This video is a mockumentary on Twitter and the social internet. Don't go trying to sign up for a Flutter account, it doesn't exist. But some of the objectives of Flutter seem fairly plausible. My favorite is around the 2:00 mark when the guys says that the internet world is so fast-paced, as soon as he finishes reading a tweet it's irrelevant.
It also makes some overt points on how internet is basically taking over our lives, and the omnipresence of advertising. Now I'm going to go tweet it!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
My dad is a citizen journalist... but im not sure he knows it.
My father has become an internet junkie in the past few years. He's basically broadcasted my entire childhood via facebook photo albums, and he's been writing on this site for a while now. It's basically a bunch of middle-aged folks from our area posting rantings about the town, their life, and anything else they feel like sharing. It's become a kind of social club for my parents. They go to events each year to do exactly what they do online except with drinking and face to face contact. I always found it a little silly, but today I actually took a look at the site. Next to the family postings and chit chat, there is some solid citizen journalism going on. There are forums on local politics, and some of the 'minions' attend town meetings and events to share with the others. They facilitate change in the community, and balance out the one-sided media that exists in Canandaigua, NY. (There is only one newspaper).
It's more than I expected. And even though some of them might be a little crazy, it's pretty solid reporting.
It's more than I expected. And even though some of them might be a little crazy, it's pretty solid reporting.
I really want to visit the Newseum in Washington D.C.
It's like the Jerusalem for journalists. Our Holy Grail, where many of the most important elements of journalism's history lives. But the Newseum in Washington, D.C. has proved that it does not just reflect on history, but also looks towards the future.
A 10 part television series title 'The Future of News' has been produced by the Newseum to be distributed by none other than American Public Television. It discusses "the evolution of news reporting in the internet age" with interviews alongside prominent journalists of our time. I only wish they had included at least one independent media newshound like Arianna Huffington or Glen Greenwald, I think it's going to be a noticeable missing gap in the program. Either way, it airs early next year and I can't wait to see it!
A 10 part television series title 'The Future of News' has been produced by the Newseum to be distributed by none other than American Public Television. It discusses "the evolution of news reporting in the internet age" with interviews alongside prominent journalists of our time. I only wish they had included at least one independent media newshound like Arianna Huffington or Glen Greenwald, I think it's going to be a noticeable missing gap in the program. Either way, it airs early next year and I can't wait to see it!
Fox news reporter loses objectivity on air... and probably her job at the same time.
If you haven't seen this yet, you should. Shirley Phelps-Roper reminds us that we are all human. We all have emotions, we all have opinions, even if we might have the title 'journalist' stuck next to your name, it doesn't change the fact that moral compass do exist, or we might *gasp* react to a story. This video is a few years old, but still relevant in proving how transparency can exist even in the most profession journalistic settings.
Hey Obama, are you forgetting something?
It's been a year since Barack Obama was named the 44th President of the United States. He may be recognized best for being the nation's first black president, but there are more notable firsts he has brought to the white house. Obama has recognized more than any other president prior how powerful a tool the internet is both for him and the people.
Obama repeatedly put net neutrality as a prime issue during his campaign. He brought the issue to the attention of millions of Americans. But where is it now? Take a look at his issues page. There's technology... I see some key elements for broadband access... net neutrality? nothing.
I'm not saying he hasn't done anything good for the internet. He created positions in his office specifically for technology, that's a step in the right direction. And his website does discuss the importance of broadband internet: "For America to lead the world in the technologies of the future, President Obama believes that all Americans must have affordable 21st century access to the Internet." That's good stuff! But the internet will not be the same powerful tool that it is today if nothing is done about corporations like Time Warner and AT&T trying to control access.
First things first Obama.
Obama repeatedly put net neutrality as a prime issue during his campaign. He brought the issue to the attention of millions of Americans. But where is it now? Take a look at his issues page. There's technology... I see some key elements for broadband access... net neutrality? nothing.
I'm not saying he hasn't done anything good for the internet. He created positions in his office specifically for technology, that's a step in the right direction. And his website does discuss the importance of broadband internet: "For America to lead the world in the technologies of the future, President Obama believes that all Americans must have affordable 21st century access to the Internet." That's good stuff! But the internet will not be the same powerful tool that it is today if nothing is done about corporations like Time Warner and AT&T trying to control access.
First things first Obama.
extremely helpful
savetheinternet.com has a list of FAQ's that I found worthwhile to read to better understand net neutrality and its endeavors.
public broadcasting is a counterweight to commercial media - but will it survive?
Growing up I always thought of channel 21 WXXI (Rochester, NY) as "the boring channel". It rarely had any "cool" shows on. Perhaps the occasion NOVA program would catch my eye, or when I was even younger, the afternoon cartoons were there when the networks were broadcasting their overly dramatic soap operas. I also occasionally enjoyed an episode of 'Antiques Roadshow', thinking maybe there was something in our basement that would thrill the appraisers.
