Waiting For Change

Now if we had the power 

To bring our neighbors home from war

They would have never missed a Christmas

No more ribbons on their door

And when you trust your television

What you get is what you got

Cause when they own the information, oh

They can bend it all they want

That's why we're waiting

Waiting for the world to change

I was listening to the radio the other day and this popular John Mayer song came on and as I mindlessly sung along I finally thought about what he is really saying.  It made me think about how many people sing along and subliminally take in his message without really understanding what they are hearing behind the catchy tune.  Throughout this course we discussed the trust factor multiple times and how the number of people who trust what they see on the news is going down.  

I think that this stanza fits our class particularly well because it is our generation that is going to make the change he is talking about.  I don't know if I necessarily agree that all the information we see on TV is "bent" simply because they own it and they can do whatever they want with it but I certainly think that with the increase in online journalism and the exponential growth of online news sources it will become more and more difficult for the information that is given to be bent at all.  

This was interesting to think about how this change in media is affecting all the different industries and how people are choosing to speak out about it.  

video

the link didnt work for the YOUTUBE clip so here it is the old school way:
link

future

I appreciated the overview of various perspectives on the future of journalism. I found it especially interesting when the VP of google mentioned that the "atom" or basic unit of media has changed with the internet from albums to individual songs and from entire newspapers to articles. 

It was also interesting how those who worked for newspapers had a more negative view of journalisms future stating that citizens journalists where as credible as a friendly neighbor is in the field of social work. While the google lady seemed to see the change in journalism as a place of growth. 

All in all, however, it is all speculation. With so many kinks in the developing system as well as the constant necessity for profit, no one has a clear notion as to where the future is going. I found a video similar to the one you showed us that made alternate assumptions about the future. I think it is funny how boldly we as a society tend to make assumptions instead of accepting uncertainty. Many of the people that make assumptions about the future are not the one's actively participating in its evolution and i think this is frustrating. 

By far the most absurd solution to the financial crisis of the news industry is charging for online papers. As a young, broke college student, I would not pay to read online versions of the Denver Post or even the NY times, i would find my news elsewhere. 

Mainstream media poaching the Web

This is a fantastic Salon piece on how establishment media outlets poach stories from the Web. And with proof!

Reading For Monday

     I found the reading to be especially interesting because my paper is very much focused around what the future of news could hold, and how people today feel about media mostly being online. One link that I especially enjoyed from Jay Rosen's blog was Paul Starr's piece, "Goodbye To the Age of Newspapers( Hello To the Age of Corruption). It was very compelling.

Starr is not happy with the idea of losing newspapers. One reason he feels that way is because he thinks that one danger of reduced media news coverage is "to the integrity of the government."He writes that it is known that corruption is more likely to happen when people in power have less reason to be afraid of being exposed. 

    Starr also brings up the point that newspapers are laying off reporters that have exposed major scandals, so if good reporters are being fired, then there is less of a chance that scandals could be revealed. Eric Alterman, a liberal American journalist, as well as an author, media critic, and blogger, discussed what he thought of print journalism on a quick 5 minute video. He discusses it with Brian Guber. 

      Altmann believes that newspapers are moving online and there is not much that can be done about it. He does feel that their are going to be, and are, negative consequences to journalism and media going online. Alternman brings up the point that people are much easier to manipulate if they have bad information, and like most people already/should know, there is a lot of bad and false information that circulates online.

    Starr also brings up the interesting point that news coverage isn't the only thing that newspapers have given us, "They have lent the public a powerful means of leverage over the state, and this leverage is now at risk" (Starr). I know that I have never thought about how much newspapers have done for our society but Starr definitely made many arguments about how many positive things newspapers do for us and the balance of our society.

Overall it was a very interesting article. On the other end of the spectrum was an article by Steven Berlin Johnson titled, "Old Growth Media and the Future of News." Johnson related how much easier it is to be updated on magazines and the like than it was in 1987. The Internet has definitely made the movement of information faster and easier, but it is sad to think that newspapers could completely disappear. Jay Rosen connected many interesting articles to his post. All of the perspectives on the future, and current situation of journalism, were very interesting, and helpful, for me to read about.

Reading for Monday

Be sure to read the articles that are linked to.

Rosen's roundup of the future of journalism

My essay

Today's Discussion

So I still feel that I should clarify what I meant today when I said that I didn't think that every person was capable of being media literate. I do believe, cynical and horrible as it is, that some people literally can't differentiate and sort through information that they trust and agree with and information that they don't. This is separate from another issue which is that people don't really have the take, take the time, care to take the time, whatever, to become media literate.

Regardless of the general intelligence of a person, everyone can become aware of the world around them if they choose to. And I think (or at least hope) that this is something that people will choose to do more and more because of the networked journalism phenomena that is opening up media to such a great extent. Like Adrienne was talking about, people need to be able to relate to their news--either through content or form. I do believe--as cynical as I am about the intelligence of the general population apparently--that this is something that networked journalism can improve. Is improving. And will continue to improve.

