retiring after the World Cup. He was still loved, and greatly.
The affection was also directed at David Trezeguet, whose missed penalty kick lost the championship for France. As the ovation washed up, he broke down. This was not Italy; this was not joy unconfined. But it was full remission for football sins.
One further point: two European nations were pitted against each as the world watched. Yet no one died.
Breaking boredom's bonds
Exactly 90 years ago, European nations were also pitted against one another in battle. On the first day of the battle of the Somme, 20,000 British soldiers died. Almost 400,000 European combatants would be chewed up by the end of the months-long battle. And it was only one of many in the First World War.
The cultural historian George Steiner has advanced the theory that one of the prime causes of that colossal carnage was ennui or spleen – boredom. French poets like Baudelaire were writing about the terrible burden of this ennui decades before. Steiner suggests that European nations rushed headlong into war to break the iron bonds of boredom.
Ennui still stalks the world; nations still square off. But soccer is the preferred form of combat, 22 men in T-shirts and shorts, kicking a round ball. As Von Clausewitz might have said, this is war by other means.
While France forgave its hero Zidane, others were not so kind. 'Zidane-Amok' was the headline in a German tabloid; 'Zid Vicious' was the choice of its British equivalent. Editorialists weighed in with words of censure for his heinous act.
The headbutted Materazzi fell to the ground but rose again to finish the game and raise the championship trophy. No one died.
Consider again the axiom of the German thinker: the moral element must also be considered.
DON MURRAY:
War by other means
July 11, 2006 | More from Don Murray
Don Murray is one of the most prolific of the CBC's foreign correspondents, filing hundreds of reports - in French and English - from China, Europe, the Middle East and the Soviet Union. He is currently based in London as the senior European correspondent for CBC Television News.
During his 30 years with CBC, Murray has covered a multitude of major stories, including the advent of perestroika and glasnost and the collapse of the Soviet Union. He wrote A Democracy of Despots, a book documenting that collapse and the rebirth of Russia. While in Berlin, he covered the peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia and, in London, covered the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. He authored Family Wars, a major feature article for the International Journal paralleling the troubles in Northern Ireland and the war in Bosnia. In recent years he has covered the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Von Clausewitz would have approved. The great 19th-century military thinker, the author of On War, was German and clinical. Among his many insights was this one: "When we speak of destroying the enemy's forces we must emphasize that nothing obliges us to limit this idea to physical forces: the moral element must also be considered."
The moral element. This was at the heart of the matter on the field in Berlin and in distressed conversations in France in the wake of its team's loss in the soccer World Cup final against Italy.
What had the Italian player Marco Materazzi said to the incomparable French captain, Zinedine Zidane, that caused him to lose his moral compass and commit a professional foul with 10 minutes to go in the tight game? Zidane headbutted the Italian and was shown a red card by the referee. He was thrown out of the game. France's penalty kicker was banished. Ten minutes later, they lost on penalty kicks.
The French coach, Raymond Domenech, understood immediately and bitterly. The player of the game, he said, was Materazzi: he had destroyed France's chief weapon.
Materazzi had not used physical violence; the French agreed on that. He had used mental violence: he had used words. But which words? Across France, the suppositions and rumours run. He had called Zidane, whose parents are Algerian, a terrorist. He had insulted Zidane's mother. In the crowd, Hamid, like Zidane a Frenchman of Algerian origin, fixed on this second interpretation. Of course Zidane had to react. Materazzi had wounded his family, his very self-esteem.
But in acting, Zidane had lost the battle. Italy lifted the prize. In that country, joy was unconfined. As the team returned in triumph to Rome, the streets filled. This was not the second coming, but the fourth coming of the World Cup to Italy. For Italian fans, it was almost a glimpse of paradise even if the descent to soccer hell may soon follow. Four of Italy’s top domestic teams, for which several of the World Cup stars play during the season, are wrapped in the tentacles of scandal involving match fixing and referee tampering. Within days, the teams may be relegated to the minor leagues.
Paradise glimpsed is far better than Paradise Lost, butted away, many in France think, by the head of Zidane.
Consolation and absolution
The day after the fatal game, the French team had to endure the purgatory of official thanks for being second-best. It began with handshakes from France's embattled president, Jacques Chirac, who can only dream of the popularity the French players enjoy. Then, in the garden of the presidential palace, came consoling words for Zidane. You are a genius of international football, Jacques Chirac told him. You have a great heart and great commitment. France loves you.
The players then travelled five minutes down the road to the Place de la Concorde where once the guillotine had stood. What awaited them was not execution but absolution. A crowd of several thousand faithful bathed them in applause and thanks as they stood on the balcony of a luxury hotel. This raucous outpouring of esteem was directed particularly at Zidane. The talismanic captain had played his last game; he had already announced he was retiring after the World Cup. He was still loved, and greatly.
The affection was also directed at David Trezeguet, whose missed penalty kick lost the championship for France. As the ovation washed up, he broke down. This was not Italy; this was not joy unconfined. But it was full remission for football sins.
One further point: two European nations were pitted against each as the world watched. Yet no one died.
Breaking boredom's bonds
Exactly 90 years ago, European nations were also pitted against one another in battle. On the first day of the battle of the Somme, 20,000 British soldiers died. Almost 400,000 European combatants would be chewed up by the end of the months-long battle. And it was only one of many in the First World War.
The cultural historian George Steiner has advanced the theory that one of the prime causes of that colossal carnage was ennui or spleen – boredom. French poets like Baudelaire were writing about the terrible burden of this ennui decades before. Steiner suggests that European nations rushed headlong into war to break the iron bonds of boredom.
Ennui still stalks the world; nations still square off. But soccer is the preferred form of combat, 22 men in T-shirts and shorts, kicking a round ball. As Von Clausewitz might have said, this is war by other means.
While France forgave its hero Zidane, others were not so kind. 'Zidane-Amok' was the headline in a German tabloid; 'Zid Vicious' was the choice of its British equivalent. Editorialists weighed in with words of censure for his heinous act.
The headbutted Materazzi fell to the ground but rose again to finish the game and raise the championship trophy. No one died.
Consider again the axiom of the German thinker: the moral element must also be considered.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
This is.....so.............international!
-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MDN presents 'Manglish - Manga in English' |
| from the dept. |
| posted by Hemos on Monday July 03, @08:07 (Anime) |
| http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/03/1159239 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]Mainichi Daily News writes "Japan's leading English news site
revolutionizes manga -- Manga lovers rejoice! A never-seen-before
approach to manga made its debut on the Mainichi Daily News on Monday,
July 3, 2006. [1]Manglish takes some of Japan's hottest young manga
talents -- showcased in the Mainichi's MangaTown site -- and places their
creations on the MDN in their original Japanese format. However, cool
thing is that while it appears on the site in the original Japanese, but
if you run your mouse over it you get the translation in English.
Discuss this story at:
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/07/03/1159239
Links:
0. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/
1. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/etc/manglish/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MDN presents 'Manglish - Manga in English' |
| from the dept. |
| posted by Hemos on Monday July 03, @08:07 (Anime) |
| http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/03/1159239 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]Mainichi Daily News writes "Japan's leading English news site
revolutionizes manga -- Manga lovers rejoice! A never-seen-before
approach to manga made its debut on the Mainichi Daily News on Monday,
July 3, 2006. [1]Manglish takes some of Japan's hottest young manga
talents -- showcased in the Mainichi's MangaTown site -- and places their
creations on the MDN in their original Japanese format. However, cool
thing is that while it appears on the site in the original Japanese, but
if you run your mouse over it you get the translation in English.
Discuss this story at:
http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/07/03/1159239
Links:
0. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/
1. http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/etc/manglish/index.html
Monday, July 03, 2006
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The influence of blogs on journalism and the media and the public that reads them all. Excellent article from the BBC on the accuracy challenge for blogging>
Blagging in the blogosphere
VIEWPOINT
Richard Ladle
Blogs are revolutionising the way millions of people around the world keep in touch with environmental issues, but at what cost? Richard Ladle, in this week's Green Room, says the growing popularity of web-based journals is making it harder to sort fact from fiction.
Luiz is worried. He has just read in O Globo, Brazil's premier newspaper, that the Amazon may be completely gone by the year 2050.
Ana, a Brazilian living in the UK reads about the deforestation statistics in Luiz's web diary, otherwise known as a "blog", and is so concerned that she emails it to all her friends.
Joy, Ana's friend from Hong Kong, translates part of Ana's email into Mandarin Chinese and pastes it into her blog, which is read by Cheryl, a primary school teacher in Singapore who decides to discuss deforestation in her class.
And so things go in the borderless, unregulated, democratised world of the internet. Now, we no longer have to rely on the television or the newspapers to find out about the latest scientific advance or environmental catastrophe.
Scientific information and "expert" opinions are literally just a mouse-click away. However, unlike the traditional news media, the internet has no gatekeepers, no reviewers, and no authority to help you distinguish good science from the bad, environmental fact from environmental fiction.
Rise of the blog
The latest craze to sweep across cyberspace is the use of blogs, frequently updated websites that contain a mixture of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, and links to other websites, online journals or diaries.
Despite the growing popularity of blogs they are still viewed with considerable suspicion by both scientists and the general public
Unlike traditional web pages that are essentially static in nature, it is interactions between weblogs which makes them so interesting and influential.
When linked together into intertwining communities, or "blogospheres", they provide a communication platform of incredible power and complexity where information and opinions are exchanged, transformed and reworked with astounding rapidity across international boundaries and time zones.
There are already nearly 12 million weblogs in existence and it is estimated that this number is doubling every five months. However, despite the growing popularity of blogs they are still viewed with considerable suspicion by both scientists and the general public.
A recent international survey of public trust in the media, conducted for the BBC and Reuters, found that internet blogs were the least trusted source of news information, with one in two people unable to say if they trusted them.
The public are right to be cautious. Misrepresentation of environmental science on the internet is widespread and weblogs are by no means a special case. From deforestation rates in the Amazon to climate change statistics, nothing is necessarily how it appears.
Furthermore, unlike most traditional forms of media that have gatekeepers, people whose job it is validate facts, check copy, exert some sort of quality control; the defining characteristic of the blogosphere is its lack of regulation.
Inspire or conspire?
Misreporting and misrepresentation are important because they can lead to a loss of trust at a time when public support for pro-environmental policies is most crucial.
Poor reporting of environmental science may also have a disproportionate effect on children who are increasingly turning the internet as their preferred source of information and who are least able to judge the validity of claims or the legitimacy of one blog over another.
So how should we be responding to the challenges and opportunities presented by the blogosphere?
One way to deal with misrepresentation in blogs is to increase the weight of informed opinions in the blogosphere. An influx of scientifically informed opinion and accurate information would also help combat and correct misrepresentations in the traditional news media and draw public attention to important new research findings.
Whatever precautions are taken there is always scope for being mislead or misdirected and for work to appear out of context
Weblogs could also be used to inspire the next generation of environmentalists. For instance, blogging is the perfect way for field biologists and conservationists to communicate the soap opera quality of working and living in the field.
Furthermore, new wireless communication systems and solar technology now make real-time blogging from the remotest of locations a strong possibility.
The diversity of views that can be found on the internet is one of its greatest strengths. However, associated with such freedom of information is a lack of quality control which can make it hard to sift through the weight of uninformed, misguided or misleading websites and weblogs.
One of the challenges of living in a media world without gatekeepers is that we need to take far more personal responsibility for assessing the quality of scientific information that we receive.
Fortunately, there are several ways in which the credibility of a website or blog can be quickly assessed:
Check the data - strong scientific arguments are based on information from recognised sources that is available for public scrutiny, while weak or spurious arguments are often backed up with data from secondary sources or often no data at all
Take note of the language - arguments couched in hyperbolic language may be masking a lack of understanding or sound information
Whatever precautions are taken there is always scope for being mislead or misdirected and for work to appear out of context - even when the exact figures are readily available for public scrutiny.
In the blogosphere the individual is king and everyone, rightly or wrongly, can become part of the news
This transition from individuals consuming their environmental news from traditional sources such as newspapers and television to selecting their news from the "electronic buffet" of the internet could have profound implications for the environmental movement and, for that matter, news providers such as the BBC.
The challenge has been laid down: how to effectively communicate in this new virtual world of shifting environmental values and consumption patterns?
There are no easy answers but if we don't respond quickly we run the risk of creating a generation of eco-illiterate consumers and voters at a crucial time for the Earth's diminishing resources.
In the blogosphere the individual is king and everyone, rightly or wrongly, can become part of the news. Dangers and opportunities abound and never before has there been a greater responsibility on individuals to be more discriminating news consumers.
But, at the end of the day, if you don't like what you are reading then you can always start your own blog and tell the world about it!
Dr Richard Ladle is director of MSc Biodiversity, Conservation and Management at Oxford University, and a senior partner of Sustainable Solutions Worldwide
The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental issues running weekly on the BBC News website
A series of thought-provoking environmental opinion pieces
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5099764.stm
Published: 2006/06/23 07:19:36 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Blagging in the blogosphere
VIEWPOINT
Richard Ladle
Blogs are revolutionising the way millions of people around the world keep in touch with environmental issues, but at what cost? Richard Ladle, in this week's Green Room, says the growing popularity of web-based journals is making it harder to sort fact from fiction.
Luiz is worried. He has just read in O Globo, Brazil's premier newspaper, that the Amazon may be completely gone by the year 2050.
Ana, a Brazilian living in the UK reads about the deforestation statistics in Luiz's web diary, otherwise known as a "blog", and is so concerned that she emails it to all her friends.
Joy, Ana's friend from Hong Kong, translates part of Ana's email into Mandarin Chinese and pastes it into her blog, which is read by Cheryl, a primary school teacher in Singapore who decides to discuss deforestation in her class.
And so things go in the borderless, unregulated, democratised world of the internet. Now, we no longer have to rely on the television or the newspapers to find out about the latest scientific advance or environmental catastrophe.
Scientific information and "expert" opinions are literally just a mouse-click away. However, unlike the traditional news media, the internet has no gatekeepers, no reviewers, and no authority to help you distinguish good science from the bad, environmental fact from environmental fiction.
Rise of the blog
The latest craze to sweep across cyberspace is the use of blogs, frequently updated websites that contain a mixture of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, and links to other websites, online journals or diaries.
Despite the growing popularity of blogs they are still viewed with considerable suspicion by both scientists and the general public
Unlike traditional web pages that are essentially static in nature, it is interactions between weblogs which makes them so interesting and influential.
When linked together into intertwining communities, or "blogospheres", they provide a communication platform of incredible power and complexity where information and opinions are exchanged, transformed and reworked with astounding rapidity across international boundaries and time zones.
There are already nearly 12 million weblogs in existence and it is estimated that this number is doubling every five months. However, despite the growing popularity of blogs they are still viewed with considerable suspicion by both scientists and the general public.
A recent international survey of public trust in the media, conducted for the BBC and Reuters, found that internet blogs were the least trusted source of news information, with one in two people unable to say if they trusted them.
The public are right to be cautious. Misrepresentation of environmental science on the internet is widespread and weblogs are by no means a special case. From deforestation rates in the Amazon to climate change statistics, nothing is necessarily how it appears.
Furthermore, unlike most traditional forms of media that have gatekeepers, people whose job it is validate facts, check copy, exert some sort of quality control; the defining characteristic of the blogosphere is its lack of regulation.
Inspire or conspire?
Misreporting and misrepresentation are important because they can lead to a loss of trust at a time when public support for pro-environmental policies is most crucial.
