Radio Media

Reading the Knight Commission Report, it is interesting to see how the objectives to achieve informed communities can be found more and more frequently on the new media. As Earboleda notes

Printreferring to the recent riots in the Arab world, it is worth to note the ability of individuals to engage with information, communicating what they see with the community. Egypt shut down Internet,83914-stock-photo-hand-information-media-to-hold-on-radio-device-radio-broadcasting

beginning with Twitter and Facebook. Primarily as tools for organizing, but they also emerged as one of the most reliable sources of information (and sometimes the only one) from abroad. It was amazing to see how the technology community came to rescue: Google and Twitter joined forces to develop in a weekend a system to convert spoken tweets in text through a phone call (speak2tweet), no need for internet connection. The information society environment is changing, and not just at an individual user level. Given the news blackout, Al Jazeera chose to release its video contents licensed under Creative Commons, making available to any user relevant and credible information (implying creation, distribution and preservation, as the Knight Commission Report states). I guess the decline of journalism has been around for a while, although, as indicated Yu Ri, for most outsiders has gone unnoticed. The acquisition of The Huffington Post by AOL or other movements as the exit of The New York Times in the S&P 500 on Wall Street to make way for other companies such as Netflix… I guess they are signs of the end of an era. lorenabuin12:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, I hope we don’t mind but I re-organized the comments from this week’s class so there was a clear distinction between “Discussion” and “Links.” I think having two specific areas each for us to discuss and to share is important; that way we don’t get distracted by links in the middle of a point someone is making, and the links themselves don’t get buried under conversations. I hope you guys agree! mcforelle 17:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments in response to the material covered in the last slides. It is no doubt that with changes in the function of the media, the society eventually will become reorganized as well. By increasing the amount of information sources, the flow of information through the internet will redistribute our society into variety of constituent groups. Each group will have its own gravitational force that will maintain loyalty of its members. Now, there are two major types of gravities that attract people: one, which involves no money, that is, members are acting based on the ideological cause only; second, in which money-making is the primary objective of the members. There could be a third type, in which members are attracted by both a moderate amount of money and by the good old cause. These segments of the society, may be not all, are going to correlate with each other to the certain degree while maintaining a relationship with the dominating in the nation ideology or perhaps policy such as Federal Law. Hence, the society will thereby become more integrated horizontally rather than vertically. The hierarchic structures will no longer have that monopolistic power as they do have it today. The society will be re-engineered and the shock will certainly take place as Klien describes in the book “The Shock Doctrine”. There are certainly will be turbulences during the emergence of groups influenced by the different types of institutional ecology as Benkler asserts in his book “The Wealth of Networks”. Thus, the utility of the larger group producing the news will suffer due to the process of disintegration, whereas the social benefit of the group receiving the news will rise due to variety of available sources. These are some anticipations that we can make now and prepare to adjust ourselves accordingly. I should have said all this in class, but I do not think that the institutional ecology would allow me. —VladimirK 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers article made me ever more thankful for my International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the New York Times). Top reporting, top writing but at a top price (3 euros – approximately $4.00 cover price), it has become a luxury product targeted to a specific and affluent international readership. I was horrified when it started including advertisements on the front page, and worse, on the once sacred editorial page – then I understood why: survival.Mary Van Gils 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are going to talk about the old and new media, I thought that we should have an idea about the sequence of events that have much contributed to the technological development of the internet. By knowing the rate of improvement in hardware and infrastructure, we can hopefully realize an impact the internet has made on the legacy media and what role did the government play in the downfall of the American journalism. Internet Timeline: —VladimirK 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can readily sympathize with this week’s selected authors. It is unquestionable that the state of journalism is declining, and it was declining long before the Internet was to available to blame. I had been involved in local politics from the mid 1980’s until a few years ago. At the start there were always 3 or 4 reporters attending the Selectmen’s and Finance board meetings, and 1 or 2 at every other board or commission meeting. By the time I “retired” from politics only one local paper remained. The sole reporter couldn’t (and still can’t) attend the meetings so he would call the local officials to ask what transpired, then write the report based on what he was told without any further fact checking. Often the newspaper reports are wildly inaccurate. While the newspaper was the government watchdog of the past, today it is usually the lone gadfly who attends all the meetings, asks the tough questions, and does whatever he can to make his voice heard. The Internet is his most powerful amplifier. -Chris Sura 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that journalism was already declining long before the widespread of the Internet was novel to me. I assumed that emergence of citizen-led media is taking significant roles of reporting and distributing information away from the conventional media. Was it a lame excuse of the existing journal entities to explain their reduced power which is caused by factors other than the bloggers? —Yu Ri 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that a proposed solution to the decline of American journalism, is to look at government subsidies. Would the fact that journalists are subsidized by the government in some fashion, make it a target for political and other influences? What would stop Congress or the President from cutting off subsidies, or having undue influence on an investigation by a reporter for an article they did not like? The reality is that the world is changing rapidly, and that includes the way we consume information. Social media is what helped fuel revolutions across Tunisia, and the Arab world. This was done by empowering the people with information; not through state subsidized news outlets… Earboleda17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the frustrating elements of the discussion of the decline of journalism is that which focuses on global coverage; I am unconvinced that rhetoric regarding pre-Internet global coverage is anything more than nostalgia. Even the major bureaux often lacked (and still lack) the local knowledge required to cover a locale accurately. In that sense, I think it’s important to note how social media, citizen journalism, hyperlocal journalism, and other forces have improved upon global coverage of news.

The Nation piece touches on this, certainly, but I don’t think it digs deep enough into the issues surrounding international correspondents and fixers. Jyork 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is no passing fad. The whole world is full of photographers. Cell phones now capture media anywhere at anytime. Newspapers will have to appeal to a niche of society to survive. People have suddenly come to be reporters. but its clear we have lost privacy. Nothing is left alone. Another point is that news is no longer local. The Internet has tuned us into one large community. This is fantastic because now we can understand where people come from and avoid conflicts. Elishasurillo 21:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But the news is also either stripped or over-saturated. It takes more than the internet to make us a community. We have to be engaged and welcome the diversity of opinions and the wisdom of crowds. Creativity also has a place. With news, we have to get the facts (from all parties involved) straight. Ideal–perhaps. It will take time to find out, that’s for sure


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s