This video is an excellent example of those people finding media literacy outside what is stereotyped as their comfort zones. It is also a good example of the fact that old people are adorable. :)

Response to Chapter 5

The wiki concept has allowed us to access more information than ever before, even obscure trivial info. For example wikia.com features various wikis completely devoted to topics such as Batman, or video games such as God of War. This furthers the idea of fan communities, and can allow people who are fans of various movie, television, or video game series to keep up with plots, characters, episodes, etc. However, the flaws of community editing in wikipedia are shown in this parody:
And Keith Olberman's view on Wikipedia:

Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy

Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy are the two main topics that Beckett discusses in his final chapter. He argues the fact that despite the change from old media to new media (from only professional journalists to citizen journalists as well) there still needs to be figures of authority within the media: editors. I completely agree with this point, because one of my concerns about Networked Journalism is that the amount of information being thrown out there with no filter will go out of control. However, Beckett also makes the point that editors need to learn to accommodate to this new form of news and be open to new sources and perspectives. That leads into Beckett's discussion of Media Literacy. Along with editors and journalists, Beckett argues, the entire public needs to become "media literate." I agree with this because if so many people are starting to become citizen journalists, they should be informed about the complexities of the media beforehand. However, if everyone starts becoming educated about journalism and the media, won't this eventually wipe out the need for journalists altogether?

I thought the cartoon above was funny and related to Lindsey's question about what will happen in this transition to Networked Journalism when older people haven't been caught up to speed yet.

Questions:

• Do you think that eventually citizen journalism and Media Literacy (if really implemented) will wipe out the need for professional journalists?
• I feel that some types of new media such as Wikipedia and Wikinews allow for people's opinions to get mixed in with facts and information. Do you think that that these kinds of sources are creating more bias in the media because of the ability for people to add opinion, or less bias because there are more perspectives given?
  

Truth in New Media?

Networking journalism is, without question, growing exponentially.  In Beckett’s 5^th chapter, he discusses how new media is far better than print because it is interactive and helps the audience engage in the issues.  In order to contribute to this new form of media, one should invest in Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy, according to Beckett.  However, the argument can be made that new media lacks truth.  The question of whether the Internet lacks media literacy and truth then arises.  This video, titled, “Does the Internet Need more Editors,” shows a debate about Wikipedia and whether or not there should be an editor.

We Can All Be Super Heroes (Chpt. 5)

Finally, we have reached the point where we learn from Beckett how Networked Journalism can save the world. There are several strategies that he sees as necessary in order to change journalism. First and foremost, we need to invest in Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy, according to Beckett. The information the public receives from these journalists must be thorough, accurate, and objective. He believes that it's extremely important for journalists to reveal the hidden truth, and be "facilitators, instead of gatekeepers" (147). One key issue these days is the lack of diversity in the media. Currently, a majority of journalists have a high degree of education and come from somewhat similar social classes. Beckett blames this partly on the growth in journalism studies in Higher Education. To fix this, institutions need to work on accepting a more diverse student population that will provide them with a variety of skills, resources, and knowledge.
As mentioned earlier, networked journalists must provide the truth. Sites such as Wikipedia challenge this statement. Anyone, including the infamous Essjay, can go in and change something posted on the website, whether it's true or not. What Beckett argues is that although there is nothing stopping someone from providing false information, there is also nothing stopping people from changing it immediately. Since Wiki is visited so frequently, there is a slim chance that wrong information will stay posted for a long period of time.
Beckett defines Media Literacy as "the ability to access, understand, and create communications in a variety of contexts" (157). He believes the audience needs to invest time and effort in Networked Journalism, and they can do this by investing in media literacy. Because we are entering a world of citizen journalism, citizens themselves must be accurate, fair, and honest. Journalists (citizen or not) must also understand the new technologies and platforms associated with Networked Media. According to Beckett, because of this joint understanding, we can "close the distance between people on a global scale" (166). If we enable viewers to be a part of the media process, we are bringing them into connectivity, and this is what Beckett believes is the most important principle of Networked Journalism.

Questions:

1. According to Beckett, Editorial Diversity and Media Literacy are the two biggest factors that need to be improved in order to save journalism. Do you believe this statement is true? If so, why? If not, what do you think is more important?

2. Beckett says, "Networked Journalists need to be better journalists than ever, because they are working with people who think they know better- the public" (147). How do you feel about this comment? Why do you think this affects Networked Journalism more than print or broadcast journalism?

3. Since the world of Networked Journalism is fast approaching, how is the older generation going to get their news when some can't even turn on a computer?

4. To what extent will this period of uncertainty affect other modes of communication (ie. radio and television)? For example, will broadcast journalism remain stable for awhile but print journalism fail altogether? Who is most threatened in your opinion?

Challenging the mainstream ideas- and Maz Jobrani

I really appreciated our discussion about Islamophobia, censorship and content of the news. I think as journalists it is more important that we, perhaps more than anybody else, are able to have these discussions and to look at both sides of the issues. As an international studies and journalism double major I have spent the last few years trying to do that, and the most important thing I have learned is that nothing in the world is black and white. Everything has culture, context, background, two or three or five hundred sides to it. Example: There is no internationally accepted term for terrorist. This speaks to how complicated, painful, frightening and vitally important the issue of terrorism is. I would encourage all of you as future journalists to critically analyze all of the accepted norms and mainstream ways of thinking. It is our job to report the facts. And if that means challenging those widely accepted ideas and preconceptions then we need to be prepared to do that. Otherwise we fall right into the old model and will never challenge the sphere of legitimate debate. Anyway, sorry, I really did not mean to get preachy but I really feel that this is the most important issue we have discussed in this class. Anyway, to add to the Islamiphobia discussion here is a clip of a Iranian Commedian addressing the issues we touched on in class through the lens of a Muslim American. And he's hilarious. Its only five minutes, check it out. Thanks guys!

