So today, I look at the different views regarding the effects of Internet on journalism.
From this site, the writer shares the issues that were raised during the conference that was mainly populated by journalists. He brought up issues like how more research should be conducted about the role of Internet and the quality of news. Some of the arguments he put summarized included the Andrew Keen's "Rise of Amateurs" (who's interview we saw in one of the videos in class), the less rather than more diversity of sources (in which the argument put forth is that as people create their own media environment, they select information that they agree with) and mediated coverage (in which the worry is that journalists are spending more time in front of screens than in the field).
This video features a discussion between the founder of Wikimedia Foundations that operates the Wikipedia project, Jimmy Wales and cultural critic Andrew Keen (again). Wales is generally of the opinion that with the Internet changing many aspects of news gathering, the media should keep up and use the Internet to complement their work. Andrew Keen was as usual questioning the role of the Internet because amateurs shouldn't dabble in news reporting and that the Internet reflects our society (narcissism, impatience, laziness etc). However, it should be noted that this is only a preview of the whole discussion.
I agree with Wales in that Internet has and will continue to affect the roles of the media and I don't think it's going to go away. Therefore, I feel that journalists should work with the Internet to enhance their reporting or they would be at a risk of losing their jobs. At the same time, I do appreciate the rather harsh criticisms that Keen has brought up and one of them is that we shouldn't pay as much attention to some random blogger when it comes to news but depend on trained professionals. Is the Internet good or bad for journalism in the long run? I feel that it is just a form of change and that it is hard to say whether it is good or bad. In the end, the Internet is here to stay so the onus is on the journalists.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Internet and Politics
I have been remiss in not updating the blog for a couple of weeks. Let me amend by recovering the weeks that I have lost with intensive research and postings this week.
Today's post will be about how Internet has and will influence politics.
According to research conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project, the Internet has brought about several gains for politics. It is reported that twice the number of people have learned something about political campaigns from the Internet (compared to survey done in the 2004 campaign). Furthermore, the Internet managed to capture young people in their search for information regarding campaigns through social networking sites like Facebook. Further information can be read at this link where it even provide the original transcript of the study.
One interesting article which I found from New York Times said that the Obama's campaign was successful because of the Internet. He is compared to John F. Kennedy where President Kennedy won as a result of the television while Obama was elected President because of his use of the Internet. One way in which the Internet was successfully used is in the way it cut costs when it comes to organizing supporters. According to the article, what would have taken "an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground" was easily done through an Internet website. Furthermore, he made use of the free advertising that could be gained through sites like YouTube and Facebook. The article goes on to mention the other interesting and successful ways in which the Internet could be used for a successful campaign.
Finally, I would like to compare the prevalence of Internet in the U.S politics with that of Singapore. This article from ZDNetAsia mentions how the government actually made some concessions about campaigning on the Internet. However, the article goes further on to mention how these concessions, already reluctantly given, were further restricted which have not yet been outlined at the time this article was written. A rather more extreme article compares Singapore to a "modern police state" by meticulous scrutiny and system of surveillance. Although I personally do not promote nor agree with the writer's article, I find it an interesting read nonetheless.
Just to summarize what I've covered this week: Research has shown that the Internet is beneficial in some ways when it comes to gathering information about campaigns. This is supported by an article which lists out the various ways in which the Obama campaign had successfully used the Internet. However, not all the countries in the world have embraced the Internet in the political arena.
And just to end off with a lighter note, here's a cartoon that I found:
Today's post will be about how Internet has and will influence politics.
According to research conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project, the Internet has brought about several gains for politics. It is reported that twice the number of people have learned something about political campaigns from the Internet (compared to survey done in the 2004 campaign). Furthermore, the Internet managed to capture young people in their search for information regarding campaigns through social networking sites like Facebook. Further information can be read at this link where it even provide the original transcript of the study.
One interesting article which I found from New York Times said that the Obama's campaign was successful because of the Internet. He is compared to John F. Kennedy where President Kennedy won as a result of the television while Obama was elected President because of his use of the Internet. One way in which the Internet was successfully used is in the way it cut costs when it comes to organizing supporters. According to the article, what would have taken "an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground" was easily done through an Internet website. Furthermore, he made use of the free advertising that could be gained through sites like YouTube and Facebook. The article goes on to mention the other interesting and successful ways in which the Internet could be used for a successful campaign.
Finally, I would like to compare the prevalence of Internet in the U.S politics with that of Singapore. This article from ZDNetAsia mentions how the government actually made some concessions about campaigning on the Internet. However, the article goes further on to mention how these concessions, already reluctantly given, were further restricted which have not yet been outlined at the time this article was written. A rather more extreme article compares Singapore to a "modern police state" by meticulous scrutiny and system of surveillance. Although I personally do not promote nor agree with the writer's article, I find it an interesting read nonetheless.