Yes, I suppose I did not grow up a normal child, with only five television channels to choose from. Looking back, I relied on public broadcasting during the networks commercial breaks, or when absolutely nothing good was on. I didn't have Nickelodeon or MTV. Instead I would find myself learning how to make a good lasagna with Lidia or how to install a new window on 'This Old House'.
Back then I never realized the value that public broadcasting had for television. I didn't know about the corporate censorship that had a hold on the networks programming or that there was more concern for making money than showing a solid program. Public broadcasting provides the type of alternative media outlet that is supported by its audience, therefore is producing for its audience. A symbiotic relationship.
Yet with the popularity of cable television, and now the internet, I'm not sure how much longer public television can survive in the United States. Always known for not having commercials, there are now underwriting spots grouped together after each program for some advertising revenue, but it may not be enough. Most of my generation and those after grew up with over 500 channels, public broadcasting wasn't even on their radar. Will it be lost as the generational pull continues?
Yes, I suppose I did not grow up a normal child, with only five television channels to choose from. Looking back, I relied on public broadcasting during the networks commercial breaks, or when absolutely nothing good was on. I didn't have Nickelodeon or MTV. Instead I would find myself learning how to make a good lasagna with Lidia or how to install a new window on 'This Old House'.
Back then I never realized the value that public broadcasting had for television. I didn't know about the corporate censorship that had a hold on the networks programming or that there was more concern for making money than showing a solid program. Public broadcasting provides the type of alternative media outlet that is supported by its audience, therefore is producing for its audience. A symbiotic relationship.
Yet with the popularity of cable television, and now the internet, I'm not sure how much longer public television can survive in the United States. Always known for not having commercials, there are now underwriting spots grouped together after each program for some advertising revenue, but it may not be enough. Most of my generation and those after grew up with over 500 channels, public broadcasting wasn't even on their radar. Will it be lost as the generational pull continues?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
journalism doesn't need to be saved by the FCC
this article brought out such strong opinions in myself, I had to share them with a short rant...
Is it really that difficult for newspapers and TV stations to “find its place in the digital age” that they have to bring someone into the FCC to do it? I simply cannot agree with anything this article has to say about saving journalism. It doesn’t need saving.
When Arianna Huffington came to speak at Ithaca College she stressed that the future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers (or TV stations for that matter). As many other things in the world have developed with the expansion of the internet, so has journalism. Huffington spoke of a “hybrid future” that will combine old practices of media and pair them with new. I believe it is that easy.
Online newspapers such as The Huffington Post are successful because they are persistent and perhaps somewhat OCD. A story can be followed and updated from reports of shots being fired to the arrest of the gunman. This is where local news outlets must take advantage. A good, solid 6 o’clock newscast is still important, but an up-to-date (by minutes!) website is even more crucial.
Yes, newspapers will fold, TV stations will shut down, but there are new jobs opening up online for people with those skills. Audiences are now looking for information produced by more than their local media. And the Internet is a way to grab a larger audience than just in your area.
For example, if I am someday living in say, Dallas Texas and wonder what is going on in my hometown 2,000 miles away, all it takes is a few clicks. Or when my Aunt and Uncle’s house burned down outside of Syracuse, NY this past summer I didn’t turn on my television set, I went straight to WSYR’s website, and although the story was minimal (because it hadn’t been on the news broadcast yet) the information was there.
I think the last thing newspapers and TV stations need is to spend more money on some consultant to tell them how to use the internet. For a cheaper route, just hire a student fresh out of journalism college, I’m sure they’ll know how to update and revamp.
Is it really that difficult for newspapers and TV stations to “find its place in the digital age” that they have to bring someone into the FCC to do it? I simply cannot agree with anything this article has to say about saving journalism. It doesn’t need saving.
When Arianna Huffington came to speak at Ithaca College she stressed that the future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers (or TV stations for that matter). As many other things in the world have developed with the expansion of the internet, so has journalism. Huffington spoke of a “hybrid future” that will combine old practices of media and pair them with new. I believe it is that easy.
Online newspapers such as The Huffington Post are successful because they are persistent and perhaps somewhat OCD. A story can be followed and updated from reports of shots being fired to the arrest of the gunman. This is where local news outlets must take advantage. A good, solid 6 o’clock newscast is still important, but an up-to-date (by minutes!) website is even more crucial.
Yes, newspapers will fold, TV stations will shut down, but there are new jobs opening up online for people with those skills. Audiences are now looking for information produced by more than their local media. And the Internet is a way to grab a larger audience than just in your area.
For example, if I am someday living in say, Dallas Texas and wonder what is going on in my hometown 2,000 miles away, all it takes is a few clicks. Or when my Aunt and Uncle’s house burned down outside of Syracuse, NY this past summer I didn’t turn on my television set, I went straight to WSYR’s website, and although the story was minimal (because it hadn’t been on the news broadcast yet) the information was there.