Islamophobia and The Simpsons

After today's discussion, I wanted to look more in depth into the idea of "Islamophobia". When I googled the term several websites popped up, but this is the one that caught my eye and seemed the most interesting.

To begin with, the article talks about how Islamophobia was portrayed in the show The Simpsons. After looking on both hulu and YouTube, I couldn't find the episode they talked about in the article. However, I did find two other clips that represent Islamophobia in popular culture. One, called Suspicious Neighbors, is about Homer going over to their neighbors house, who is a Muslim, on the pretense of wanting to apologize for something he said at dinner when, in actuality, he is going over there to snoop around her house to determine if she is a terrorist. After going into her kitchen to get some more almond dip, he finds her computer and opens a document showing a bomb connected to the mall. Immediately he pretends to be hurt and jumps out the window to escape the so called "terrorist". The other episode, Religious Bullies, is about 3 boys who begin picking on Bart's new friend Bashir because he is Muslim. One of them blames Bashir for not being able to take toothpaste on a plane anymore.

These two episodes are prime examples of popular media reinforcing the idea of Islamophobia. Both of these clips stereotype all Muslims as being terrorists or the cause of problems in America. I think it is because Americans see things like this and process this information unconsciously that many Americans are Islamophobic.

However, the one thing I really liked in the Religious Bullies episode is that Bart kind of brought the tension down and stood up for Bashir after he said he was Muslim. This shows that while some people do believe all Muslims are terrorists and are prejudice against them, not everybody is.

Beckett Chapter 4.

Beckett states that "Terror groups like Al Qaeda have an ideology which is antithetical to all values of a liberal, free media...This is why the more extremist demonstrators against the Danish Cartoons denouncing freedom of speech. Journalism must respond to the terror threat by upholding freedom of speech in a responsible fashion that acts as a model for liberal values that others will wish to embrace."(130) After seeing the Danish Comics (posted below) I agree that freedom of speech must be upheld, but in a "responsible manner" for example, imagine if Jesus had been portrayed in a similar manner, there would have been an equivalent uproar in the west. The publishing of these cartoons also proves Beckett's argument of "Islamaphobic" journalists in the west. Beckett goes on later in the chapter to explain that the cartoon debate "represents many of the challenges of an un-networked media world." However, I disagree with his argument of an un-networked media as the cause of the cartoon debate. The publishing of the cartoon was due to the neglect of the Danish newspaper editors. Networked journalism was in fact, responsible for spreading the cartoon and making it a global issue. Networked journalism did act as a solution in showing the other side of the argument in the protests against the cartoon, and the "global argument among Muslims" (141)























I believe that propaganda has always existed relevant to countries in mainstream media and that governments see it as an important tool, like the Palestinian children's program as a propaganda tool, the U.S. has also used children's programs in the past to achieve public support, example would be anti-nazi cartoons made by Disney during WWII as well as anti-japanese Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Questions:

1. Do you agree with Beckett's argument that Networked Journalists are more informed and have more "open minds" or do you think that Networked Journalism can lead to bias and prejudice spreading faster and wider?

2. What is more important? Propaganda as a means of encouraging nationalism, patriotism and the moral of nations, or the public's right to know and journalists obligations to truth and accuracy?

3. Has networked journalism made the use of propaganda obsolete?

4. Is Networked Journalism better than traditional journalism in covering terrorism, or does it equally compound the problem (example: the Danish Cartoons being sent across the world over the net)

5. Do you believe the American media should concentrate more on global issues like France 24 and Al Jazeera English, etc?

Obama giving sympathy to the press

Response to Fighting Evil (Chpt. 4)

Beckett puts it bluntly in the first few sentences of the chapter: "There is no greater challenge to the ability of journalism than terrorism" (127). He is aware of the fact that terrorism plays a very negative role in the media, but he believes that with extra effort, journalists can overcome these challenges. Beckett uses the September 11th attacks as an example of how terror can affect the media negatively. He states, "It was a gesture of power, an image of defiance, and a token of threat that was intended to frighten, humiliate, and provoke" (128). Although he acknowledges that terrorists have clear motives behind their actions, he thinks Networked Journalists need to understand these people and their backgrounds before they react. I mostly agree with him, but this is sometimes easier said than done. For journalists, getting information that is unbiased but critical is challenging when their sources are famed terrorists. Beckett thinks "Islamaphobic" journalists are all too common these days. Instead, he believes the media needs to be open-minded to this different world if they ever want to understand terrorism and the motives behind it.


Questions
1. I thought Beckett's comment on how it's difficult to form views on people that are inaccessible was very interesting. Do you think journalists are looking for information from the wrong sources? If so, what could be done to fix this?
2. What do you think about the idea of Aljazeera English? Do you think it should be offered to viewers anywhere in the US?
3. Do you think Networked Journalism is the only way to turn terror in the media around? Can you think of other strategies journalists could use to better understand and navigate terrorism?

Here's an interview with Dave Marash, former Aljazeera English anchor, on why he quit.