Poor reporting of environmental science may also have a disproportionate effect on children who are increasingly turning the internet as their preferred source of information and who are least able to judge the validity of claims or the legitimacy of one blog over another.
So how should we be responding to the challenges and opportunities presented by the blogosphere?
One way to deal with misrepresentation in blogs is to increase the weight of informed opinions in the blogosphere. An influx of scientifically informed opinion and accurate information would also help combat and correct misrepresentations in the traditional news media and draw public attention to important new research findings.
Whatever precautions are taken there is always scope for being mislead or misdirected and for work to appear out of context
Weblogs could also be used to inspire the next generation of environmentalists. For instance, blogging is the perfect way for field biologists and conservationists to communicate the soap opera quality of working and living in the field.
Furthermore, new wireless communication systems and solar technology now make real-time blogging from the remotest of locations a strong possibility.
The diversity of views that can be found on the internet is one of its greatest strengths. However, associated with such freedom of information is a lack of quality control which can make it hard to sift through the weight of uninformed, misguided or misleading websites and weblogs.
One of the challenges of living in a media world without gatekeepers is that we need to take far more personal responsibility for assessing the quality of scientific information that we receive.
Fortunately, there are several ways in which the credibility of a website or blog can be quickly assessed:
Check the data - strong scientific arguments are based on information from recognised sources that is available for public scrutiny, while weak or spurious arguments are often backed up with data from secondary sources or often no data at all
Take note of the language - arguments couched in hyperbolic language may be masking a lack of understanding or sound information
Whatever precautions are taken there is always scope for being mislead or misdirected and for work to appear out of context - even when the exact figures are readily available for public scrutiny.
In the blogosphere the individual is king and everyone, rightly or wrongly, can become part of the news
This transition from individuals consuming their environmental news from traditional sources such as newspapers and television to selecting their news from the "electronic buffet" of the internet could have profound implications for the environmental movement and, for that matter, news providers such as the BBC.
The challenge has been laid down: how to effectively communicate in this new virtual world of shifting environmental values and consumption patterns?
There are no easy answers but if we don't respond quickly we run the risk of creating a generation of eco-illiterate consumers and voters at a crucial time for the Earth's diminishing resources.
In the blogosphere the individual is king and everyone, rightly or wrongly, can become part of the news. Dangers and opportunities abound and never before has there been a greater responsibility on individuals to be more discriminating news consumers.
But, at the end of the day, if you don't like what you are reading then you can always start your own blog and tell the world about it!
Dr Richard Ladle is director of MSc Biodiversity, Conservation and Management at Oxford University, and a senior partner of Sustainable Solutions Worldwide
The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental issues running weekly on the BBC News website
A series of thought-provoking environmental opinion pieces
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5099764.stm
Published: 2006/06/23 07:19:36 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Research is the basis for most good journalism. Here is an article from the New York Times on just that:
ECONOMIC VIEW
Giving It Away, Then and Now
By DANIEL GROSS
The announcement that Warren E. Buffett would donate most
of his fortune to a foundation created by Bill Gates sent
reporters to the history stacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02view.html?th&emc=th
ECONOMIC VIEW
Giving It Away, Then and Now
By DANIEL GROSS
The announcement that Warren E. Buffett would donate most
of his fortune to a foundation created by Bill Gates sent
reporters to the history stacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02view.html?th&emc=th
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Reporters can start out poorly educated and dumb but they are forced to become knowledgeble, sensetive and aware of all historical movements. This may be the activity of the rest of your life. Remember that the guys who are doing the xxx thing here are the same ones that excomunicated Leonarod DeVinci and Kazinzakis, actually they also did Coprinicus and anybody else with a brain. Pitiful really.
Excommunication Is Sought for Stem Cell Researchers
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Stem cell researchers should be punished in the same way as
women who have abortions and doctors who perform them, a
senior Vatican official said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/world/europe/01vatican.html?th&emc=th
Excommunication Is Sought for Stem Cell Researchers
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Stem cell researchers should be punished in the same way as
women who have abortions and doctors who perform them, a
senior Vatican official said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/world/europe/01vatican.html?th&emc=th
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Well talking about subversion of the democracy:
BUSH JOINS IN CONDEMNING N.Y. TIMES
U.S. President George W. Bush has joined the chairman of the House
homeland security committee in denouncing the New York Times for
publishing a story last week about a secret financial-monitoring
program used to trace alleged terrorists.
FULL STORY:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/26/congressman-new-york-times.html
A PS to this is that the Canadian government, and I'm sure others, is investigating the possibility that Canadain and International laws were broken with this secret financial-monitoring. Breaking laws has seldom stopped the White House in the past.
BUSH JOINS IN CONDEMNING N.Y. TIMES
U.S. President George W. Bush has joined the chairman of the House
homeland security committee in denouncing the New York Times for
publishing a story last week about a secret financial-monitoring
program used to trace alleged terrorists.
FULL STORY:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/26/congressman-new-york-times.html
A PS to this is that the Canadian government, and I'm sure others, is investigating the possibility that Canadain and International laws were broken with this secret financial-monitoring. Breaking laws has seldom stopped the White House in the past.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
We've talked about some of the threats to a free and open society and free and open news which is supposed to support it. Here is an article that clearly outlines this problem in the U.S.A. What happens there has often already happened in other places or is just about to.
Check it out at The Nation:>http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060703&s=crispinmiller
Mark Crispin Miller on the Death of News
Although its history is far from glorious, the US press has never been as bad as it is now.
Date filed: 25-06-2006
Check it out at The Nation:>http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060703&s=crispinmiller
Mark Crispin Miller on the Death of News
Although its history is far from glorious, the US press has never been as bad as it is now.
Date filed: 25-06-2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Next weeks assignment, and the last one, is a future story. What is going to happen tomorrow,next week or next year in business, the weather or anything else such as fashion. You must not write a fantasy story, it should have basis in fact. We have two more classes. The class on the 13th of July will be off and there will be no class as that will be the make up for the Asahi Tour. Again look back over the last three or four entries and check out the tools for journalists. Clark
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
| Washington Post Reviews its 10 Years on the Web |
| from the i-also-collect-spores-molds-and-fungus dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday June 19, @19:22 (The Media) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/19/221222 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]anaesthetica writes "The Washington Post is featuring three stories
today reviewing their experience in adapting the "old media" to the new
environment of the web. The first article examines their revelation that
'The news, as "lecture," is giving way to the [1]news as a "conversation".'
The second looks at the '[2]Kaiser memo' which served as the germinating
point for what would become WashingtonPost.com, phrased in language that
today seems amusingly quaint. The final article looks at the [3]death of
traditional print newspapers as consumers flock to internet sources for
their news."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/19/221222
Links:
0. http://slashdot.org/~anaesthetica/journal/
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800618.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800743.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300929.html
| from the i-also-collect-spores-molds-and-fungus dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday June 19, @19:22 (The Media) |
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/19/221222 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]anaesthetica writes "The Washington Post is featuring three stories
today reviewing their experience in adapting the "old media" to the new
environment of the web. The first article examines their revelation that
'The news, as "lecture," is giving way to the [1]news as a "conversation".'
The second looks at the '[2]Kaiser memo' which served as the germinating
point for what would become WashingtonPost.com, phrased in language that
today seems amusingly quaint. The final article looks at the [3]death of
traditional print newspapers as consumers flock to internet sources for
their news."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/19/221222
Links:
0. http://slashdot.org/~anaesthetica/journal/
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800618.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800743.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300929.html
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Earth Sandwich |
| from the no-mayo-mayo-sucks dept. |
| posted by timothy on Monday June 19, @13:22 (It's funny. Laugh.)|
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/19/1718219 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
yourhotneighbor writes "If you haven't seen Ze Frank's hilarious
[0]videoblog, it's worth checking out. A few weeks ago he challenged
visitors to create an "Earth Sandwich" where two pieces of bread are
placed exactly opposite each other on the globe. Google mashups showing
[1]what's on the opposite side of the Earth and [2]a live GeoRSS-based
bread gallery were provided. A piece [3]on NPR this Saturday details the
concept and a team from New Zealand and Spain [4]completed the challenge.
Then on Friday he allowed his show to be written by his viewers who
battled out 2,000+ script revisions in a Wiki. Sunday's New York Times
[5]describes the results."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/19/1718219
Links:
0. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/06/061206.html
1. http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html
2. http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/status.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5492174
4. http://scourist.com/2006/06/09/0009-earth-sandwich/
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/fashion/sundaystyles/18ze.html
| Earth Sandwich |
| from the no-mayo-mayo-sucks dept. |
| posted by timothy on Monday June 19, @13:22 (It's funny. Laugh.)|
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/19/1718219 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
yourhotneighbor writes "If you haven't seen Ze Frank's hilarious
[0]videoblog, it's worth checking out. A few weeks ago he challenged
visitors to create an "Earth Sandwich" where two pieces of bread are
placed exactly opposite each other on the globe. Google mashups showing
[1]what's on the opposite side of the Earth and [2]a live GeoRSS-based
bread gallery were provided. A piece [3]on NPR this Saturday details the
concept and a team from New Zealand and Spain [4]completed the challenge.
Then on Friday he allowed his show to be written by his viewers who
battled out 2,000+ script revisions in a Wiki. Sunday's New York Times
[5]describes the results."
Discuss this story at:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/19/1718219
Links:
0. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/06/061206.html
1. http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html
2. http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/status.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5492174
4. http://scourist.com/2006/06/09/0009-earth-sandwich/
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/fashion/sundaystyles/18ze.html
Monday, June 19, 2006
Well the Asahi tour was again very good. Only 13 students came however and 20 had commited to come. At any rate I have just run across a wonderful idea 'The Twelve Things Journalists Should Know About.......' and the illustrated example is interviewing people about the future. Everyone please check it out and we will discuss it next class. Twelve Things Journalists Need To Know to be Good Futurist/Foresight Reporters:>http://www.openthefuture.com/2006/06/twelve_things_journalists_need.html< Have a good day, week, month, year, decade, life.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Hi we will be looking at CBC.ca the Canadian Broadcasting site and interviews with their foreign correspondents next class, you might want to check them out ahead of time, or not ;>}. Your assignment for this week as a local story and you have to attribute at the end or in the story at least three different sources. The idea is that the more points of view that you investigate the better the reporting and the final story. Also I have posted class pictures on flickr. Check my website for the address. See you on Thur. I'll be looking at your blogs tomorrow. Clark
Friday, June 02, 2006
Good Reporting? What is it? Well here's an example:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Crashing the Wiretapper's Ball |
| from the hardly-shocking dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Thursday June 01, @11:32 (Security) |
| http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/01/156213 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is running an article with some great
investigative journalism. Writer Thomas Green [0]snuck into the ISS World
Conference, a trade show featuring communications-tapping equipment and
normally a press-free event. There, he got some very interesting quotes
from the attendees." From the article: "You really need to educate
yourself ... Do you think this stuff doesn't happen in the West? Let me
tell you something. I sell this equipment all over the world, especially
in the Middle East. I deal with buyers from Qatar, and I get more concern
about proper legal procedure from them than I get in the USA."
Discuss this story at:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/01/156213
Links:
0. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71022-0.html
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Crashing the Wiretapper's Ball |
| from the hardly-shocking dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Thursday June 01, @11:32 (Security) |
| http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/01/156213 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is running an article with some great
investigative journalism. Writer Thomas Green [0]snuck into the ISS World
Conference, a trade show featuring communications-tapping equipment and
normally a press-free event. There, he got some very interesting quotes
from the attendees." From the article: "You really need to educate
yourself ... Do you think this stuff doesn't happen in the West? Let me
tell you something. I sell this equipment all over the world, especially
in the Middle East. I deal with buyers from Qatar, and I get more concern
about proper legal procedure from them than I get in the USA."
Discuss this story at:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/01/156213
Links:
0. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71022-0.html
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
It's a dangerous job but someone has to do it - don't they?
IRAQ THE MOST DEADLY WAR FOR REPORTERS
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577061
The Iraq war "is now the deadliest war for reporters in the past
century," reports Editor and Publisher. Seventy-one journalists and
26 media support staff have been killed in Iraq since 2003. That
compares to 69 journalists killed in World War II, 63 in Vietnam and
17 in Korea. In addition, at least 42 journalists have been
kidnapped in Iraq, according to Reporters Without Borders. As the
New York Times notes, "it is Iraqi journalists who have been most at
risk. Just this month, three Iraqi reporters were killed in a
two-week period." The news comes as CBS reports that two of its crew
members were killed in Iraq. Cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman
James Brolan are believed to be "the first embedded journalists to
die since 2003."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, May 29, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4837
IRAQ THE MOST DEADLY WAR FOR REPORTERS
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577061
The Iraq war "is now the deadliest war for reporters in the past
century," reports Editor and Publisher. Seventy-one journalists and
26 media support staff have been killed in Iraq since 2003. That
compares to 69 journalists killed in World War II, 63 in Vietnam and
17 in Korea. In addition, at least 42 journalists have been
kidnapped in Iraq, according to Reporters Without Borders. As the
New York Times notes, "it is Iraqi journalists who have been most at
risk. Just this month, three Iraqi reporters were killed in a
two-week period." The news comes as CBS reports that two of its crew
members were killed in Iraq. Cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman
James Brolan are believed to be "the first embedded journalists to
die since 2003."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, May 29, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4837
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
What might be happening in the media world. Here is a col. by a well known Canadian writting for the Globe and Mail Canada's priemier paper.
Social networks are hot, but where's all the cash?
If septuagenarian billionaire Rupert Murdoch wanted to stir things up in the media industry, he couldn't have picked a better way to do it than by paying more than half-a-billion dollars for a website that most media executives had probably never heard of.
The MySpace.com deal sent shock waves through the traditional media world, which is busy trying to grapple with the fragmentation caused by the rise of blogs and Web-based content, and also through the ranks of the on-line giants such as Yahoo and Microsoft.
Since the deal was announced last summer, the various players have been scrambling to find their own way into the "social networking" space, whether by buying on-line communities -- such as Vancouver-based Flickr.com and del.icio.us, both of which were bought by Yahoo -- or by partnering with existing players. Last year, media and entertainment giant Viacom bought NeoPets.com, an on-line community aimed at preteens, a market many advertisers see as a key growth area. And there were reports earlier this year that Facebook.com, a social networking site aimed at university students, was pitching itself to potential buyers at a valuation of $2-billion (U.S.).
Some of those who were around in the late nineties may feel as though they've seen this movie before, back when the hot "social networks" were Web page communities known as GeoCities, Tripod, Homestead and theglobe.com. For those who are keeping track at home, Yahoo bought GeoCities in 1999 for $3.5-billion, and Lycos, which bought Tripod, was acquired by Mexican media giant Terra for $12.5-billion.
The latest move in the social networking space came last week from AOL, the former Time Warner basket case, which announced a MySpace-style social network called AIM Pages. Designed as an extension of AOL's instant messenger product, known as AIM, the new service includes the ability to create blogs. Like Yahoo and Microsoft, AOL is trying hard to find ways of leveraging its massive subscriber base (49 million, in AOL's case).
One of the sticky issues that both AOL and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. will have to confront, however, is how to justify the money they are spending on social networks. In the end, all those supposedly loyal users have to get converted into money, or "monetized" as financial types like to say.
It's true that based on certain estimates, MySpace is the second most-visited website in the world, with almost 30 billion page views in March -- almost twice as many as the Time Warner network (including AOL) and almost three times as many as eBay. And MySpace has about 70 million users. But it's not clear how much money it is actually making. Certainly not as much as eBay.