I think the last thing newspapers and TV stations need is to spend more money on some consultant to tell them how to use the internet. For a cheaper route, just hire a student fresh out of journalism college, I’m sure they’ll know how to update and revamp.
Monday, November 16, 2009
fashion industry growing online
Perhaps it was behind business or politics, but fashion is finally making it's mark on the web via social media. In the past few months I have bookmarked a handful of fashion blogs such as fashionista.com and fashionweekdaily.com
and have also started following an array of fashion people and businesses on twitter.
When fashion week was in full swing, I didn't have to wait until the magazines came out weeks later, I could just go online and watch the show in full.
It's no surprise the fashion world is utilizing the internet for it's business, but I am surprised it took so long.
The best part about fashion online? It eliminates the middle man. As a recent article in the New York Times discusses, now designers can take their product directly to the consumer with social media. And those consumers don't miss items filtered out by editors, photographers and journalists.
This new age of media is changing more than the function of journalism, it's affecting how every industry runs it's business.
and have also started following an array of fashion people and businesses on twitter.
When fashion week was in full swing, I didn't have to wait until the magazines came out weeks later, I could just go online and watch the show in full.
It's no surprise the fashion world is utilizing the internet for it's business, but I am surprised it took so long.
The best part about fashion online? It eliminates the middle man. As a recent article in the New York Times discusses, now designers can take their product directly to the consumer with social media. And those consumers don't miss items filtered out by editors, photographers and journalists.
This new age of media is changing more than the function of journalism, it's affecting how every industry runs it's business.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Arianna Huffington on accuracy
I realize Arianna's visit was over a week ago, but I have just answered some questions for ICView on the subject, so she is fresh in my mind.
I was so happy to hear her talk about good reporting. Online journalism seems to get a lot of uncertainty as to how accurate it is, because it is so easy to post something online. A blogger doesn't have fact checkers and editors filtering through their material before it is published. But at the Huffington Post, Arianna explained how although they are an online newspaper with a lot of information coming from outsiders, they do have very strict guidelines. Such as if a mistake is made in a blog post, the writer has 24 hours to correct it or take it down. If not, their password as a Huffington blogger is revoked.
It makes a point that if there is a mistake on an online media outlet it is much easier to correct than a newspaper. If I make some editorial mistake in this blogpost I can go back and correct it minutes later. In a newspaper once it's printed, it's done. And the corrections have to wait until next issue. So who really is more accurate?
I was so happy to hear her talk about good reporting. Online journalism seems to get a lot of uncertainty as to how accurate it is, because it is so easy to post something online. A blogger doesn't have fact checkers and editors filtering through their material before it is published. But at the Huffington Post, Arianna explained how although they are an online newspaper with a lot of information coming from outsiders, they do have very strict guidelines. Such as if a mistake is made in a blog post, the writer has 24 hours to correct it or take it down. If not, their password as a Huffington blogger is revoked.
It makes a point that if there is a mistake on an online media outlet it is much easier to correct than a newspaper. If I make some editorial mistake in this blogpost I can go back and correct it minutes later. In a newspaper once it's printed, it's done. And the corrections have to wait until next issue. So who really is more accurate?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
music is for sharing
I love the idea of artists selling their albums online and ask for "what you consider a fair price". Music is meant to be shared, it is meant to inspire, to influence. Today's mainstream artist's music seems to be more about how much profit they can get off of one single. And it's not the artist that is getting this money, they're lucky if they even get 5% off of one single album sale. Music is controlled enough with Clear Channel deciding what and what doesn't get played on the air. And that's how most top hits are generated - the radio. I'm glad that artists are taking matters into their own hands.
I went to a John Mayer concert a year ago and he is, like Radiohead, one of the few in the business that "gets it". He allows recording devices, cameras, etc. And he encourages the audience to share what they experience with friends and with the world (via internet).
The sales of that Radiohead album and John Mayer's record breaking songs, it just goes to show that if you respect your fans they will send it right back.
It goes back to the 1,000 true fans strong theory. A lot of people probably didn't pay more than $5 for that album, maybe it wasn't worth it to them. But those true fans, believe me, it was worth it. And they'll keep paying just so Radiohead will make more music.
I went to a John Mayer concert a year ago and he is, like Radiohead, one of the few in the business that "gets it". He allows recording devices, cameras, etc. And he encourages the audience to share what they experience with friends and with the world (via internet).
The sales of that Radiohead album and John Mayer's record breaking songs, it just goes to show that if you respect your fans they will send it right back.
It goes back to the 1,000 true fans strong theory. A lot of people probably didn't pay more than $5 for that album, maybe it wasn't worth it to them. But those true fans, believe me, it was worth it. And they'll keep paying just so Radiohead will make more music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)