Just to summarize what I've covered this week: Research has shown that the Internet is beneficial in some ways when it comes to gathering information about campaigns. This is supported by an article which lists out the various ways in which the Obama campaign had successfully used the Internet. However, not all the countries in the world have embraced the Internet in the political arena.
And just to end off with a lighter note, here's a cartoon that I found:
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Multimedia
We looked at so many amazing inventions this week like the e-paper, the Japanese umbrella that is linked with Googlemap (or google earth) that was able to track the steps of the person carrying it as well as the NewsML. There were also videos projecting what the future would be like. I found these videos especially interesting because it all sounds so possible. I can't decide whether or not the future (as shown in said videos) is going to be scary but it sure looks exciting. I also liked the concept of the prosumer, which according to this Wikipedia article, was coined by futurologist Alvin Toffler when he predicted that the role of producers and consumers would blur and merge. I feel that we've already started with blogs and podcasts.
This video by Phil Cooke talks about the media revolution which I feel is rather relevant to the topic at hand. He talks about how the digital media revolution is going to be as life-changing as the Gutenberg press as it's going to change how consumers and producers interact.
It's no longer the producers providing shows while we consumers passively watch. It is now a "2-way conversation" and the example he gave was the television program "Lost" where producers actually looked at feedback audience gave online and responded by modifying the storyline. Of course this is only one aspect in which the digital media revolution will have impacted on us. Other aspects he mentioned include the government, science, worship and etc.
Random information: I found this book called "Me in Media" which explores, in its words, the "rise of the conversation society". This site provides a chapter by chapter summary and it does look interesting. One of the more interesting info is that we're going through the third media revolution. The first is the type letters and printing press which I suppose refers to Gutenberg printing press. The second is the electronic mass media like television and radio. Now, we're going through the web media revolution!
That's it for this week's discovery!
This video by Phil Cooke talks about the media revolution which I feel is rather relevant to the topic at hand. He talks about how the digital media revolution is going to be as life-changing as the Gutenberg press as it's going to change how consumers and producers interact.
It's no longer the producers providing shows while we consumers passively watch. It is now a "2-way conversation" and the example he gave was the television program "Lost" where producers actually looked at feedback audience gave online and responded by modifying the storyline. Of course this is only one aspect in which the digital media revolution will have impacted on us. Other aspects he mentioned include the government, science, worship and etc.
Random information: I found this book called "Me in Media" which explores, in its words, the "rise of the conversation society". This site provides a chapter by chapter summary and it does look interesting. One of the more interesting info is that we're going through the third media revolution. The first is the type letters and printing press which I suppose refers to Gutenberg printing press. The second is the electronic mass media like television and radio. Now, we're going through the web media revolution!
That's it for this week's discovery!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Internet Crime
The focus of the week is different ways in which security is compromised over the Internet. So we learned about viruses, trojans, worms, hackers as well as how to protect against them: firewalls, anti-viruses, anti-spyware etc. Our assignment for the week is to search for an article regarding Internet/cyber crime in Singapore.
I found this article in which a 17-year-old was sentenced to 18 months' probation because he was caught piggybacking on his neighbour's wireless Internet. He was reported when said neighbour saw him sitting outside on a kerb at 2am in the morning. The reason he was piggybacking? His mother had confiscated his computer modem. Reason he wanted to go online? To chat online. (Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing) According to the article, "in doing so he would make Asian legal history" because before this he was "was the first in Singapore, and possibly Asia, to be sentenced in court for "wireless mooching," or piggybacking on an unsecured wireless network to surf the Internet."
I find this article interesting because firstly, it seems as though where other countires can't really be bothered with mooching, Singapore (as per its kiasu self) cared very much. Secondly, I find it interesting that we can link this article to Internet as an addiction. Finally, cyber crime laws are still evolving and being refined in order to correctly label criminals. Just out of random curiosity, I found this online where it provides an overview of cybercrime legislation and gives examples of cases in Singapore.
So that's it for this week.
I found this article in which a 17-year-old was sentenced to 18 months' probation because he was caught piggybacking on his neighbour's wireless Internet. He was reported when said neighbour saw him sitting outside on a kerb at 2am in the morning. The reason he was piggybacking? His mother had confiscated his computer modem. Reason he wanted to go online? To chat online. (Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing) According to the article, "in doing so he would make Asian legal history" because before this he was "was the first in Singapore, and possibly Asia, to be sentenced in court for "wireless mooching," or piggybacking on an unsecured wireless network to surf the Internet."
I find this article interesting because firstly, it seems as though where other countires can't really be bothered with mooching, Singapore (as per its kiasu self) cared very much. Secondly, I find it interesting that we can link this article to Internet as an addiction. Finally, cyber crime laws are still evolving and being refined in order to correctly label criminals. Just out of random curiosity, I found this online where it provides an overview of cybercrime legislation and gives examples of cases in Singapore.So that's it for this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)