Also, an interview with Aljazeera English's Josh Rushing, published in The Denver Post

Beckett Ch. 4

Ch 4. Fighting Evil
(Terror, Community and Networked Journalism)

In this chapter, Beckett brings up the challenge that terrorism brings to the media and how he thinks that Networked Journalism can help conquer some of the issues that come along with terrorism in the news. One of the first points he makes is that the media needs to be able to remain objective, even when dealing with terrorism by "giving a voice to those hurt by terror and those driven to use it" (128). Essentially, Beckett says that the media needs to learn more about terrorist communities and make an effort to understand them in order to get accurate stories and attempt to stop terrorists.

Some challenges that journalists face while dealing with terrorism, according to Beckett, are that journalists need to realize that they actually play a role in the terror process, they need to realize that they play a role in portraying how certain terrorist communities are viewed, and they need to be able to respond to terrorism in a responsible way. The media needs to be "independent, virile, and critical" but it can't "leave a trail of anger and distrust in its wake" (131). There is a fine line when dealing with terrorism, and a balance needs to be reached, and Beckett believes that Networked Journalism will be helpful in this solution.

The example that Beckett uses to discuss these challenges is the story of Misbah Rana, a 12 year-old Pakistani girl who traveled from Scotland to Pakistan to live with her father. When the story first came out, journalists said that she had been abducted by her father and taken to Pakistan not by her own free will, but it was soon revealed that she had gone voluntarily and that all of the media sources had gotten it wrong. Beckett attributes this huge mistake to bias (or "Islamophobia") but also to just plain ignorance and bad journalism. Journalists assumed that she was abducted just because the parties involved were Muslim. Every media source that wrongly covered the story had to quickly cover up and apologize for their mistakes. We have been talking about trust recently, and a situation like this is detrimental to the media in terms of the level of trust they have with their audience.

Although I somewhat agree with Beckett that Networked Journalism could help the media deal with terrorism, I also think it hurt. With blogging and videos and every other type of online journalism, there is more room for bias and ignorance in the news. The video below is of suicide bomber Mohammad Sidque Kahn telling the U.S. why he did what he did. I guess it could be argued that this video being available to the world is a good thing because it helps people understand better, but I think it can only cause uproar and controversy.



Another disturbing video is that of the children's TV show Tomorrow's Pioneers on Al-Aqsa TV, discussed by Beckett. Personally, I was shocked by this video, mostly because of the involvement of the child.


Questions

• Do you agree with Beckett that Networked Journalism can help the media deal with terrorism? If so, how do you think it can? If not, why?
• How have news sources such as ITV News attempted to help deal with terrorism in terms of replacing fragmentation with integration?
• During the cartoon scandal, the news station that Beckett worked for decided not to show clear images of the cartoons because "the onscreen value of showing the cartoons was not worth the obvious offense that would be caused." Do you think this was a good decision? Why or why not?
  

Macaca videos

Allen's Macaca video


And Macaca Blues

Response for CH 3 and Talbot article

In chapter 3, Beckett looks at how Networked Journalism is changing political debate. The public is generally distrusting of political journalism as well as politicians. Not only that, but they are bored with the information mainstream news media produces. While civic engagement is still high in other niche areas such as human rights and environmental issues, the discourse involving political parties is tired. This leads to seeking out new sources for information, the easiest and most salient being blogs. He believes that Networked Journalism can eventual serve as a moderator to facilitate communication between the public and government, leading to more civic engagement.

Beckett believes that the Internet brings a complementary aspect to mainstream political journalism. Bloggers can supplement the mainstream with information and sources and also break stories that professional journalists either cannot due to censorship, lack of concrete sources, or political reasons such as in Zimbabwe. Bloggers can also force the hand of journalists by creating enough buzz around a story that they have to address it in some manner.

Will a happy medium begin to emerge once pro and am journalists learn to get along?

New media technologies allow for politicians to connect to the public in an unmediated way. Obama's campaign created their own YouTube channel (with 1,840 videos at this time) where they could post full speeches, commercials, rebuttals, and voter-generated videos, all of which could easily be spread to other areas of the Net. Mostly through social networking sites, e-mail, and blogs, though mainstream new sites also embedded them and even featured them on television news casts. The blending of new media and old media with the YouTube/CNN debates is both a success and a failure. I agree with Jarvis in the fact that CNN's editorial decisions were too much and that they chose questions mostly for the spectacle they would allow for. Most of the questions were ridiculously easy, almost boring. Here's the infamous snowman/global warming question.



Talbot's article supports a lot of what Beckett mentioned. He talks about how Obama was able to get unfiltered messages to the public through the Internet and that by building on Howard Dean's campaign strategies, he was able to build his own social networking empire through existing platforms such as Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, and Twitter, but also build his own in MyBO. His bottom up strategy counted on supporters spreading information for him. As far as the question Leslie posed as to how do campaigns reach supporters who may not be comfortable with online social networking, MyBO had an instructional video on how to use his site. I agree that the Clinton campaign was not smart in its use of new media. She embraced Facebook and Myspace, but never really used them to mobilize supporters. I don't buy the argument that her supporters were only women 40+, as I was a supporter of hers as were many young people on my campus in Indiana and at her rallies, but I digress. Here's the instructional video for MyBO. It's kind of bland to watch, but interesting in that you can see all of the features the site offered.