Even in terms of revenue, MySpace is well behind other sites that are about the same size. Its page-view number was just a shade less than Yahoo's 32 billion (for March), and yet the site's estimated revenue of $200-million for this year pales in comparison with Yahoo's almost $6-billion.
The bottom line is that Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL have been able to gain substantial amounts of ad revenue from their users, but so far MySpace has not. And that is a hurdle faced by many social networking sites. How can you monetize those users without pushing them away or ruining your brand?
According to recent estimates gathered by The New York Times, MySpace has an advertising rate (known as the CPM or cost per thousand) of about 10 cents, which means advertisers are only willing to pay 10 cents for every 1,000 page views. Some Web networks charge as much as $2 per 1,000, and established media sites can charge as much as $10.
Web advertising experts say there are two reasons why MySpace may not be getting as much for its ads: One is that the number of page views it generates seems abnormally large, and advertisers may be suspicious of how valuable each one is; and the second reason is that MySpace is seen as a hangout for teens, who are a notoriously fickle market.
According to a recent article in the Financial Times, MySpace is talking with both Google and Microsoft about a partnership that would involve search-based advertising on MySpace. A similar deal was signed last year between Google and AOL, in a deal that was worth about $1-billion to Time Warner.
At the same time, however, anyone who is considering either investing in or advertising on a site like MySpace or Facebook has to be thinking not just about the fate of GeoCities and Tripod, but also about a service such as Friendster, which was arguably as big a deal three years ago as MySpace is now. At its peak, Friendster had 20 million users, but now it is a mere fraction of its former size.
What happened? Some analysts believe Friendster didn't have enough features to retain users. It also suffered from performance issues as it tried to cope with phenomenal growth. But in the end, it may simply have been a victim of the shifting enthusiasms of its young audience, who grew up and moved on. In many ways, social networking sites are like hot nightclubs -- they become popular and then flame out as the hip crowd moves on, and they are very difficult to manufacture.
Oh yes, and one more thing: For what it's worth, Friendster never figured out how to make money either.
Mathew Ingram writes analysis and commentary for globeandmail.com
mingram@globeandmail.com
Social networks are hot, but where's all the cash?
If septuagenarian billionaire Rupert Murdoch wanted to stir things up in the media industry, he couldn't have picked a better way to do it than by paying more than half-a-billion dollars for a website that most media executives had probably never heard of.
The MySpace.com deal sent shock waves through the traditional media world, which is busy trying to grapple with the fragmentation caused by the rise of blogs and Web-based content, and also through the ranks of the on-line giants such as Yahoo and Microsoft.
Since the deal was announced last summer, the various players have been scrambling to find their own way into the "social networking" space, whether by buying on-line communities -- such as Vancouver-based Flickr.com and del.icio.us, both of which were bought by Yahoo -- or by partnering with existing players. Last year, media and entertainment giant Viacom bought NeoPets.com, an on-line community aimed at preteens, a market many advertisers see as a key growth area. And there were reports earlier this year that Facebook.com, a social networking site aimed at university students, was pitching itself to potential buyers at a valuation of $2-billion (U.S.).
Some of those who were around in the late nineties may feel as though they've seen this movie before, back when the hot "social networks" were Web page communities known as GeoCities, Tripod, Homestead and theglobe.com. For those who are keeping track at home, Yahoo bought GeoCities in 1999 for $3.5-billion, and Lycos, which bought Tripod, was acquired by Mexican media giant Terra for $12.5-billion.
The latest move in the social networking space came last week from AOL, the former Time Warner basket case, which announced a MySpace-style social network called AIM Pages. Designed as an extension of AOL's instant messenger product, known as AIM, the new service includes the ability to create blogs. Like Yahoo and Microsoft, AOL is trying hard to find ways of leveraging its massive subscriber base (49 million, in AOL's case).
One of the sticky issues that both AOL and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. will have to confront, however, is how to justify the money they are spending on social networks. In the end, all those supposedly loyal users have to get converted into money, or "monetized" as financial types like to say.
It's true that based on certain estimates, MySpace is the second most-visited website in the world, with almost 30 billion page views in March -- almost twice as many as the Time Warner network (including AOL) and almost three times as many as eBay. And MySpace has about 70 million users. But it's not clear how much money it is actually making. Certainly not as much as eBay.
Even in terms of revenue, MySpace is well behind other sites that are about the same size. Its page-view number was just a shade less than Yahoo's 32 billion (for March), and yet the site's estimated revenue of $200-million for this year pales in comparison with Yahoo's almost $6-billion.
The bottom line is that Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL have been able to gain substantial amounts of ad revenue from their users, but so far MySpace has not. And that is a hurdle faced by many social networking sites. How can you monetize those users without pushing them away or ruining your brand?
According to recent estimates gathered by The New York Times, MySpace has an advertising rate (known as the CPM or cost per thousand) of about 10 cents, which means advertisers are only willing to pay 10 cents for every 1,000 page views. Some Web networks charge as much as $2 per 1,000, and established media sites can charge as much as $10.
Web advertising experts say there are two reasons why MySpace may not be getting as much for its ads: One is that the number of page views it generates seems abnormally large, and advertisers may be suspicious of how valuable each one is; and the second reason is that MySpace is seen as a hangout for teens, who are a notoriously fickle market.
According to a recent article in the Financial Times, MySpace is talking with both Google and Microsoft about a partnership that would involve search-based advertising on MySpace. A similar deal was signed last year between Google and AOL, in a deal that was worth about $1-billion to Time Warner.
At the same time, however, anyone who is considering either investing in or advertising on a site like MySpace or Facebook has to be thinking not just about the fate of GeoCities and Tripod, but also about a service such as Friendster, which was arguably as big a deal three years ago as MySpace is now. At its peak, Friendster had 20 million users, but now it is a mere fraction of its former size.
What happened? Some analysts believe Friendster didn't have enough features to retain users. It also suffered from performance issues as it tried to cope with phenomenal growth. But in the end, it may simply have been a victim of the shifting enthusiasms of its young audience, who grew up and moved on. In many ways, social networking sites are like hot nightclubs -- they become popular and then flame out as the hip crowd moves on, and they are very difficult to manufacture.
Oh yes, and one more thing: For what it's worth, Friendster never figured out how to make money either.
Mathew Ingram writes analysis and commentary for globeandmail.com
mingram@globeandmail.com
OK here is the update for this week. I have ordred seven text books from the publisher. They should be here next week. I have recieved a few more resends of podcasts and wil review all I have on Sunday afternoon. Your assignment over the next two weeks is to find a story somewhere on the campus and do a vidio news broadcast. The media centre on the 6th floor of building 15 the Gucher building has been told you will be coming. They have five cameras and say that they can all be used at any one time. Have a good week. PS if you were around Aoyama last night you should have reported on the big fire. Clark
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Hi well only one person even came close to submitting the podcast on time. Most people not at all. I have contacted the publisher of our text book and they will airmail copies to Japan after I tell them how many I need. Please be prepared,this Thur., to tell me if you wish me to order me a copy. Clark
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Here's this weeks assignment update due on Monday May 22nd at noon at carsurf@dragon.email.ne.jp. You should send in a Podcast, a ½ to one minute sound file report on some business activity. We talked about how to in class but if you missed it or still have trouble check out the media centre in the Goucher Building on campus and they should beable to help you. Good Luck. Clark
Sunday, May 14, 2006
OK take a look at this report from Tokyo in the New York Times:
In Tokyo, the New Trend Is 'Media Immersion Pods'
By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
In the world's most media-saturated city, people take a
break by checking themselves into warrens cluttered with
computers, TV's, video games and every other entertainment
of the electronic age.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/arts/14heff.html?th&emc=th
In Tokyo, the New Trend Is 'Media Immersion Pods'
By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
In the world's most media-saturated city, people take a
break by checking themselves into warrens cluttered with
computers, TV's, video games and every other entertainment
of the electronic age.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/arts/14heff.html?th&emc=th
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Hi here is the new e-mail address where you should send your stories >carsurf@yahoo.com
Also one note about censorship on the blogsphere. As you are using school computers and this is a Christian University some care should be taken to keep language within acceptable bonds. That would be what you and your peers feel comfortable with. See you next week. Looking forward to your obituaries this Sunday deadline at five o'clock. Clark
Also one note about censorship on the blogsphere. As you are using school computers and this is a Christian University some care should be taken to keep language within acceptable bonds. That would be what you and your peers feel comfortable with. See you next week. Looking forward to your obituaries this Sunday deadline at five o'clock. Clark
Friday, May 05, 2006
What would be worse, losing your job or your life:
Iraq more deadly to journalists than Vietnam, WWII
Last Updated Fri, 05 May 2006 15:18:03 EDT
CBC Arts
There have been 74 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, according to Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to freedom of the press.
Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, widow of slain journalist Steven Vincent touches the name of her husband on a memorial honouring journalists who died on the job, including 59 who died in 2005. (Mannie Garcia/AP)
More journalists died in Iraq than in either the Second World War or the conflict in Vietnam and Cambodia.
The names of 59 journalists who died on the job in 2005 were added to the Freedom Forum Journalists Memorial in Arlington, Va., on Wednesday. That number included 23 killed in Iraq.
The names of the journalists were read aloud and followed by a chime during a ceremony held at the memorial.
Among the dead were two cameramen for Associated Press Television News. Saleh Ibrahim, 33, was killed by gunfire in Iraq after shooting footage in the aftermath of an explosion. Mir Nawab, 34, died in Pakistan when his bus was attacked as he returned from covering the surrender of a tribal militant.
Three months ago, World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and Canadian cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously injured in a roadside bomb attack just north of Baghdad. Both are still recovering from their injuries.
ABC News president David Westin paid tribute to journalists who died on the job.
"We never, ever want anyone to lose his life in reporting the news," he said. "But the simple, harsh fact is that there are stories so important that some journalists volunteer to take the risk on behalf of all of us."
Among those honoured were Steven Vincent, 49, a freelance journalist who had written for the Christian Science Monitor, National Review and the New York Times. He was killed in Basra, Iraq, after he and his translator were kidnapped.
Vincent's widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, said she valued the tribute because Vincent wasn't a permanent employee of a major news organization. "The fact he was considered to have given his life for truth and freedom, he deserves to be a hero," she told Associated Press.
Three journalists died in the United States: two in car accidents, and one who contracted malaria after working in Namibia.
The memorial, a spiral-shaped structure made of glass panels that change colour as they catch the sunlight, now bears the names of 1,665 journalists, dating back to 1812. The annual ceremony marks World Press Freedom Day.
Iraq more deadly to journalists than Vietnam, WWII
Last Updated Fri, 05 May 2006 15:18:03 EDT
CBC Arts
There have been 74 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, according to Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to freedom of the press.
Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, widow of slain journalist Steven Vincent touches the name of her husband on a memorial honouring journalists who died on the job, including 59 who died in 2005. (Mannie Garcia/AP)
More journalists died in Iraq than in either the Second World War or the conflict in Vietnam and Cambodia.
The names of 59 journalists who died on the job in 2005 were added to the Freedom Forum Journalists Memorial in Arlington, Va., on Wednesday. That number included 23 killed in Iraq.
The names of the journalists were read aloud and followed by a chime during a ceremony held at the memorial.
Among the dead were two cameramen for Associated Press Television News. Saleh Ibrahim, 33, was killed by gunfire in Iraq after shooting footage in the aftermath of an explosion. Mir Nawab, 34, died in Pakistan when his bus was attacked as he returned from covering the surrender of a tribal militant.
Three months ago, World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and Canadian cameraman Doug Vogt were seriously injured in a roadside bomb attack just north of Baghdad. Both are still recovering from their injuries.
ABC News president David Westin paid tribute to journalists who died on the job.
"We never, ever want anyone to lose his life in reporting the news," he said. "But the simple, harsh fact is that there are stories so important that some journalists volunteer to take the risk on behalf of all of us."
Among those honoured were Steven Vincent, 49, a freelance journalist who had written for the Christian Science Monitor, National Review and the New York Times. He was killed in Basra, Iraq, after he and his translator were kidnapped.
Vincent's widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, said she valued the tribute because Vincent wasn't a permanent employee of a major news organization. "The fact he was considered to have given his life for truth and freedom, he deserves to be a hero," she told Associated Press.
Three journalists died in the United States: two in car accidents, and one who contracted malaria after working in Namibia.
The memorial, a spiral-shaped structure made of glass panels that change colour as they catch the sunlight, now bears the names of 1,665 journalists, dating back to 1812. The annual ceremony marks World Press Freedom Day.
Someone is watch and reporting:
| Reporters Without Borders Internet Annual Report |
| from the it-doesn't-look-good dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Thursday May 04, @17:27 (Censorship) |
| http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/04/2018232 |
kratei writes "The BBC is running a report discussing the [0]Reporters
Without Borders internet annual report 2006. The RWB study details and
decries [1]the rising tide of net censorship and lays the blame squarely
on the west as the source for the technology that allows repressive
regimes to stifle freedom on the web." From the article: "China's success
at censorship means it has effectively produced a "sanitised" version of
the internet for its 130 million citizens that regularly go online. The
wide-ranging scrutiny also means that it is the biggest jailer of
so-called cyber dissidents. RSF estimates that 62 people in China have
been jailed for what they said online. "
Discuss this story at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/05/04/2018232
Links:
0. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4973114.stm
1. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=578
| Reporters Without Borders Internet Annual Report |
| from the it-doesn't-look-good dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Thursday May 04, @17:27 (Censorship) |
| http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/04/2018232 |
kratei writes "The BBC is running a report discussing the [0]Reporters
Without Borders internet annual report 2006. The RWB study details and
decries [1]the rising tide of net censorship and lays the blame squarely
on the west as the source for the technology that allows repressive
regimes to stifle freedom on the web." From the article: "China's success
at censorship means it has effectively produced a "sanitised" version of
the internet for its 130 million citizens that regularly go online. The
wide-ranging scrutiny also means that it is the biggest jailer of
so-called cyber dissidents. RSF estimates that 62 people in China have
been jailed for what they said online. "
Discuss this story at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/05/04/2018232
Links:
0. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4973114.stm
1. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=578
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Here is a really long transcript of a speech on Journalism which is well worth reading, so please give it a try, it is in many way state of the art:
Home » Dan Gillmor's Blog
My NYC Talk on Journalism Principles and Future
Dan Gillmor's Blog, Posted 05/02/06 by Dan Gillmor
Thanks again to Columbia University for inviting me this week to give the annual Hearst New Media Lecture. The audience was terrific and asked great questions (I don't have a transcript of that part, sorry.) What follows is the talk as I wrote it out, beginning after the various thank-yous to the folks who invited me (special thanks to Sree), though I did stray frequently from the written text.
I'm honored to have been invited. I'm also grateful. During the past few years I've had the privilege of working in a field that really led to this conversation we're going to have tonight. There have been ups and downs along the way. But it's been a great ride so far.
I spent more than a decade at the San Jose Mercury News, the daily newspaper of Silicon Valley. One of the ways I tended to classify some of the people I met in the technology industry was by dividing them into groups we might call the managers and the engineers. That's software and hardware engineers, not the kind who drive trains.
Here's a story I once heard. Or maybe I saw it on the Internet. Whatever, it's not original with me.
So it's lunchtime, and some managers at a software company are on their way out to a local restaurant. One of them peers up at the flag, waving in a mild breeze, and wonders aloud how tall the flagpole is. Now this is Silicon Valley, where when you have an idea you're supposed to act on it. One of them has a tape measure in his car, which he retrieves. The managers start hoisting each other up, attempting to measure the height of the thing, but they're falling all over each other and generally making a mess of it.