Response to Beckett (Ch. 3) and How Obama Really Did It

In Beckett's third chapter, we see the connections made within Networked Journalism and US politics. Much of this chapter is focused on the new media and the powers that new age sources (i.e. blogging, internet) have attained in our recent culture. The Networked Journalism and US politics connection is brought to mind again, through means of the David Talbot article, How Obama Really Did It. The article, coinciding with Beckett's idea that "the internet is already playing a high-profile role in recent US election campaigns"(Beckett 91), primarily focuses on newly elected President Obama and how media sources (such as the internet) played major roles in making his election successful. It was through the internet that Obama was able to heighten his social-networking through sites such as Facebook.com and MyBo. I agree with Talbot that much of Obama's all-around success with his campaigning has been generated by the traffic acquired on popular blogging sites where people have 'followed' his progress, like Twitter. Twitter, alone, currently has 50,000 Obama "followers", which is mind-blowing to me. Obama even inspired a music video created by hip-hop artist Will.i.am, which was based off of one of his speeches. 

I think that a large reason why the majority of our generation voted for Obama was because of the way he networked his way through his campaigning process. By becoming an active blogger on popular websites and by creating social profiles for the younger generations to access, he took an extra step compared to those who came before him. 

Questions:

1. A rep for Meghan McCain's blogging site, "Bloggette", said that the site gives a "hipper, younger perspective on the campaign and makes both of her parents seem hipper and younger". Is it off-putting (at all) that the site features a some-what alluring silhouette of a woman in red high heels? 

2. Do you think that Obama's web-oriented campaign strategy will be able to take him through to the next election? Or by that time will he need a new kind of rejuvenation? 

CH3 and OBAMA

Beckett discusses the function of modern media as it interacts with the existing model. He discusses how blogs inspire traditional news sources for example when the drudge reports revealed the Monica Lewinski scandal. 

He emphasizes the strengths of the system as it allows civic engagement and a sort of system of checks and balances like we discussed in class on Monday. 

Beckett warns that "There is a potential for digital fraud which could contribute to a loss in media." (110) He ultimately decides that the benefits of media's progress outweigh the risks when compared to the old media model. Competitiveness, which is at the heart of faced paced, web based media "means we should get a better relationship between the public and the politicians"

With such new forms of communication the question of authenticity is inevitable. Blogger fraudthough as Bleckett claims can be prevented through networks. Is in a since unavoidable unless one can gain enough notoriety or online fame to prevent it. While the traditional model is flawed, it has a strict system of copyright protection. Which, it is worth mentioning, was instilled not to insure financial profit, but instead protect the flow of information. While Western capitalism has allowed them to work for profit, they still maintain their original function. I question the reliability of a system without such legal backing.  

His description of African media and journalism illustrates a unique perspective as to how models of media develop and function. While the government restricts journalism and media use, Kenyans seek out alternate forms of communication, mobile phones instead of government restricted landlines. 

I think that blogging and other modern media forums  works in a similar way in that citizens seek to escape the big media model (whether or not it is directly governmentally controlled) for new forms of communication. 

In this way i agree with his optimism that the way society is moving is for the better and maybe someday we can truly reach a successful supermedia system. 

 

Modern political campaigning has taken root in modern technology, candidates have intuitively taken advantage of new developments. Many say that such efforts are directly targeted toward youth. In someways this may be true, but much of the presence of political information in youth based areas was actually created by young campaigners for example facebook rally's.  Also youth aren't the only people on the net. Instead i think that young people are as always simply more susceptible to except new developments. I am frustrated by the persistent negativity used to describe campaigning using technology because to me it is unavoidable like resisting the use of the printed word without the 19th century. If one wants his message heard, he must use all of the resources available. 

1. Beckett  states that in modern society  "journalism, politics and the public should always be in tension and not reconciled" (88) to what extent do you agree or disagree?

2. Do you think that the current system of blogs, online news sources and citizens journalists reinforces this tension or alleviates it? Is this a good thing?

3. The general population has come to a consensus that TV media is biased. Although the net provides the general public access to a wealth of information in regards to politics from every angle, to what extent does the public seek outside of popular sources. To what extend did you do so?

4. Beckett stresses the need for networked journalism mediation to protect the supermedia model, will this be enough to protect the flow of truthful information? any other options?

Politician, Bloggers, Journalists, Oh My!

In Beckett's Chapter 3 discussion he basically formulates, argues and explains why the ultimate goal of Networked Political Journalism is to address the loss of public trust in the media, promote civic engagement and restore faith in American politics.
How?, one might ask.
Well, Beckett believes that "networked news practices offer journalists the potential to get more things right by being connected to and corrected by the public" (100). In other words, journalism would still remain in its professional manner, but its forum would allow a more conversational piece that includes the public realm. Here the public can be part of the agenda setting process, and donate, comment and correct any information presented as well. This combination of new and old media allows for more public discourse among the American population in choosing the best candidate.
Why should politicians accept this new wave of campaigning?
Well, Beckett makes several solid points in reasoning with politicians in joining the technology train. For example, Beckett discusses the Lamont victory in the primary that "showed that netroot activism has the power to mount dangerous challenges to incumbents who would have previously considered themselves safe" (96). Additionally, those who did not have the financial support to run a solid campaign would be able too via the Internet, through chatrooms and blogs, and therefore create a foundation that turns numbers into dollars.
Take this for example on politicians, campaigning, popularity and YouTube...
Finally, speaking of dollars. What about the global future of Networked Journalism? Well, Beckett discusses this idea in a country that is not as "finacinally sound" or technologically advanced as the United States; Africa. While they need aid to acquire this new forum, Africa first needs to define political "ownership" of its media sources and educate the masses in this innovative communication method so it becomes useful and successful as a new medium. The fragile, liberated, complex and poor states that make up the country need to specialize this Western phenomenom that will cater to their specific financial, social and economic development.



QUESTIONS:

• "How bloggers or other formulators of Networked Journalism going to get in and connect with these political heads or leaders the way these long-standing mainstream journalists have been doing for years? How are they going to rebuild the trust between politician and the new media?
• Do you think the internet will portray politicians in the same fashion as celebrities or will there be a new code of conduct?
• How are audiences supposed to believe what they are seeing on audio/video clip is true? Here's a video discussing one thought...
• If 60 percent of Americans believe that TV networks are biased (90), how do you suggest that both sides be delivered in fairness online? Or maybe a better question, how are online conversations going to pose less bias? Are Americans educated enough to acknowlege the difference in this new forum?
• Beckett says “there is only one tool, one platform, one medium that allows the American people to take their government back, and that’s the Internet” (91), do you think this idea could lead to online voting? What do you think of digitalizing one’s voting privileges?
• What are your thoughts on civic responsibility versus civic laziness in-line with Networked Journalism?
• With the new media and politics, will the little things that they do overshadow their big ideas?
• Beckett talks about the “attempts to cohere, if not corporatize, the blogosphere” (100), but wouldn’t that be forming the same mainstream media, just in a different medium?

Article for Wednesday

How Obama Really Did it

From Old Media to New

After reading from Beckett’s SuperMedia, I really got to thinking about the future of journalism and the reality of a complete transformation. Like Beckett and so many others have said, Networked Journalism is the new deal, but there will be consequences that come along with it. There are so many factors that have contributed to the downfall of print and broadcast journalism, and in the near future, these types of journalism will most likely be extinct. However, it is clear that with Networked Journalism, journalism as a whole can be saved, and Beckett is a firm believer of this.

Here is a website that keeps track of the newspapers that have “died” and gives information about the ones that are suffering:
http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/

Clips from Jeff Jarvis’ seminar, Future of Journalism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2008/jun/24/jarvis.future1

The ultimate use of the colon: "SuperMedia: Saving Journalism so It Can Save the World"

To Begin
It brought everyone around me great entertainment when they asked what I was reading and I showed them the title of Beckett's book. It's hard to ignore the awesome hilarity of the book's title-something I'm hoping is purposeful-but the instant one begins to read the book itself, it is even more obvious that this is a topic to be taken seriously.

In the introduction, Beckett introduces why it is important that we as journalists save journalism so that it can continue doing its job informing the public. He also introduces the idea of Networked Journalism and the "social, political, cultural, and commercial" problems, consequences, and advantages that come along with it.


Chapter 1
The first chapter discusses a lot of the same things we have discussed thus far in class. It relates the problems with journalism today (changing of the audience, economic crisis, etc.) and the dangers journalism faces because of these problems.

There is a lot wrong with journalism right now. I think we get that. However, as he presents all of these issues, he also highlights the positive elements to all of these issues-or at the very least the positive take on how they might solved. My favorite of these is when he is discussing the relationship between new and old media and how they are "intimately linked" and that this link is "something that needs to be accelerated, not resisted."

I've mentioned before that I am a person who likes to find the middle ground in everything. The idea of taking both old and new media and melding them together to create the new face of journalism is, to me, not only the best solution, but is ingenious. I agree with Beckett that to best serve journalism this is something that should be put on maximum speed and traditional journalists should acknowledge the fact that their profession is changing and that, instead of resisting, it would be better to embrace it.

Here is an article that discusses the merger of new and old media:

• Media new and old merge at CBS

And here is a blog devoted to sharing the in and outs of new media

• Old Media, New tricks

Chapter 2
This chapter is all about Networked Journalism. Beckett talks about how networked journalism has come about and offers up a definition and an example of what it looks like and how it works. He then discusses the business of networked journalism, how it can serve as a public service, and, most importantly I feel, how it can potentially save journalism.

One idea on how to help save the business of journalism:




Adrienne's (re)View:
I really enjoyed reading something from Adrienne herself and found the review thoughtful and helpful. I especially admire her ability to bring in arguments or other points of view without taking away from the book.


Questions:

1. Can someone explain this sentence to me: "Is the world of cyber-journalism going to be about citizen journalism or amateur pornography?" What does pornography have to do with journalism? Or is that the point? That must be the point...
2. Do you think journalism is savable? And if so, do you believe in the power of journalism to save the world?
3. How can we as journalists, aspiring or otherwise, do our part in saving journalism? What does this entail?

Super Media

Beckett's book, Super Media Saving Journalism So it Can Save the World, is essentially "about the politics of journalism, its impact, and its potential for facilitating change." (3)  

Chapter 1

Beckett discusses why journalism matters, a fundamental question that leads to why we should save it.  So why is journalism important?  Beckett believes that it matters because it can do something for you.  It is vital for the functioning of economies and because it has a social and political role.  I agree with what he says about the need for a source of information and I think that he has struck a key point: Journalism will survive because people need it, the way they receive their news may change though.  The shift from journalism to Networked Journalism is another key factor. 