Meanwhile, a couple of software engineers have stopped to observe the somewhat chaotic scene. They look at each other and nod, then tell the managers to stand out of the way for a second, which by now they are only too glad to do. The engineers lift the pole out of its stand, lay it flat on the grass, take the tape and measure the thing. They give the answer to the managers and head off to their own lunch.
One of the managers looks to the others, shakes his head and says, "Typical engineers. We want the height and they give us the length."
I'm not an engineer, and I'm definitely not a corporate manager. But I like that story, because it reminds me how easily we see things in certain ways and fail to recognize or appreciate the alternatives.
This is called a "New Media" lecture. Two items: First, We are moving at light speed to a time when the expression "new media" will too many words, and we'll drop the new part; it'll just be media. I'm glad to see this school and the organizations that hire its graduates are adopting at least some of tomorrow's techniques more quickly than I predicted. That's good. Forward-looking folks are aware that there's no alternative, not to mention the fact that the journalism will benefit.
Second, I want to make this a conversation sooner than later. Eveything I've been working on in the past few years is about an evolution of journalism from the lecture mode of the past to something much closer to a conversation. That's a shift I consider absolutely essential for all of journalism's constituencies.
I don't have to tell anyone here about the turmoil in the news business over the past few years. If I noticed it a bit earlier than some, we can chalk that up partly to circumstance.
When I was writing my column for the San Jose Mercury News, We were a growing newspaper, loaded with ambition and the resources to do something about it. I was extremely well compensated -- for a newspaper guy, at any rate -- and free to follow my instincts. I used to wake up mornings thinking I'd won the journalism lottery.
Now the Mercury News is a much-diminished organization. It still has some of the best journalists and people I've know, is about to be sold to a newspaper group whose management will likely make the staff yearn for the days when the man some folks called Darth Ridder was running the company.
I'm not here to say newspapers have a right to survive. And I'm not here to say that professional journalists -- that is, people paid to produce news reports -- have a right to their jobs. Being in Silicon Valley helped me understand and appreciate this.
In our age of accelerating change, the force that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" guarantees that the blend of innovation, free markets and individual liberty are inevitably disruptive to business models. Creative destruction, which has slammed into the journalism field like so many others, obliges us all to keep learning and reinventing our own lives and careers. There are scary parts to this, but if we welcome innovation, while nourishing free markets and liberty with fairness and social responsibility, we will do better than under other systems.
I am here to say a few obvious things. One is the blatantly observable fact that the practice of journalism is evolving -- and at a pace so quick as to be stunning for such a conservatively run business. I'm also hoping to stretch some definitions, and maybe some boundaries, all in service of better journalism for the future.
On my blog in early 2005 I posted an essay-in-progress. It was called "The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)." I suggested that the journalism of the new century would be better served if we all considered abandoning the worthy ideal of objectivity and replacing it with a collection of honored principles, only one of which was not already embedded in tradition. Now, by reinforcing those principles with the emerging tools of a Digital Age, we can create something even better.
By giving that blog posting a version number of less than 1.0, I wasn't just making a techie joke. I was calling attention to another reality of tomorrow's journalism. In a craft that's shifting from lecture to conversation, the publication (or broadcast or whatever) is not The End. It is somewhere in the middle of an emergent system in which we all can keep learning, and teaching.
This is increasingly doable in part because of what has changed so much for so many: the collision of technology and media, which has helped democratize communications and is turning traditional notions of journalism in new directions. Now, I don't mean democratization so much as in the sense of voting -- though collective community thinking is an intriguing and valuable part of what's coming. I mean it in the sense of wide participation.
The democratization starts with the tools of creation. They're widely available -- the computer I carry around came off the shelf with media tools that were simply unavailable a few years ago except to a highly skilled and well-paid professionals. These tools are increasingly powerful and decreasingly expensive, thanks to technology's relentless progress, and getting easier to use all the time.
They're also connected to a somewhat democratized digital communications system. I say "somewhat" because two of America's most control-freakish businesses -- namely the phone and cable companies -- are working hard to hijack the Internet for their own purposes, in ways that are flat-out dangerous to innovation and, I'd argue, our very future. I'll come back to this a bit later.
Today, at any rate, the democratization of tools and distribution has led to a related opening: of access.
Of all the major constituencies of journalism, the most important by far is what I like to call the "former audience" and what NYU's Jay Rosen, author of the great Pressthink blog, has dubbed the "people formerly known as the audience." (I don't know which of us said it first, so I'll give us both credit.)
We, the former audience, have been freed from the constraints of the manufacturing model of the 20th Century. And, more and more, we are taking advantage of our liberation. We never had to be satisfied merely with the newspaper dropped on our doorstep in the morning, or the half-hour broadcast in the evening, but it used to take some effort to assemble a more diverse and nuanced report. No longer. Now we can stop being couch potatoes and engage with the news. We can roll our own reports, from whatever sources of traditional and nontraditional media we wish, based on our own choices and recommendations from others.
Even better, we can join the emergent conversation. We can talk about and with the professionals, at least some of them. And if we wish -- as more and more people do -- we can create our own content and conversations. Not much of that latter effort is journalism in any traditional sense, but some of it plainly is, and amid the noise of the rest there is a great deal of signal, if we can just find and identify it.
The second most important of journalism's major constituencies consists of the newsmakers, the people and institutions we cover. They're learning that something new is happening to them. Members of the newsmakers' own constituencies -- of which journalists are just one -- are engaging in conversations about the newsmakers and what they do, and the old ways of communicating are being disrupted. At the same time, the newsmakers can and should be using these conversational tools to engage their various publics, internal and external, and in general to be more transparent in a world that increasingly demands and rewards openness.
The least important major constituency of journalism is, well, us: the journalists. That is NOT do say we don't matter. We do matter -- a lot. Journalism is an honorable and vital craft. It's essential to the welfare of a self-governed people, at least when we do it right. But we also know that journalism is about service. The public trust is a deeper calling than merely diverting readers, listeners and viewers from their everyday existence. At its core journalism must be about helping them conduct democracy's crucial conversations.
Trying for objectivity makes some sense in a media ecosystem that lacks diversity. If a few voices overwhelm all the others, there is a public interest in playing stories as allegedly down the middle as possible. That means not favoring one side over the other -- or others, to be more precise, as there are rarely just two sides to any issue. There have been sound business reasons to try to be "objective," too, not least that a newspaper or network didn't want to make large parts of its audience angry. No doubt, too, the lawyers have an easier time defending against libel suits when the organization can point to a process that aims for objectivity.
I'm in a mood, as the media ecosystem grows more diverse, to rethink all of this. I'd propose replacing the ideal of objectivity with some principles that may be easier to achieve. When we combine and augment them with new ways of presenting and discussing the news, they will be useful to journalists and news consumers of all kinds.
Incidentally -- apparently I have to say this in these kinds of settings -- I am not, contrary to some suggestions, out to boost citizen journalism by tearing down the traditional model. I hope to help create the conditions for a media and journalism ecosystem that's more diverse, vibrant and competitive, that includes all of the above, and not replace one flawed system with another. We need all, and they all need to be better.
The principles that collectively go beyond objectivity are thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence and transparency. Of course, they tend to bleed into each other, and in a several cases can even conflict or at least be somewhat orthogonal. I put this problem into the category of "Life is messy."
We all know what it means to be thorough, to keep digging and never assume we know everything. We know that accuracy is getting our facts straight. We know fairness -- however more difficult to quantify -- when we see it. Independence can include being financially independent, or having independence of thought and an eagerness to challenge our own assumptions. Transparency, the quality least in evidence in traditional journalism, though it's at long last coming into its own, is revealing biases and connections where they exist -- a crucial feature of a citizen media where true independence from the topic may likely be rare -- and exposing our inner workings to some sunshine.
Technology, deployed the right way, can give these principles a practical boost beyond anything we've seen in the non-digital media. Let's look at at examples -- a non-comprehensive list -- of what might be possible.
If accuracy starts off as a simple matter of facts, traditional and "new" journalists alike could do us all a favor by telling us what they don't know, not just what they do. On the Web, in a medium where space (and time) and layout constraints are less of an issue, we can take that a step further and invite the audience to fill us in, to help us get the actual rest of the story, or more of it.
We can also point directly, via hyperlinks -- the elemental unit of the Web -- to reference and original source materials as well as other information that supports, or maybe challenges, what we are reporting. In a journalism where being a guide counts as much as being an oracle, authority rises the more we point to other people's work -- if it's the best material on the topic or adds vital nuance or information. Yet only recently have Big Media websites started pointing outside of their own domains, and there's still obvious -- and I believe foolish -- worry about letting go of the audience. As blogging pioneer Dave Winer has said, and this is a paraphrase, "Send them away and they'll keep coming back."
And if accuracy means anything, it means correcting our inevitable mistakes quickly and prominently. On the Net, and with print in particular, we are blessed with an array of choices in how to do this. For example, we can use the "s" tag in HTML, which literally puts a strike-through line through the mistaken text, and then add the corrected material. Or we can just make it right, adding a tag line at the bottom of the posting explaining that such and such has been corrected. Audio, graphical and video errors can likewise be fixed in place.
(I'll note here that the better bloggers are among the most avid correcters of their own mistakes; their reputations rise and fall on their credibility, at least for the ones I read, and a stand-up admission of error wins the writer points for credibility -- at least if the mistakes don't happen repeatedly.)
In all such online cases, we do what newspapers and traditional broacasts cannot do: limit the damage and prevent the next person who's new to the story from getting the wrong information. I don't know about you, but when I read the corrections on Page 2 of the paper about stories that ran two or three days ago, I don't consider myself entirely enlightened. And, of course, when is the last time you recall a correction of an error on, say, the local TV station's "news" program?
The Net's superiority goes much deeper, though it has barely been tapped. For instance, I might like to be notified by e-mail if certain stories -- ones I choose -- have been corrected or updated in any significant way.
Let's focus on the word "updated" for a moment. In the journalism of tomorrow, as I noted earlier, we don't need to think in the publication or broadcast metaphors from the age of literally manufactured media, where the paper product or tape was the end of the process.
If Steven Spielberg and other Hollywood folks can create directors' cuts of their movies, why can't journalists do keep updating and improving some of their own works?
Ah, you ask, what about the historical record?
That's an easy one. Over at the much-criticized Wikipedia, every version of the article -- and I mean everything, down to the version where someone added a comma and hit the save button -- is available to anyone who wants to see it. You can even compare adjacently edited versions side by side.
Let's say I'm a reader who's new to, oh, the turmoil in Nepal, where the King is trying to avoid civil war with apparently modest political liberalization. Let's imagine, in my parallel universe of journalism, that the New York Times did its first in-depth story on the troubles there a couple of years ago and has been updating it on the Web to reflect new events -- this in addition to writing current news stories.
Maybe, being fresh to the story, all I want to do is see the current version so I can catch up. Or maybe I'd like to read the the original article -- call it the baseline copy -- and then the current one to see what's changed. Or maybe I want to see them mashed together, with the changes highlighted using colors for additions and strike-throughs for deletions.
The same could work for a blog posting by some well-connected Nepal citizen who's covering the story from home. Do I want to go back through a year's worth of postings? Probably not. But if he or she has an updated baseline posting, that would be another useful place to look.
The idea isn't new, really. The Associated Press has been using what's called the "write-through" forever -- adding new information to breaking news and telling editors what's new in the story. Let's do that for everyone, on the Web page and in a comprehensive and easy-to-understand way.
Now making this work on the page is basically a software problem -- if we want to do it. Maybe it's a nontrivial problem, as my engineer friends might say, but it's definitely solvable, and I'd recommend it.
Let's talk for a minute about fairness. Why not give people better ability to reply to what we say about them, and the audience better ways to follow and participate in that conversation. Allowing, or better yet, encouraging people to post comments is a good start, provided the comment system is handled in a way that doesn't degenerate into abusive name-calling from anonymous trolls. But how about letting the reader split the screen, and see how the person written about in the story responds alongside the original in context, if that's the reader's preferred way?
If the person talking back tells lies, journalists should note them, again in context. Fairness means listening to different viewpoints and incorporating them into the journalism, but it doesn't have to include parroting or accepting lies or distortions. That practice -- in whatever form -- amounts to the lazy equivalence that leads some journalists to get opposing quotes and give them undue weight when the facts overwhelmingly support one side. As someone said, you don't have to quote neo-Nazis for a story about the Holocaust.
How can technology support transparency? In many ways.
I don't call myself a journalist anymore, at least not the kind I was when I was writing for big newspapers. But I still offer observations on the topics that are important to me. I also have a page on Center for Citizen Media site called "Dan's Disclosures," where I lay out formal connections, financial and otherwise, that I have to several people and companies doing work in areas related to my own. And if I mention them in my blog, I note the connection in the posting and add a link to the full disclosures page.
Transparency can mean asking for help. When I was researching my book, I posted the full outline -- thousands of words -- on my blog. Then, as I was writing, I posted chapter drafts. I was looking for help in writing a better book, and got it. Even my column sometimes benefited from this approach; I'd post a blog item saying I was working on some topic or another, and that my thinking was going in a certain direction, and what did my readers think about that?
No, I didn't announce what I was working on if I thought I had a scoop, and I wouldn't suggest that others do that in most cases. But there are plenty of situations where announcing one's intentions ahead of time will produce better journalism, of whatever kind.
Transparency at Big Media can take the form of pulling back the curtains a bit, helping readers or viewers understand how news stories, and decisions about stories, get made. How far should this be taken? It would be absurd to expect reporters to scan and post on the Web the scrawlings from their notebooks.
But there's nothing wrong with acknowledging our biases, whether personal and institutional, and letting readers make up their own minds about whether to trust what we then report. At the least, the black-box school of journalism, where information goes in and our oracular lectures come out, is no longer acceptable. Necessity requires some discretion, but the public rightly wants more transparency than it's been getting.
With bloggers and other conversational media, biases tend to be up-front, though the blogosphere is hardly free of sleazy manipulation. People like the South Dakota bloggers who were on a candidate's payroll without disclosing their interest should be shunned by readers, in my opinion.
Transparency can boost authority. At a time when saying "Trust me" without evidence is an invitation to mistrust and ridicule, we'll gain more than we lose with transparency.
I've talked a fair amount about openness here. This is not only an issue for journalists in their own work. It's one of the most important policy issues facing us all. If you think media consolidation is an issue today, it's nothing compared with what we're facing tomorrow.
Earlier, I mentioned a clear and present danger to the open Internet that has nurtured a more diverse media ecosystem. The threat, in America, is the dominance of the cable and phone companies in what we laughingly call broadband data connections. I say "laughingly" because the U.S. is falling way, way behind the rest of the developed world in providing broadband access, and one reason is the dominance of companies that grew up in an environment where they dominated their worlds, and really preferred it that way.
The cable and phone companies want to control not just the pipes through which our data moves. They also want to decide what will get delivered, in what order, and at what speed. They haven't pulled this off yet, but they're getting closer every day.
Yesterday, a committee in the House of Representatives voted down an amendment to a new bill that would have required what many of us call "network neutrality." This is the idea that the people getting data -- you and me -- should make the decisions on what we get and in what order, and if necessary pay more for higher speeds. It should not be a decision made by Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner or the fake new ATT.
If they succeed in capturing the kind of control they want -- and they're closer than I would have believed possible -- we'll all be harmed.
I beg you to write and call your member of Congress and U.S. senators, and your state representatives -- the duopoly is well-wired, in the wrong way, in our state capitals, too. Tell them you want an open Internet, not a walled garden or fortress where giant companies get to pick what innovations will succeed or fail.
So much for politics. But before I get to the Q&A, which is bound to be more interesting than what has come before, allow me to make one more pitch.
I've started a new Center for Citizen Media, affiliated with the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, and I have lots of ideas and plans. But I also need lots of help. If you're interested in working on projects with me, please let me know.
Home » Dan Gillmor's Blog
My NYC Talk on Journalism Principles and Future
Dan Gillmor's Blog, Posted 05/02/06 by Dan Gillmor
Thanks again to Columbia University for inviting me this week to give the annual Hearst New Media Lecture. The audience was terrific and asked great questions (I don't have a transcript of that part, sorry.) What follows is the talk as I wrote it out, beginning after the various thank-yous to the folks who invited me (special thanks to Sree), though I did stray frequently from the written text.
I'm honored to have been invited. I'm also grateful. During the past few years I've had the privilege of working in a field that really led to this conversation we're going to have tonight. There have been ups and downs along the way. But it's been a great ride so far.
I spent more than a decade at the San Jose Mercury News, the daily newspaper of Silicon Valley. One of the ways I tended to classify some of the people I met in the technology industry was by dividing them into groups we might call the managers and the engineers. That's software and hardware engineers, not the kind who drive trains.
Here's a story I once heard. Or maybe I saw it on the Internet. Whatever, it's not original with me.
So it's lunchtime, and some managers at a software company are on their way out to a local restaurant. One of them peers up at the flag, waving in a mild breeze, and wonders aloud how tall the flagpole is. Now this is Silicon Valley, where when you have an idea you're supposed to act on it. One of them has a tape measure in his car, which he retrieves. The managers start hoisting each other up, attempting to measure the height of the thing, but they're falling all over each other and generally making a mess of it.
Meanwhile, a couple of software engineers have stopped to observe the somewhat chaotic scene. They look at each other and nod, then tell the managers to stand out of the way for a second, which by now they are only too glad to do. The engineers lift the pole out of its stand, lay it flat on the grass, take the tape and measure the thing. They give the answer to the managers and head off to their own lunch.
One of the managers looks to the others, shakes his head and says, "Typical engineers. We want the height and they give us the length."
I'm not an engineer, and I'm definitely not a corporate manager. But I like that story, because it reminds me how easily we see things in certain ways and fail to recognize or appreciate the alternatives.
This is called a "New Media" lecture. Two items: First, We are moving at light speed to a time when the expression "new media" will too many words, and we'll drop the new part; it'll just be media. I'm glad to see this school and the organizations that hire its graduates are adopting at least some of tomorrow's techniques more quickly than I predicted. That's good. Forward-looking folks are aware that there's no alternative, not to mention the fact that the journalism will benefit.
Second, I want to make this a conversation sooner than later. Eveything I've been working on in the past few years is about an evolution of journalism from the lecture mode of the past to something much closer to a conversation. That's a shift I consider absolutely essential for all of journalism's constituencies.
I don't have to tell anyone here about the turmoil in the news business over the past few years. If I noticed it a bit earlier than some, we can chalk that up partly to circumstance.
When I was writing my column for the San Jose Mercury News, We were a growing newspaper, loaded with ambition and the resources to do something about it. I was extremely well compensated -- for a newspaper guy, at any rate -- and free to follow my instincts. I used to wake up mornings thinking I'd won the journalism lottery.
Now the Mercury News is a much-diminished organization. It still has some of the best journalists and people I've know, is about to be sold to a newspaper group whose management will likely make the staff yearn for the days when the man some folks called Darth Ridder was running the company.
I'm not here to say newspapers have a right to survive. And I'm not here to say that professional journalists -- that is, people paid to produce news reports -- have a right to their jobs. Being in Silicon Valley helped me understand and appreciate this.
In our age of accelerating change, the force that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" guarantees that the blend of innovation, free markets and individual liberty are inevitably disruptive to business models. Creative destruction, which has slammed into the journalism field like so many others, obliges us all to keep learning and reinventing our own lives and careers. There are scary parts to this, but if we welcome innovation, while nourishing free markets and liberty with fairness and social responsibility, we will do better than under other systems.
I am here to say a few obvious things. One is the blatantly observable fact that the practice of journalism is evolving -- and at a pace so quick as to be stunning for such a conservatively run business. I'm also hoping to stretch some definitions, and maybe some boundaries, all in service of better journalism for the future.
On my blog in early 2005 I posted an essay-in-progress. It was called "The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)." I suggested that the journalism of the new century would be better served if we all considered abandoning the worthy ideal of objectivity and replacing it with a collection of honored principles, only one of which was not already embedded in tradition. Now, by reinforcing those principles with the emerging tools of a Digital Age, we can create something even better.
By giving that blog posting a version number of less than 1.0, I wasn't just making a techie joke. I was calling attention to another reality of tomorrow's journalism. In a craft that's shifting from lecture to conversation, the publication (or broadcast or whatever) is not The End. It is somewhere in the middle of an emergent system in which we all can keep learning, and teaching.
This is increasingly doable in part because of what has changed so much for so many: the collision of technology and media, which has helped democratize communications and is turning traditional notions of journalism in new directions. Now, I don't mean democratization so much as in the sense of voting -- though collective community thinking is an intriguing and valuable part of what's coming. I mean it in the sense of wide participation.
The democratization starts with the tools of creation. They're widely available -- the computer I carry around came off the shelf with media tools that were simply unavailable a few years ago except to a highly skilled and well-paid professionals. These tools are increasingly powerful and decreasingly expensive, thanks to technology's relentless progress, and getting easier to use all the time.
They're also connected to a somewhat democratized digital communications system. I say "somewhat" because two of America's most control-freakish businesses -- namely the phone and cable companies -- are working hard to hijack the Internet for their own purposes, in ways that are flat-out dangerous to innovation and, I'd argue, our very future. I'll come back to this a bit later.
Today, at any rate, the democratization of tools and distribution has led to a related opening: of access.
Of all the major constituencies of journalism, the most important by far is what I like to call the "former audience" and what NYU's Jay Rosen, author of the great Pressthink blog, has dubbed the "people formerly known as the audience." (I don't know which of us said it first, so I'll give us both credit.)
We, the former audience, have been freed from the constraints of the manufacturing model of the 20th Century. And, more and more, we are taking advantage of our liberation. We never had to be satisfied merely with the newspaper dropped on our doorstep in the morning, or the half-hour broadcast in the evening, but it used to take some effort to assemble a more diverse and nuanced report. No longer. Now we can stop being couch potatoes and engage with the news. We can roll our own reports, from whatever sources of traditional and nontraditional media we wish, based on our own choices and recommendations from others.
Even better, we can join the emergent conversation. We can talk about and with the professionals, at least some of them. And if we wish -- as more and more people do -- we can create our own content and conversations. Not much of that latter effort is journalism in any traditional sense, but some of it plainly is, and amid the noise of the rest there is a great deal of signal, if we can just find and identify it.
The second most important of journalism's major constituencies consists of the newsmakers, the people and institutions we cover. They're learning that something new is happening to them. Members of the newsmakers' own constituencies -- of which journalists are just one -- are engaging in conversations about the newsmakers and what they do, and the old ways of communicating are being disrupted. At the same time, the newsmakers can and should be using these conversational tools to engage their various publics, internal and external, and in general to be more transparent in a world that increasingly demands and rewards openness.
The least important major constituency of journalism is, well, us: the journalists. That is NOT do say we don't matter. We do matter -- a lot. Journalism is an honorable and vital craft. It's essential to the welfare of a self-governed people, at least when we do it right. But we also know that journalism is about service. The public trust is a deeper calling than merely diverting readers, listeners and viewers from their everyday existence. At its core journalism must be about helping them conduct democracy's crucial conversations.
Trying for objectivity makes some sense in a media ecosystem that lacks diversity. If a few voices overwhelm all the others, there is a public interest in playing stories as allegedly down the middle as possible. That means not favoring one side over the other -- or others, to be more precise, as there are rarely just two sides to any issue. There have been sound business reasons to try to be "objective," too, not least that a newspaper or network didn't want to make large parts of its audience angry. No doubt, too, the lawyers have an easier time defending against libel suits when the organization can point to a process that aims for objectivity.
I'm in a mood, as the media ecosystem grows more diverse, to rethink all of this. I'd propose replacing the ideal of objectivity with some principles that may be easier to achieve. When we combine and augment them with new ways of presenting and discussing the news, they will be useful to journalists and news consumers of all kinds.
Incidentally -- apparently I have to say this in these kinds of settings -- I am not, contrary to some suggestions, out to boost citizen journalism by tearing down the traditional model. I hope to help create the conditions for a media and journalism ecosystem that's more diverse, vibrant and competitive, that includes all of the above, and not replace one flawed system with another. We need all, and they all need to be better.
The principles that collectively go beyond objectivity are thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence and transparency. Of course, they tend to bleed into each other, and in a several cases can even conflict or at least be somewhat orthogonal. I put this problem into the category of "Life is messy."
We all know what it means to be thorough, to keep digging and never assume we know everything. We know that accuracy is getting our facts straight. We know fairness -- however more difficult to quantify -- when we see it. Independence can include being financially independent, or having independence of thought and an eagerness to challenge our own assumptions. Transparency, the quality least in evidence in traditional journalism, though it's at long last coming into its own, is revealing biases and connections where they exist -- a crucial feature of a citizen media where true independence from the topic may likely be rare -- and exposing our inner workings to some sunshine.
Technology, deployed the right way, can give these principles a practical boost beyond anything we've seen in the non-digital media. Let's look at at examples -- a non-comprehensive list -- of what might be possible.
If accuracy starts off as a simple matter of facts, traditional and "new" journalists alike could do us all a favor by telling us what they don't know, not just what they do. On the Web, in a medium where space (and time) and layout constraints are less of an issue, we can take that a step further and invite the audience to fill us in, to help us get the actual rest of the story, or more of it.
We can also point directly, via hyperlinks -- the elemental unit of the Web -- to reference and original source materials as well as other information that supports, or maybe challenges, what we are reporting. In a journalism where being a guide counts as much as being an oracle, authority rises the more we point to other people's work -- if it's the best material on the topic or adds vital nuance or information. Yet only recently have Big Media websites started pointing outside of their own domains, and there's still obvious -- and I believe foolish -- worry about letting go of the audience. As blogging pioneer Dave Winer has said, and this is a paraphrase, "Send them away and they'll keep coming back."
And if accuracy means anything, it means correcting our inevitable mistakes quickly and prominently. On the Net, and with print in particular, we are blessed with an array of choices in how to do this. For example, we can use the "s" tag in HTML, which literally puts a strike-through line through the mistaken text, and then add the corrected material. Or we can just make it right, adding a tag line at the bottom of the posting explaining that such and such has been corrected. Audio, graphical and video errors can likewise be fixed in place.
(I'll note here that the better bloggers are among the most avid correcters of their own mistakes; their reputations rise and fall on their credibility, at least for the ones I read, and a stand-up admission of error wins the writer points for credibility -- at least if the mistakes don't happen repeatedly.)
In all such online cases, we do what newspapers and traditional broacasts cannot do: limit the damage and prevent the next person who's new to the story from getting the wrong information. I don't know about you, but when I read the corrections on Page 2 of the paper about stories that ran two or three days ago, I don't consider myself entirely enlightened. And, of course, when is the last time you recall a correction of an error on, say, the local TV station's "news" program?
The Net's superiority goes much deeper, though it has barely been tapped. For instance, I might like to be notified by e-mail if certain stories -- ones I choose -- have been corrected or updated in any significant way.
Let's focus on the word "updated" for a moment. In the journalism of tomorrow, as I noted earlier, we don't need to think in the publication or broadcast metaphors from the age of literally manufactured media, where the paper product or tape was the end of the process.
If Steven Spielberg and other Hollywood folks can create directors' cuts of their movies, why can't journalists do keep updating and improving some of their own works?
Ah, you ask, what about the historical record?
That's an easy one. Over at the much-criticized Wikipedia, every version of the article -- and I mean everything, down to the version where someone added a comma and hit the save button -- is available to anyone who wants to see it. You can even compare adjacently edited versions side by side.
Let's say I'm a reader who's new to, oh, the turmoil in Nepal, where the King is trying to avoid civil war with apparently modest political liberalization. Let's imagine, in my parallel universe of journalism, that the New York Times did its first in-depth story on the troubles there a couple of years ago and has been updating it on the Web to reflect new events -- this in addition to writing current news stories.
Maybe, being fresh to the story, all I want to do is see the current version so I can catch up. Or maybe I'd like to read the the original article -- call it the baseline copy -- and then the current one to see what's changed. Or maybe I want to see them mashed together, with the changes highlighted using colors for additions and strike-throughs for deletions.
The same could work for a blog posting by some well-connected Nepal citizen who's covering the story from home. Do I want to go back through a year's worth of postings? Probably not. But if he or she has an updated baseline posting, that would be another useful place to look.
The idea isn't new, really. The Associated Press has been using what's called the "write-through" forever -- adding new information to breaking news and telling editors what's new in the story. Let's do that for everyone, on the Web page and in a comprehensive and easy-to-understand way.
Now making this work on the page is basically a software problem -- if we want to do it. Maybe it's a nontrivial problem, as my engineer friends might say, but it's definitely solvable, and I'd recommend it.
Let's talk for a minute about fairness. Why not give people better ability to reply to what we say about them, and the audience better ways to follow and participate in that conversation. Allowing, or better yet, encouraging people to post comments is a good start, provided the comment system is handled in a way that doesn't degenerate into abusive name-calling from anonymous trolls. But how about letting the reader split the screen, and see how the person written about in the story responds alongside the original in context, if that's the reader's preferred way?
If the person talking back tells lies, journalists should note them, again in context. Fairness means listening to different viewpoints and incorporating them into the journalism, but it doesn't have to include parroting or accepting lies or distortions. That practice -- in whatever form -- amounts to the lazy equivalence that leads some journalists to get opposing quotes and give them undue weight when the facts overwhelmingly support one side. As someone said, you don't have to quote neo-Nazis for a story about the Holocaust.
How can technology support transparency? In many ways.
I don't call myself a journalist anymore, at least not the kind I was when I was writing for big newspapers. But I still offer observations on the topics that are important to me. I also have a page on Center for Citizen Media site called "Dan's Disclosures," where I lay out formal connections, financial and otherwise, that I have to several people and companies doing work in areas related to my own. And if I mention them in my blog, I note the connection in the posting and add a link to the full disclosures page.
Transparency can mean asking for help. When I was researching my book, I posted the full outline -- thousands of words -- on my blog. Then, as I was writing, I posted chapter drafts. I was looking for help in writing a better book, and got it. Even my column sometimes benefited from this approach; I'd post a blog item saying I was working on some topic or another, and that my thinking was going in a certain direction, and what did my readers think about that?
No, I didn't announce what I was working on if I thought I had a scoop, and I wouldn't suggest that others do that in most cases. But there are plenty of situations where announcing one's intentions ahead of time will produce better journalism, of whatever kind.
Transparency at Big Media can take the form of pulling back the curtains a bit, helping readers or viewers understand how news stories, and decisions about stories, get made. How far should this be taken? It would be absurd to expect reporters to scan and post on the Web the scrawlings from their notebooks.
But there's nothing wrong with acknowledging our biases, whether personal and institutional, and letting readers make up their own minds about whether to trust what we then report. At the least, the black-box school of journalism, where information goes in and our oracular lectures come out, is no longer acceptable. Necessity requires some discretion, but the public rightly wants more transparency than it's been getting.