So what exactly is Networked Journalism?  It includes citizen journalism, blogging, "two-way street" journalism, wikis, social networking and open sourcing.  It breaks down the barriers between professional and amateur and audience and participation and creates a way to bring together Old and New Media.  They are undeniably linked so rather than resisting the merge, we need to move with it.  How are they connected?  The example Beckett gives is that most news websites get their information from newspapers or the Associated Press.  (14) Without the primary source, would weblogs survive?

Threats to the News Media Business Model

1.  The Loss of Audience.  This is more than just losing numbers of people tuning in to mainstream news and instead going online, this is about the people losing interest all together and the audience disappearing.

2.  Loss of Revenue.  People don't want to pay for online news, mainstream news organizations are losing viewers/readers.  In an interview with Charlie Beckett, when asked what organizations should do to generate more revenue he responded, “Much too big a question! If I knew the answer I would be very rich."

3.  Fragmentation.  Like we discussed with the theory of the Power Law, there is now more choice in media than ever before. 

4.  Loss of Diversity.  Journalism is highly competitive and most news organizations print the same sensational stories to attract attention. 

5.  No Free Lunch.  Will handing out free papers create a demand for them that will continually need to be fed, or is this simply a stop-gap measure?  

6.  Loss of Quality? Journalism has always been critiqued for its quality.  If only well-spoken thoughtful people participated in the wide world of the internet it would be surprising.  Beckett asks, "why should the internet not reflect humanity in all its banality as well as its glory?" (31)

What is happening to the Public Sphere?

Social changes shape our journalism.  The change in journalism, while it is in part affected by the advance of technology, is also due to the fact that society changes.  "Society is changing, so journalism must change too.  Journalism is changing so society should pay attention." (35)  One change we are seeing is in the public service element - people don't always use it but they want it around.  Technology, among other things, is changing this aspect of journalism and threatening to make it disappear.  

Chapter 2

I found the quote from Dan Gillmor at the beginning of this chapter reassuring and refreshing.  Beckett agrees that while journalism as it is today does have values that we need to keep such as its core ethics and vital skills, it also needs to adapt if it is going to survive.  (41) 

The History of Networked Journalism

Blogs did not start after the invention of the internet, though this was the first time we gave them a name.  In the 17th century people used pamphlets to spread their beliefs instead of websites.  They were a mix of propaganda and reportage.  18th Century topical writers used the same objectivity that bloggers use today, allowing them to go back and forth from reportage to propaganda easily. (45) As we know, journalism changes and with inventions such as the telegraph and train, mass media was made possible. This is similar to the expansion that we are witnessing today thought there is one fundamental difference.  The form of journalism they used then was not networked. 

How Networked Journalism is fixing Old Media problems: (48)

Reducing barriers and obstacles to entry and growth - anyone can launch a website now.

Moving to an interactive media - today, when there is a serious incident, media outlets turn to citizens for videos, pictures, etc.

From crude technology to infinite technology - new communications are immediate and high quality.

From expensive to cheap media - this goes hand in hand with the previous point. Digital material is now easy to change, replace and distribute.

From deadlines to continuous news - with the change in technology journalists now work around the clock.

Multi-dimensional news - readers no longer have to go from start to end, online journalism is multi-dimensional.

Networked Journalism also changes what journalism looks like, starting with the newsroom that is becoming increasingly obsolete.  Also, when covering a story Networked Journalism includes more aspects such as the audience contributing.  Sourcing changes too; while they keep original sources, networked journalists will also benefit from what their communities' interests are as well.  

Now that we have talked about the problems in the media and Networked Journalism, here is how it can save the media.  There are problems of trust, time, place, humanity, and audience. (59)  

How do we keep public trust? By sharing the process of distributing news with the public, Networked Journalism offers a relationship of greater responsibility and can help rebuild the news media.  

Time:  with Networked Journalism, deadlines aren't as important because stories have longer life spans because online reaction can become part of the significance. 

Place: Old Media was challenged when it came to communicating across distances, both physical and moral.  Networked Journalism lets us make contact and share information across both distances. 

Humanity: New Media allows more engagement and reflection on the subject.

Audience: The goal is to bring people back to the news media and to stop fragmenting.  There has to be more openness, information, and transparency.

In business, Networked Journalism can help the free market develop different ways of doing media business.  (74) It can help bridge the funding gap, build a long-term view for a business, and diversify, specialize and socialize the communities.

In public service, Networked Journalism helps produce a new compact between society and journalism.  (80)

Questions:

What is (in your opinion) the essential point of Networked Journalism and how do you see it working in your communities today?

Do you think that Networked Journalism can save the media?  How?

In 1981, The New York Times published an article on Politics in Israel.  You can't read the whole story without paying, but if this were being reported today, how would the story be different?  What components of Networked Journalism would be used today that would change it?  What other sites would pick up the story?

How does the problem of authority and trust affect Networked Journalism?  

Jay Rosen's article: If Bloggers Had no Ethics, Blogging Would Have Failed.

The video of Rosen

Rosen's definition of Citizen Journalism

An Introduction to Second Life

A-List Bloggers' Coverage of Obama's 100th Day

Matt Drudge's The Druge Report, amid frantic links to stories about the swine flu and an ominous photo of a man suited in lab goggles, a face mask and full white protective bodysuit captioned "Level 5," pointed to a story from financial giant Bloomberg.com optimistically portraying Obama's first 100 days in office. The story, which plays off its headline that proclaims "Obama... says he is 'remaking America,'" focuses on Obama's plan to bail Chrysler out of bankruptcy and otherwise cut the budget deficit in half during his first term. The article also focuses on what Obama hopes to accomplish in his next 100 days. Most of the story's links were internal and comments were not enabled, making the Bloomberg story a triumphant and ultimately one-sided affair.