With bloggers and other conversational media, biases tend to be up-front, though the blogosphere is hardly free of sleazy manipulation. People like the South Dakota bloggers who were on a candidate's payroll without disclosing their interest should be shunned by readers, in my opinion.
Transparency can boost authority. At a time when saying "Trust me" without evidence is an invitation to mistrust and ridicule, we'll gain more than we lose with transparency.
I've talked a fair amount about openness here. This is not only an issue for journalists in their own work. It's one of the most important policy issues facing us all. If you think media consolidation is an issue today, it's nothing compared with what we're facing tomorrow.
Earlier, I mentioned a clear and present danger to the open Internet that has nurtured a more diverse media ecosystem. The threat, in America, is the dominance of the cable and phone companies in what we laughingly call broadband data connections. I say "laughingly" because the U.S. is falling way, way behind the rest of the developed world in providing broadband access, and one reason is the dominance of companies that grew up in an environment where they dominated their worlds, and really preferred it that way.
The cable and phone companies want to control not just the pipes through which our data moves. They also want to decide what will get delivered, in what order, and at what speed. They haven't pulled this off yet, but they're getting closer every day.
Yesterday, a committee in the House of Representatives voted down an amendment to a new bill that would have required what many of us call "network neutrality." This is the idea that the people getting data -- you and me -- should make the decisions on what we get and in what order, and if necessary pay more for higher speeds. It should not be a decision made by Verizon or Comcast or Time Warner or the fake new ATT.
If they succeed in capturing the kind of control they want -- and they're closer than I would have believed possible -- we'll all be harmed.
I beg you to write and call your member of Congress and U.S. senators, and your state representatives -- the duopoly is well-wired, in the wrong way, in our state capitals, too. Tell them you want an open Internet, not a walled garden or fortress where giant companies get to pick what innovations will succeed or fail.
So much for politics. But before I get to the Q&A, which is bound to be more interesting than what has come before, allow me to make one more pitch.
I've started a new Center for Citizen Media, affiliated with the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, and I have lots of ideas and plans. But I also need lots of help. If you're interested in working on projects with me, please let me know.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Here's a new one from the New York Times and there are three words in this article which you need to know. Check it out.
SERVICES SCIENCE
Although computer science is now a fixture in higher education, a couple of
decades ago academic purists scoffed at the idea that it was a real science
-- and argued that any discipline to which the word "science" has to be
fixed is no science at all. Now the same kind of debate is taking place
about "services science." New York Times journalist Steve Lohr says that
"scientists and engineers tend to regard what is taught in business schools
as a mushy combination of anecdotes, success stories and platitudes, wrapped
in jargon. Put a few success stories together, and they become a 'best
practice'." But one of service science's strongest defenders, Cal-Berkeley
professor Henry Chesbrough, argues: "We in academia have to find ways to
contribute research to improving our economic performance in services and to
help students succeed in this knowledge-based services economy." IBM, which
previously championed computer science, is now championing services science
by sponsoring workshops, awarding research grants and helping develop course
materials. In fact, IBM is itself one of the best examples of the shift
toward services, for it has evolved from being just a computer maker to a
company that 's moving into sophisticated technology services for every
aspect of business. (New York Times 18 Apr 2006)
>
SERVICES SCIENCE
Although computer science is now a fixture in higher education, a couple of
decades ago academic purists scoffed at the idea that it was a real science
-- and argued that any discipline to which the word "science" has to be
fixed is no science at all. Now the same kind of debate is taking place
about "services science." New York Times journalist Steve Lohr says that
"scientists and engineers tend to regard what is taught in business schools
as a mushy combination of anecdotes, success stories and platitudes, wrapped
in jargon. Put a few success stories together, and they become a 'best
practice'." But one of service science's strongest defenders, Cal-Berkeley
professor Henry Chesbrough, argues: "We in academia have to find ways to
contribute research to improving our economic performance in services and to
help students succeed in this knowledge-based services economy." IBM, which
previously championed computer science, is now championing services science
by sponsoring workshops, awarding research grants and helping develop course
materials. In fact, IBM is itself one of the best examples of the shift
toward services, for it has evolved from being just a computer maker to a
company that 's moving into sophisticated technology services for every
aspect of business. (New York Times 18 Apr 2006)
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Someone was asking for the Spring syllubus for this course, well here it is:
ADVANCED WRITING JOURNALISM
Clark Richardson - Instructor
SYLLABUS SPRING:
At the beginning of each class review new items posted on the class blog for discussion and further research. http://cybercats.blogspot.com/
First Class: Introduction to the class and format and review of syllabus content. Set up student blog accounts. What are the responsibilities of the press in a free country? What about a repressive country (Fifth column). Newspapers and wire services, Unit 1 “Journalism English Today”. Key Vocabulary: News Media Words. News writing. What is news (definitions) what are the readers interested in and what should they be interested in? Time sensitive, hot news. Background research stories. Future news: business forecasts, weather, and horoscopes. Small markets versus big markets. Assignment: Write and e-mail me a hot news item for campus market.
Second Class: What makes a story news. The structure of a news story, Unit 4 Journalism English Today. Disasters and Accidents the good news and the bad news, which do you, want first? News Video introduction. Key vocabulary: The Economy and the Stock Markets. Local, National and International news. What is she? Who is she? What did she do? Campus walk – looking for a story. Find it research it and write it. Distribute blog address to students. Introduce the class blog.
Third Class: Broadcast News. Broadcasting words. Unit 9 in Journalism English Today. The difference between Published media and broadcast media. Talking heads and doorknobs. Radio assignment – Podcasting and sound files. News Writing Video (No. 1-5). Video: “Up Close and Personal” first 15 minutes.
Fourth Class: Pros and cons of T.V., radio, newspapers, magazines, internet sources, news blogs and the on-line press. What’s a lead and what is a lead story? Past, present (time loaded) and future. Obituary story. News Writing Video. Second part of “Up Close and Personal”. Reserve video cameras from Media Center. Show students videotape to buy.
Fifth Class: Review blog postings. What makes a powerful video story? Third part of “Up Close and Personal”. Video assignment. Video groups assignment. News Writing Video.
Sixth Class: How to pick the story. How to research the story (News Writing Video). Sources and how they should be treated. How to tell the story (Vocabulary for print and broadcast news). Unit 9 Broadcast News “Journalism English Today” Continue video assignment media editing in Media center.
Seventh Class: Internet news and papers in other countries. International Organizations. Key vocabulary Unit 11 “Journalism English Today”. E-news , blogs and the filter function of conventional media. Who picks and who decides on what is news. Different in big and small markets, different in media type. News Writing Video. Forth part of ‘Up Close and Personal.
Eighth Class: Headlines and headline words – Thesaurus. Headlining your story. Media leads for your story. Unit 5 English in Headlines “Journalism English Today”. KILL in the paper press. Last section “Up Close and Personal”. Interview techniques first worksheet and classroom practice.
Ninth Class: Class review of student’s news videos. Class review of student audio files. Compare and critique. Critical art, music, movie review.
Tenth Class: Culture and sports. How are they different in structure and vocabulary? News Writing Video. Assignment – Sports story. Kiss and tell.
Eleventh Class: Writing and reporting –coaching the writer, focus the reporter. News Writing Video. Reporting the same story for different media, Units 12 – 13 Journalism English Today. A science story assignment.
Twelfth Class: A news nose and fire engine chasing. Asking all the questions and then what to do with the answers. Respecting and protecting sources.
ADVANCED WRITING JOURNALISM
Clark Richardson - Instructor
SYLLABUS SPRING:
At the beginning of each class review new items posted on the class blog for discussion and further research. http://cybercats.blogspot.com/
First Class: Introduction to the class and format and review of syllabus content. Set up student blog accounts. What are the responsibilities of the press in a free country? What about a repressive country (Fifth column). Newspapers and wire services, Unit 1 “Journalism English Today”. Key Vocabulary: News Media Words. News writing. What is news (definitions) what are the readers interested in and what should they be interested in? Time sensitive, hot news. Background research stories. Future news: business forecasts, weather, and horoscopes. Small markets versus big markets. Assignment: Write and e-mail me a hot news item for campus market.
Second Class: What makes a story news. The structure of a news story, Unit 4 Journalism English Today. Disasters and Accidents the good news and the bad news, which do you, want first? News Video introduction. Key vocabulary: The Economy and the Stock Markets. Local, National and International news. What is she? Who is she? What did she do? Campus walk – looking for a story. Find it research it and write it. Distribute blog address to students. Introduce the class blog.
Third Class: Broadcast News. Broadcasting words. Unit 9 in Journalism English Today. The difference between Published media and broadcast media. Talking heads and doorknobs. Radio assignment – Podcasting and sound files. News Writing Video (No. 1-5). Video: “Up Close and Personal” first 15 minutes.
Fourth Class: Pros and cons of T.V., radio, newspapers, magazines, internet sources, news blogs and the on-line press. What’s a lead and what is a lead story? Past, present (time loaded) and future. Obituary story. News Writing Video. Second part of “Up Close and Personal”. Reserve video cameras from Media Center. Show students videotape to buy.
Fifth Class: Review blog postings. What makes a powerful video story? Third part of “Up Close and Personal”. Video assignment. Video groups assignment. News Writing Video.
Sixth Class: How to pick the story. How to research the story (News Writing Video). Sources and how they should be treated. How to tell the story (Vocabulary for print and broadcast news). Unit 9 Broadcast News “Journalism English Today” Continue video assignment media editing in Media center.
Seventh Class: Internet news and papers in other countries. International Organizations. Key vocabulary Unit 11 “Journalism English Today”. E-news , blogs and the filter function of conventional media. Who picks and who decides on what is news. Different in big and small markets, different in media type. News Writing Video. Forth part of ‘Up Close and Personal.
Eighth Class: Headlines and headline words – Thesaurus. Headlining your story. Media leads for your story. Unit 5 English in Headlines “Journalism English Today”. KILL in the paper press. Last section “Up Close and Personal”. Interview techniques first worksheet and classroom practice.
Ninth Class: Class review of student’s news videos. Class review of student audio files. Compare and critique. Critical art, music, movie review.
Tenth Class: Culture and sports. How are they different in structure and vocabulary? News Writing Video. Assignment – Sports story. Kiss and tell.
Eleventh Class: Writing and reporting –coaching the writer, focus the reporter. News Writing Video. Reporting the same story for different media, Units 12 – 13 Journalism English Today. A science story assignment.
Twelfth Class: A news nose and fire engine chasing. Asking all the questions and then what to do with the answers. Respecting and protecting sources.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Take a look at the Weekly Spin:
THE WEEKLY SPIN, April 19, 2006
Sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy:
http://www.prwatch.org
To support our work now online visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Spin features selected news summaries with links to
further information about media, political spin and propaganda.
It is emailed free each Wednesday to subscribers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARE US WITH A FRIEND (OR FIFTY FRIENDS)
Who do you know who might want to receive Spin of the Week?
Help us grow our subscriber list! Just forward this message to
people you know, encouraging them to sign up at this link:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS WEEK'S NEWS
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. The Media War and Journalist Thought Crimes
2. Essential2: Better Flacking Through Chemistry
3. U.S. Public Diplomacy Goes South
4. Holy Product Placement, Batman!
5. Crunch Time for School Junk Food?
6. CNN Features Real News About Fake TV News
7. K Street to Get a TM?
8. Public Service or War Propaganda?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. THE MEDIA WAR AND JOURNALIST THOUGHT CRIMES
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002345682
"When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Rush
Limbaugh's talk radio show" recently, he made several remarks "on
the subject of press coverage in Iraq" that have mostly escaped
notice, writes Editor and Publisher. Rumsfeld said that "the
terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have
media committees. They are actively out there trying to manipulate
the press in the United States. ... They're much better at
(laughing) managing those kinds of things than we are." He also
said, "There have been far fewer journalists who have stepped up to
become embedded" with military units in Iraq. One reporter told
Rumsfeld that the perception was that embedded journalists "were
really part of the problem." Rumsfeld commented, "I think that's an
inexcusable thought."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4739
2. ESSENTIAL2: BETTER FLACKING THROUGH CHEMISTRY
http://www.prweek.com/us/features/article/554052/Honeywell+sees+wisdom+joint+effort+Nobel+Media/
Working with Ogilvy PR, the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
launched its "Essential2" PR campaign last year, "to reposition the
$550 billion industry as not only imperative, but advantageous to
all aspects of modern life." Essential2 includes "national cable TV
spots, print ads, and a policymaker education program." PR Week
profiles the campaign's outreach to chemical company employees. ACC
named "campaign coordinators at each of its 129 member companies"
and provided them with "articles on topics ranging from chemistry's
role in preventing house fires to keeping NASCAR drivers safe." ACC
also designed an online "employee ambassador" kit with tips on "how
to discuss the benefits of chemistry, write educational letters to
the editor, contact government officials, and generate school and
community group speaking opportunities." ACC members include Dow
Corning, Bayer, DuPont and Carus Chemical, which hosted an employee
ice cream social where "ACC's MTV-style motivational video screened
as entertainment."
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), April 17, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4738
3. U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY GOES SOUTH
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/14368770.htm
The U.S. State Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy,
Karen Hughes, has "launched a campaign to make her government
simpatico" to Latin America. Last month, Hughes visited Brazil,
Panama, El Salvador, Chile and Colombia. She wants to make U.S. aid
in the region "more visible and higher profile." Latin American
countries are receiving "more money for student and youth exchange
programs, as part of a worldwide effort to bring young people into
the United States." Hughes explained, "I'm focused particularly on
young people and those who influence them." Other changes include
adding eight regional public diplomacy officers, "to write up press
releases, manage cultural and student exchanges and attend speaking
events," and using the State Department's "rapid-response unit" to
help ambassadors respond to breaking news. A recent poll found
"three out of every five Latin Americans distrust the United
States."
SOURCE: Miami Herald, April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4737
4. HOLY PRODUCT PLACEMENT, BATMAN!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114532350031828284.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
"Product placement has become commonplace in movies and TV shows.
Now it's coming to comic books -- in part because the industry's two
giants, DC and Marvel, are promoting some of their titles as places
to reach one of Madison Avenue's most elusive audiences: guys in
their 20s," reports Brian Steinberg. DC Comics' new miniseries,
called "Rush City," will have "visible promotional support from
General Motors Corp.'s Pontiac." The series' hero will drive a
Pontiac Solstice. Marvel Entertainment "has begun putting the
'swoosh' logo from Nike Inc. in the scenes of some of its titles,
such as 'New X-Men.' So far, the emblem has appeared on a car door
and on a character's T-shirt." Marvel also signed a deal with
DaimlerChrysler, in which the new Dodge Caliber may be featured in
their comic books' cityscapes, "on billboards, T-shirts or signs
over the next four to eight months."
SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4736
5. CRUNCH TIME FOR SCHOOL JUNK FOOD?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0604140127apr14,1,6207503,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a frequent proponent of
legislation protecting children, is now taking on a formidable
opponent: the snack industry. Matthew Chayes reports that Harkin has
introduced legislation that would tighten the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) definition for "foods of minimal nutritional
value." Harken wants USDA guidelines to limit saturated fat, trans
fat, added sugar and other bad stuff in schools, instead of
filtering foods by their nutrients. Aside from advocating voluntary
guidlines, industry groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom say
the problem isn't the food, it's the kids and parents. Industry
consultant Lisa Katic told the Tribune, "The industry's not going to
support a bill that's not showing results." She added that children
need more pushups, not less fat or sugar. Kelly Brownell, director
of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, told the New
York Times that he fears "that the food industry, with the soft
drink industry taking the lead, will work its hardest to weaken or
kill this act."
SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, April 14, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4735
6. CNN FEATURES REAL NEWS ABOUT FAKE TV NEWS
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/reliable.sources/
Our groundbreaking exposé "Fake TV News: Widespread and
Undisclosed" continues to make waves. Dan Price, co-author of the
report with CMD's Diane Farsetta, was interviewed Sunday, April 16,
by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post on his CNN Reliable Sources
program. Federal Communications Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein was
also interviewed and pledged bipartisan action from the FCC. Dan
Price is a CMD research consultant and novelist who has his own
website. If you click here you can view on Dan's site his appearance
on CNN' s Reliable Sources. It's some of the best news you will ever
watch and yes, it is real. Our colleagues at Free Press have made it
easy for you to contact the FCC to ask the agency to investigate
this abuse of the public airwaves and to penalize stations that
break the law by deceiving their audiences with undisclosed fake
news. Act today, and ask five friends to do the same.
SOURCE: CNN's Reliable Sources, April 16, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4734
7. K STREET TO GET A TM?
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/041206/news2.html
While "most other Republicans" are avoiding the phrase K Street
Project, following lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January agreement to
plead guilty to corruption charges, Grover Norquist is seeking to
trademark it. Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform,
runs the project as what he describes as "an innocuous list of job
openings for Washington lobbyists and a database of lobbyists'
political ties and federal campaign contributions. The lists are
circulated among high-level conservatives, with critics calling the
efforts an improper 'whitelisting' and 'blacklisting' of potential
hires," reports The Hill. Norquist says the K Street Project, which
he founded in 1989, has been wrongly described as "a nefarious
practice of Republican lawmakers pressuring groups to hire
right-leaning employees." Trademarking the phrase will allow
conservatives to "jealously guard the real phrasing" and to "sue
anyone who says it wrong and make lots of money," explained
Norquist.
SOURCE: The Hill, April 12, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4733
8. PUBLIC SERVICE OR WAR PROPAGANDA?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/08/BUGROI5SPN1.DTL&hw=propaganda&sn=001&sc=1000
In early April, "a public-service advertising campaign began ...
encouraging Americans to show support for American troops." The San
Francisco Chronicle asks, "Is it a genuine message of gratitude or
poorly designed advocacy for the war in Iraq?" The non-profit
Advertising Council designed the print, radio and online ads for the
U.S. Defense Department. The spots direct people to the Department's
"America Supports You" website. Some marketing professionals "said
they believe the message crosses into partisan territory." The
founder of Venables, Bell & Partners remarked, "I feel the war
propaganda machine." Ad Council president Ellis Verdi rejected the
criticism, saying, "What's important is that these are 18-year-old
human beings, Americans, who are under stress." The Ad Council was
formed in 1942, to increase support for World War II; its campaigns
from that time include Rosie the Riveter and "Loose Lips Sink
Ships."
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4732
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Spin is compiled by staff and volunteers at the
Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a nonprofit public
interest organization. To subscribe or unsubcribe, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
Daily updates and news from past weeks can be found at the
Spin of the Day section of CMD's website:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Archives of our quarterly publication, PR Watch, are at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues
CMD also sponsors SourceWatch, a collaborative research
project that invites anyone (including you) to contribute
and edit articles. For more information, visit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org
PR Watch, Spin of the Day, the Weekly Spin and SourceWatch
are projects of the Center for Media & Democracy, a nonprofit
organization that offers investigative reporting on the public
relations industry. We help the public recognize manipulative
and misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of
secretive, little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that
work to control political debates and public opinion.
Please send any questions or suggestions about our
publications to:
editor@prwatch.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions to the Center for Media and Democracy
are tax-deductible. Send checks to:
CMD
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
To donate now online, visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
THE WEEKLY SPIN, April 19, 2006
Sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy:
http://www.prwatch.org
To support our work now online visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Spin features selected news summaries with links to
further information about media, political spin and propaganda.
It is emailed free each Wednesday to subscribers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARE US WITH A FRIEND (OR FIFTY FRIENDS)
Who do you know who might want to receive Spin of the Week?
Help us grow our subscriber list! Just forward this message to
people you know, encouraging them to sign up at this link:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS WEEK'S NEWS
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. The Media War and Journalist Thought Crimes
2. Essential2: Better Flacking Through Chemistry
3. U.S. Public Diplomacy Goes South
4. Holy Product Placement, Batman!
5. Crunch Time for School Junk Food?
6. CNN Features Real News About Fake TV News
7. K Street to Get a TM?
8. Public Service or War Propaganda?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. THE MEDIA WAR AND JOURNALIST THOUGHT CRIMES
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002345682
"When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Rush
Limbaugh's talk radio show" recently, he made several remarks "on
the subject of press coverage in Iraq" that have mostly escaped
notice, writes Editor and Publisher. Rumsfeld said that "the
terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have
media committees. They are actively out there trying to manipulate
the press in the United States. ... They're much better at
(laughing) managing those kinds of things than we are." He also
said, "There have been far fewer journalists who have stepped up to
become embedded" with military units in Iraq. One reporter told
Rumsfeld that the perception was that embedded journalists "were
really part of the problem." Rumsfeld commented, "I think that's an
inexcusable thought."
SOURCE: Editor and Publisher, April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4739
2. ESSENTIAL2: BETTER FLACKING THROUGH CHEMISTRY
http://www.prweek.com/us/features/article/554052/Honeywell+sees+wisdom+joint+effort+Nobel+Media/
Working with Ogilvy PR, the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
launched its "Essential2" PR campaign last year, "to reposition the
$550 billion industry as not only imperative, but advantageous to
all aspects of modern life." Essential2 includes "national cable TV
spots, print ads, and a policymaker education program." PR Week
profiles the campaign's outreach to chemical company employees. ACC
named "campaign coordinators at each of its 129 member companies"
and provided them with "articles on topics ranging from chemistry's
role in preventing house fires to keeping NASCAR drivers safe." ACC
also designed an online "employee ambassador" kit with tips on "how
to discuss the benefits of chemistry, write educational letters to
the editor, contact government officials, and generate school and
community group speaking opportunities." ACC members include Dow
Corning, Bayer, DuPont and Carus Chemical, which hosted an employee
ice cream social where "ACC's MTV-style motivational video screened
as entertainment."
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), April 17, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4738
3. U.S. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY GOES SOUTH
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/14368770.htm
The U.S. State Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy,
Karen Hughes, has "launched a campaign to make her government
simpatico" to Latin America. Last month, Hughes visited Brazil,
Panama, El Salvador, Chile and Colombia. She wants to make U.S. aid
in the region "more visible and higher profile." Latin American
countries are receiving "more money for student and youth exchange
programs, as part of a worldwide effort to bring young people into
the United States." Hughes explained, "I'm focused particularly on
young people and those who influence them." Other changes include
adding eight regional public diplomacy officers, "to write up press
releases, manage cultural and student exchanges and attend speaking
events," and using the State Department's "rapid-response unit" to
help ambassadors respond to breaking news. A recent poll found
"three out of every five Latin Americans distrust the United
States."
SOURCE: Miami Herald, April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4737
4. HOLY PRODUCT PLACEMENT, BATMAN!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114532350031828284.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
"Product placement has become commonplace in movies and TV shows.
Now it's coming to comic books -- in part because the industry's two
giants, DC and Marvel, are promoting some of their titles as places
to reach one of Madison Avenue's most elusive audiences: guys in
their 20s," reports Brian Steinberg. DC Comics' new miniseries,
called "Rush City," will have "visible promotional support from
General Motors Corp.'s Pontiac." The series' hero will drive a
Pontiac Solstice. Marvel Entertainment "has begun putting the
'swoosh' logo from Nike Inc. in the scenes of some of its titles,
such as 'New X-Men.' So far, the emblem has appeared on a car door
and on a character's T-shirt." Marvel also signed a deal with
DaimlerChrysler, in which the new Dodge Caliber may be featured in
their comic books' cityscapes, "on billboards, T-shirts or signs
over the next four to eight months."
SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), April 18, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4736
5. CRUNCH TIME FOR SCHOOL JUNK FOOD?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0604140127apr14,1,6207503,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a frequent proponent of
legislation protecting children, is now taking on a formidable
opponent: the snack industry. Matthew Chayes reports that Harkin has
introduced legislation that would tighten the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) definition for "foods of minimal nutritional
value." Harken wants USDA guidelines to limit saturated fat, trans
fat, added sugar and other bad stuff in schools, instead of
filtering foods by their nutrients. Aside from advocating voluntary
guidlines, industry groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom say
the problem isn't the food, it's the kids and parents. Industry
consultant Lisa Katic told the Tribune, "The industry's not going to
support a bill that's not showing results." She added that children
need more pushups, not less fat or sugar. Kelly Brownell, director
of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, told the New
York Times that he fears "that the food industry, with the soft
drink industry taking the lead, will work its hardest to weaken or
kill this act."
SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, April 14, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4735
6. CNN FEATURES REAL NEWS ABOUT FAKE TV NEWS
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/reliable.sources/
Our groundbreaking exposé "Fake TV News: Widespread and
Undisclosed" continues to make waves. Dan Price, co-author of the
report with CMD's Diane Farsetta, was interviewed Sunday, April 16,
by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post on his CNN Reliable Sources
program. Federal Communications Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein was
also interviewed and pledged bipartisan action from the FCC. Dan
Price is a CMD research consultant and novelist who has his own
website. If you click here you can view on Dan's site his appearance
on CNN' s Reliable Sources. It's some of the best news you will ever
watch and yes, it is real. Our colleagues at Free Press have made it
easy for you to contact the FCC to ask the agency to investigate
this abuse of the public airwaves and to penalize stations that
break the law by deceiving their audiences with undisclosed fake
news. Act today, and ask five friends to do the same.
SOURCE: CNN's Reliable Sources, April 16, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4734
7. K STREET TO GET A TM?
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/041206/news2.html
While "most other Republicans" are avoiding the phrase K Street
Project, following lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January agreement to
plead guilty to corruption charges, Grover Norquist is seeking to
trademark it. Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform,
runs the project as what he describes as "an innocuous list of job
openings for Washington lobbyists and a database of lobbyists'
political ties and federal campaign contributions. The lists are
circulated among high-level conservatives, with critics calling the
efforts an improper 'whitelisting' and 'blacklisting' of potential
hires," reports The Hill. Norquist says the K Street Project, which
he founded in 1989, has been wrongly described as "a nefarious
practice of Republican lawmakers pressuring groups to hire
right-leaning employees." Trademarking the phrase will allow
conservatives to "jealously guard the real phrasing" and to "sue
anyone who says it wrong and make lots of money," explained
Norquist.
SOURCE: The Hill, April 12, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4733
8. PUBLIC SERVICE OR WAR PROPAGANDA?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/08/BUGROI5SPN1.DTL&hw=propaganda&sn=001&sc=1000
In early April, "a public-service advertising campaign began ...
encouraging Americans to show support for American troops." The San
Francisco Chronicle asks, "Is it a genuine message of gratitude or
poorly designed advocacy for the war in Iraq?" The non-profit
Advertising Council designed the print, radio and online ads for the
U.S. Defense Department. The spots direct people to the Department's
"America Supports You" website. Some marketing professionals "said
they believe the message crosses into partisan territory." The
founder of Venables, Bell & Partners remarked, "I feel the war
propaganda machine." Ad Council president Ellis Verdi rejected the
criticism, saying, "What's important is that these are 18-year-old
human beings, Americans, who are under stress." The Ad Council was
formed in 1942, to increase support for World War II; its campaigns
from that time include Rosie the Riveter and "Loose Lips Sink
Ships."
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4732
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Spin is compiled by staff and volunteers at the
Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a nonprofit public
interest organization. To subscribe or unsubcribe, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
Daily updates and news from past weeks can be found at the
Spin of the Day section of CMD's website:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Archives of our quarterly publication, PR Watch, are at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues
CMD also sponsors SourceWatch, a collaborative research
project that invites anyone (including you) to contribute
and edit articles. For more information, visit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org
PR Watch, Spin of the Day, the Weekly Spin and SourceWatch
are projects of the Center for Media & Democracy, a nonprofit
organization that offers investigative reporting on the public
relations industry. We help the public recognize manipulative
and misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of
secretive, little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that
work to control political debates and public opinion.
Please send any questions or suggestions about our
publications to:
editor@prwatch.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions to the Center for Media and Democracy
are tax-deductible. Send checks to:
CMD
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
To donate now online, visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
Here is a copy of Grist which is a daily eco newsletter digging up the dirt on the dirty guys. Look at this issue and if you'd like you could subscribe for free delivery to your own machine if you wanted to.
Thursday, 20 Apr 2006
It's Like Chile, Only Wider
Haven't entered our Great Peru Giveaway yet? What are you waiting for? Sign up today and you could win an eco-trip for two to this lush South American nation.
ADVERTISEMENT
NEW IN GRIST
It's All in the List
Our list of environmental goodies, oddities, and inanities
We thought about being earnest this Earth Day -- compiling some sort of inspiring list of in-the-trenches eco-heroes who need recognition and encouragement -- but then we remembered: we're Grist. So we bring you instead a capricious rundown of our favorite highs, lows, and wacky bits of the last year. Who's the hottest eco-model? The mustachiest geo-green? What's the kinkiest eco-innovation? The most self-defeating anti-Kyoto argument? Survey our superlatives to find out, then add your own ideas in Gristmill.
new in Main Dish: It's All in the List
new in Gristmill: It's All in the List
One for the Record Books, If They Survive the Floods
U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions hit record high
This week, the feds quietly -- as in, tiptoeing in socks, holding breath -- released annual stats on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, as required by the U.N. climate-change convention. The news is roughly as good as you would expect: The U.S., with only 5 percent of the world's population, is its biggest GHG polluter; emissions rose 1.7 percent between 2003 and 2004, the biggest increase since 2000, part of a 15.8 percent rise since 1990; in 2004, the U.S. spewed the equivalent of 6.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Not surprisingly, fossil-fuel combustion was responsible for the bulk (94 percent) of the emissions. Demand for electricity in the U.S. keeps on rising, as does the number of cars on the road. Said U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: "[T]he U.S. is making significant progress toward the president's greenhouse-gas reduction goals." Said us: What the hell are you talking about?
straight to the source: The Independent, Steve Connor, 19 Apr 2006
straight to the source: Environment News Service, 18 Apr 2006
discuss in Gristmill: EPA releases new report on greenhouse-gas emissions
NEW IN GRIST
We're So Vain, We Think This Party's About Us
A dispatch from the launch party for Vanity Fair's green issue
In case you haven't noticed, we're pretty dang excited that our own Chip Giller made the glossy green pages of the latest issue of Vanity Fair. And Vanity Fair's pretty excited to exclaim to the world that they're turning an environmental corner. This week, they did that by hosting a swank soiree at a luxury home-goods store ... but hey. One step at a time. Emily Gertz was there, and dishes the dirt on the beautiful people.
new in Dispatches: We're So Vain, We Think This Party's About Us
see also, in Gristmill: Vanity Fair green issue
Knock, Knock. Hu's There.
Oil issue looms as Chinese prez visits White House
Buying oil from unsavory regimes, thus ensuring their grip on power. Attempting to lock up oil supplies to increase geopolitical influence. Growing heedlessly and unsustainably, polluting the air and water. These are the kinds of behaviors the world can no longer tolerate from ... China. Wait, whaaa? Seriously: During Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the White House today, President Bush was expected to lecture him about oil. You see, the U.S. doesn't appreciate China's "mercantilist" policy of buying oil from places like Sudan, Burma, and, most significantly, Iran, with no heed for those countries' geopolitical misbehavior. The U.S. is attempting to build international support for economic sanctions against Iran over its budding nuclear program, and China could potentially stymie those plans. Bush planned to encourage Hu to get on board about Iran, quit buying oil from suspect regimes, and concentrate on energy efficiency. Hu planned to teach Bush the Chinese terms for "pot," "kettle," and "black."
straight to the source: The Globe and Mail, Barrie McKenna, 20 Apr 2006
straight to the source: The New York Times, David E. Sanger, 19 Apr 2006
Death Rides a Slightly Less Pale Horse
Climate change may not totally wipe out the human species
In what passes for good news on global warming these days, a new study has determined that climate sensitivity -- the extent to which climate will react to increased greenhouse-gas levels -- is likely within the mid-range of predictions. That means an atmospheric doubling of GHG levels, which everyone expects, will raise the global average temperature between roughly 2.5 and 8 degrees -- not the wacky 16-degree jump some had warned of. "This still commits us to quite a bit of climate change, but it leaves the door open to avoiding the largest and most devastating consequences," said lead researcher Gabriele C. Hegerl. Of course, a rise of 7 or 8 degrees in global average temperature will ensure massive storms, droughts, and sea-level rises, sufficient to hobble human society. But a 16-degree rise would be much more likely to wipe us out entirely. So, um ... we have a chance of maybe surviving! Who says the media never reports the good news?
straight to the source: The Washington Post, Rick Weiss, 20 Apr 2006
Thursday, 20 Apr 2006
It's Like Chile, Only Wider
Haven't entered our Great Peru Giveaway yet? What are you waiting for? Sign up today and you could win an eco-trip for two to this lush South American nation.
ADVERTISEMENT
NEW IN GRIST
It's All in the List
Our list of environmental goodies, oddities, and inanities
We thought about being earnest this Earth Day -- compiling some sort of inspiring list of in-the-trenches eco-heroes who need recognition and encouragement -- but then we remembered: we're Grist. So we bring you instead a capricious rundown of our favorite highs, lows, and wacky bits of the last year. Who's the hottest eco-model? The mustachiest geo-green? What's the kinkiest eco-innovation? The most self-defeating anti-Kyoto argument? Survey our superlatives to find out, then add your own ideas in Gristmill.
new in Main Dish: It's All in the List
new in Gristmill: It's All in the List
One for the Record Books, If They Survive the Floods
U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions hit record high
This week, the feds quietly -- as in, tiptoeing in socks, holding breath -- released annual stats on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, as required by the U.N. climate-change convention. The news is roughly as good as you would expect: The U.S., with only 5 percent of the world's population, is its biggest GHG polluter; emissions rose 1.7 percent between 2003 and 2004, the biggest increase since 2000, part of a 15.8 percent rise since 1990; in 2004, the U.S. spewed the equivalent of 6.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Not surprisingly, fossil-fuel combustion was responsible for the bulk (94 percent) of the emissions. Demand for electricity in the U.S. keeps on rising, as does the number of cars on the road. Said U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: "[T]he U.S. is making significant progress toward the president's greenhouse-gas reduction goals." Said us: What the hell are you talking about?
straight to the source: The Independent, Steve Connor, 19 Apr 2006
straight to the source: Environment News Service, 18 Apr 2006
discuss in Gristmill: EPA releases new report on greenhouse-gas emissions
NEW IN GRIST
We're So Vain, We Think This Party's About Us
A dispatch from the launch party for Vanity Fair's green issue
In case you haven't noticed, we're pretty dang excited that our own Chip Giller made the glossy green pages of the latest issue of Vanity Fair. And Vanity Fair's pretty excited to exclaim to the world that they're turning an environmental corner. This week, they did that by hosting a swank soiree at a luxury home-goods store ... but hey. One step at a time. Emily Gertz was there, and dishes the dirt on the beautiful people.
new in Dispatches: We're So Vain, We Think This Party's About Us
see also, in Gristmill: Vanity Fair green issue
Knock, Knock. Hu's There.
Oil issue looms as Chinese prez visits White House
Buying oil from unsavory regimes, thus ensuring their grip on power. Attempting to lock up oil supplies to increase geopolitical influence. Growing heedlessly and unsustainably, polluting the air and water. These are the kinds of behaviors the world can no longer tolerate from ... China. Wait, whaaa? Seriously: During Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the White House today, President Bush was expected to lecture him about oil. You see, the U.S. doesn't appreciate China's "mercantilist" policy of buying oil from places like Sudan, Burma, and, most significantly, Iran, with no heed for those countries' geopolitical misbehavior. The U.S. is attempting to build international support for economic sanctions against Iran over its budding nuclear program, and China could potentially stymie those plans. Bush planned to encourage Hu to get on board about Iran, quit buying oil from suspect regimes, and concentrate on energy efficiency. Hu planned to teach Bush the Chinese terms for "pot," "kettle," and "black."
straight to the source: The Globe and Mail, Barrie McKenna, 20 Apr 2006
straight to the source: The New York Times, David E. Sanger, 19 Apr 2006
Death Rides a Slightly Less Pale Horse
Climate change may not totally wipe out the human species
In what passes for good news on global warming these days, a new study has determined that climate sensitivity -- the extent to which climate will react to increased greenhouse-gas levels -- is likely within the mid-range of predictions. That means an atmospheric doubling of GHG levels, which everyone expects, will raise the global average temperature between roughly 2.5 and 8 degrees -- not the wacky 16-degree jump some had warned of. "This still commits us to quite a bit of climate change, but it leaves the door open to avoiding the largest and most devastating consequences," said lead researcher Gabriele C. Hegerl. Of course, a rise of 7 or 8 degrees in global average temperature will ensure massive storms, droughts, and sea-level rises, sufficient to hobble human society. But a 16-degree rise would be much more likely to wipe us out entirely. So, um ... we have a chance of maybe surviving! Who says the media never reports the good news?
straight to the source: The Washington Post, Rick Weiss, 20 Apr 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Fake News. Created by Public Relations departments in businesses and government, fake news has been in the news recently and here are some new research results from the U.S.:
Dear Weekly Spin reader,
Just minutes ago, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)
published online our groundbreaking exposé, "Fake TV News:
Widespread and Undisclosed."
This multi-media report is the culmination of an intensive, ten
month investigation by CMD senior researcher Diane Farsetta and
research consultant Daniel Price. The report provides the most
extensive account to date of how corporate-funded video news
releases (VNRs) -- fake TV news -- are routinely aired, without
disclosure, as though they were independent news reports.
Read the report here:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
And then tell the Federal Communications Commission that fake news
must stop, by clicking here:
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/fakenews
We are presenting the report today (April 6) in Washington DC, at a
press conference with FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and the
media reform group Free Press. We've also filed a formal complaint
with the FCC, calling for the 77 stations we caught airing fake TV
news to be held accountable. All such material must be disclosed,
to honor the audience's right to know!
Learn which TV stations we caught and watch footage of the VNRs we
tracked, plus see how TV newscasts incorporated them and/or related
satellite media tour "interviews." It's all here:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
Dear Weekly Spin reader,
Just minutes ago, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)
published online our groundbreaking exposé, "Fake TV News:
Widespread and Undisclosed."
This multi-media report is the culmination of an intensive, ten
month investigation by CMD senior researcher Diane Farsetta and
research consultant Daniel Price. The report provides the most
extensive account to date of how corporate-funded video news
releases (VNRs) -- fake TV news -- are routinely aired, without
disclosure, as though they were independent news reports.
Read the report here:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
And then tell the Federal Communications Commission that fake news
must stop, by clicking here:
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/fakenews
We are presenting the report today (April 6) in Washington DC, at a
press conference with FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and the
media reform group Free Press. We've also filed a formal complaint
with the FCC, calling for the 77 stations we caught airing fake TV
news to be held accountable. All such material must be disclosed,
to honor the audience's right to know!
Learn which TV stations we caught and watch footage of the VNRs we
tracked, plus see how TV newscasts incorporated them and/or related
satellite media tour "interviews." It's all here:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Well are newspapers and information sources dieing? The answers are mixed but here is an update from the New York Times:
Are Papers About to Land or Take Off?
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: March 9, 2006
The fate of Knight Ridder newspapers, the nation's second-largest newspaper chain, could be determined any day — and with it, the future of what has come to be known as the mainstream media could become clearer.
Knight Ridder was put up for sale in November under pressure from its three biggest shareholders, who said the company's stock was undervalued. In what may be an early sign that the newspaper industry's value has declined, it appears that only two bidders are likely to make offers by the deadline, which is today. Several private equity firms looked over the property but dropped out.
Offers are expected from the McClatchy Company and from the Gannett Company in partnership with the MediaNews Group. How high they bid will be significant. Low bids would suggest pessimism about the prospects for newspapers, as readers and advertisers increasingly decamp to the Internet. High bids would indicate more optimism for their future.
Knight Ridder owns 32 daily newspapers, including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Miami Herald, The San Jose Mercury News and The Kansas City Star. As late as yesterday, a consortium of buyout firms led by Thomas H. Lee Partners of New York and including the Texas Pacific Group was still interested, but industry analysts said a Lee bid was unlikely.
That leaves the bidding to two very different newspaper companies, one small, one large, both of them respected on Wall Street for their disciplined operations and high profit margins. But there is no sure sign either will offer a price that Knight Ridder will take.
Analysts said any bid over $65 a share would probably be accepted; anything less would put the company in a quandary. If Knight Ridder were unhappy with the offers, it might drop the sale and buy back more of its own stock in an attempt to revive its share price and provide its shareholders with a special dividend.
Whatever the outcome, the process portends a stringent climate for those toiling away at Knight Ridder.
"The bottom line on Knight Ridder papers is that in order to make these deals work, someone has to get extremely aggressive with costs," said Frederick W. Searby, an analyst with J. P. Morgan. "There's no question that this means that any buyer has to go in with a very, very sharp knife and trim the fat and maybe into the muscles to get this to work."
At the same time, bids that Knight Ridder considered too low could send a further message of worry through an industry already on the defensive.
"It will be very negative," Mr. Searby said. "Given the easy money out there, if these kind of prime assets can't get taken, it will rattle a lot of investors and depress sentiment."
James M. Naughton, a former executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and retired president of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, was less certain of the ramifications, especially if no deal were made.
"My concern is that it will be considered a referendum on the news business rather than an acknowledgment of what it really is — the failure of Knight Ridder many years ago to protect itself in the way it organized its stock," he said, referring to the company having only a single class of stock, making it more vulnerable to takeovers.
"I don't know that it speaks to the wider issue of whether there is money to be made in newspapers because the answer is yes, a lot," Mr. Naughton said. But Knight Ridder, he said, "is more apt to be under pressure from investors and therefore more apt to do bad things to its newsrooms to try to protect itself."
In any case, analysts said that a deal, if there was one, would move quickly and could be resolved in a matter of days. Paperwork on many minor aspects of a sale has already been signed by all three parties, they said. Still, no one rules out a last-minute scenario in which McClatchy joins with Gannett and MediaNews and divvies up the Knight Ridder empire, each according to its needs.
Knight Ridder is attractive largely because, despite the current environment, its newspapers remain profitable — its overall profit margin in 2004 was 19.3 percent, which is robust, albeit lower than McClatchy's and Gannett's, which own papers with margins above 30 percent.
Moreover, Knight Ridder, which has several strong newspaper Web sites and various online ventures, could serve as a gateway to a substantial presence on the Internet, from which analysts expect strong revenue in the future. Its assets include CareerBuilder.com, a popular Web site that it owns jointly with Gannett and the Tribune Company.
The downside is that its newspapers are just that — newspapers, the emblem of the old media, with big costs for printing and distribution at a time when readers and advertisers are turning to multiple other sources of news and entertainment.
Are Papers About to Land or Take Off?
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: March 9, 2006
The fate of Knight Ridder newspapers, the nation's second-largest newspaper chain, could be determined any day — and with it, the future of what has come to be known as the mainstream media could become clearer.
Knight Ridder was put up for sale in November under pressure from its three biggest shareholders, who said the company's stock was undervalued. In what may be an early sign that the newspaper industry's value has declined, it appears that only two bidders are likely to make offers by the deadline, which is today. Several private equity firms looked over the property but dropped out.
Offers are expected from the McClatchy Company and from the Gannett Company in partnership with the MediaNews Group. How high they bid will be significant. Low bids would suggest pessimism about the prospects for newspapers, as readers and advertisers increasingly decamp to the Internet. High bids would indicate more optimism for their future.
Knight Ridder owns 32 daily newspapers, including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Miami Herald, The San Jose Mercury News and The Kansas City Star. As late as yesterday, a consortium of buyout firms led by Thomas H. Lee Partners of New York and including the Texas Pacific Group was still interested, but industry analysts said a Lee bid was unlikely.
That leaves the bidding to two very different newspaper companies, one small, one large, both of them respected on Wall Street for their disciplined operations and high profit margins. But there is no sure sign either will offer a price that Knight Ridder will take.
Analysts said any bid over $65 a share would probably be accepted; anything less would put the company in a quandary. If Knight Ridder were unhappy with the offers, it might drop the sale and buy back more of its own stock in an attempt to revive its share price and provide its shareholders with a special dividend.
Whatever the outcome, the process portends a stringent climate for those toiling away at Knight Ridder.
"The bottom line on Knight Ridder papers is that in order to make these deals work, someone has to get extremely aggressive with costs," said Frederick W. Searby, an analyst with J. P. Morgan. "There's no question that this means that any buyer has to go in with a very, very sharp knife and trim the fat and maybe into the muscles to get this to work."
At the same time, bids that Knight Ridder considered too low could send a further message of worry through an industry already on the defensive.
"It will be very negative," Mr. Searby said. "Given the easy money out there, if these kind of prime assets can't get taken, it will rattle a lot of investors and depress sentiment."
James M. Naughton, a former executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and retired president of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, was less certain of the ramifications, especially if no deal were made.
"My concern is that it will be considered a referendum on the news business rather than an acknowledgment of what it really is — the failure of Knight Ridder many years ago to protect itself in the way it organized its stock," he said, referring to the company having only a single class of stock, making it more vulnerable to takeovers.
"I don't know that it speaks to the wider issue of whether there is money to be made in newspapers because the answer is yes, a lot," Mr. Naughton said. But Knight Ridder, he said, "is more apt to be under pressure from investors and therefore more apt to do bad things to its newsrooms to try to protect itself."
In any case, analysts said that a deal, if there was one, would move quickly and could be resolved in a matter of days. Paperwork on many minor aspects of a sale has already been signed by all three parties, they said. Still, no one rules out a last-minute scenario in which McClatchy joins with Gannett and MediaNews and divvies up the Knight Ridder empire, each according to its needs.
Knight Ridder is attractive largely because, despite the current environment, its newspapers remain profitable — its overall profit margin in 2004 was 19.3 percent, which is robust, albeit lower than McClatchy's and Gannett's, which own papers with margins above 30 percent.
Moreover, Knight Ridder, which has several strong newspaper Web sites and various online ventures, could serve as a gateway to a substantial presence on the Internet, from which analysts expect strong revenue in the future. Its assets include CareerBuilder.com, a popular Web site that it owns jointly with Gannett and the Tribune Company.
The downside is that its newspapers are just that — newspapers, the emblem of the old media, with big costs for printing and distribution at a time when readers and advertisers are turning to multiple other sources of news and entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