Other links on Drudge concerning Obama point to stories on the president's plan to fix the "economic wreckage" and the U.S.'s image as well as a story about Obama's decision that waterboarding, authorized by former President Bush, was torture. Drudge generally featured positive and progressive links concerning Obama's 100th day, although much more heavily covered issues surrounding the swine flu.

Colorado Springs local Michelle Malkin took a different approach - catching her readers' attention with a Photoshopped image of President Obama in a "Scare Force One" parody (at left). The image, which features a less-than-flattering image of Obama looking old, serious and somewhat threatening, is perhaps the most obviously opinionated A-list blog I saw. However, Malkin also seemed to be doing a good job at drawing in her audience through original pictorial arrangements as opposed to the generally positive, status quo slideshows featured elsewhere.

Malkin's coverage largely blames Obama's administration for "spending inordinate government resources - and recreating 9/11 havoc - to update Air Force One publicity shots." Malkin rants and Malkin raves, and Malkin also features some very negative and very Photoshopped images of Obama, one frighteningly reminiscent - with paintshop-style brush writing - of everyone's favorite celeb blogger Mr. Perez Hilton himself (see right).

The Huffington Post took a slightly more balanced approach, featuring a "report card" for President Obama's first 100 days from Huffington Post's top bloggers and major players. Though generally positive, the short blurbs cover a number of topics - from the economy to climate change to reproductive rights - and feature links directly to each blogger's post of their own impressions.

The HuffPost also featured the vapid "Michelle Obama's First 100 Days of Style: Vote for her Best and Worst Outfits," which included a slideshow and poll, as well as an interesting article titled "Obama's First 100 Days: 10 Achievements You Didn't Know About," including the fact that President Obama has appropriated $19 billion in the stimulus package to help implement an electronic medical record system. Overall, quite a smattering of coverage - for just about any Obama-supporter or fashion queen.

Ultimately? The blogs covered the issue based on their own pre-existing political slant, most featuring slideshows of Obama going about his first 100 days of business. The rare few who spoke out against Obama in an unapologetic way - like Michelle Malkin - caught some attention, but the big hitters that featured more than one perspective and quite a few external links (as Shirky discussed), like the already enormously popular HuffPost - which captured 1092 comments on its "Obama report card" story alone - inevitably stole the show.

Your request is being proce

A-List Blog Observations

Daily Kos

100 by Al Rodgers
I chose this blog post because it has gotten 274 comments on it since it was posted at 10 a.m. today. Rodgers is clearly writing from a left perspective. The blog has a ton of photos, all very positive and links to sources and different pages to get more information about individuals. It was enjoyable to read because it was a bullet point list of all of the things Obama has accomplished in his first 100 days with a twist of humor towards the end when Rodgers takes creative liberties with the list such as "appoints Kim Kardashian Secretary of Booty."

Huffington Post

One Hundred Days by Madeleine Albright
There is a whole list of bloggers reporting on Obama's 100 days in office, but I chose Albright because of her street cred. She praises Obama's efforts in the position of president at a very tough time in our history. She does not use any links or pictures in her post, but it is short and to the point and really, with her background as former Secretary of State, she really doesn't need to outsource information. Her opinion is one others probably seek to quote. Her post has gotten 74 comments since 8:30 a.m. this morning.

Thoughts

Albrights post was definitely a professional, more serious piece that mirrors mainstream news media. Rodgers' blog was the opposite, whereas it contained facts for the most part, he was very concerned with being more entertaining with visuals and getting a laugh through his humor and fabrications at the end. Both are successful and useful in my opinion. I found that reading Albright's opinion, someone who is a political veteran and someone who is widely respected, gave me an authoritative view on the issue. Rodgers did the same thing by actually bullet pointing out Obama's accomplishments which is useful if you haven't kept up on everything. Being able to see things in a black and white way was very informing and with the bit of humor, it was actually fun to read.

Obama's 100th Day in Office

I looked at the Huffington Post, Bloomberg.com, and Politico.com. These blogs are similar and different in many ways.

The Huffington Post and Bloomberg both quoted Obama as saying that he is happy we have made progress, but we still have a lot of work to do. However, that is where the similarities end between the Huffington Post and Bloomberg. The Huffington Post article by Madeleine Albright was pretty opinionated. She talked mainly about how Obama inherited the nation at a pretty unfortunate time, but that he has made several good decisions including assembling a strong and experienced team (Hilary Clinton and Biden), working with those in power internationally, making good use of the time he has had in office (talking with our neighbors and allies) and he has refrained from trivializing his positions into a bumper-sticker slogan. Then Albright goes into some of the tough questions Obama will probably be asked in the near future including ones about the Iraq War and the economy.

The Huffington Post and Politico had little in common other than that they both talked about what questions the president might be asked at his press conference tonight or in the near future.

Both Bloomberg and Politico talked about Obama's 60+ percent approval rating. However, I think Bloomberg gave a lot more information about what Obama has done in his first 100 days, whereas Politico mainly just lists some questions that Obama would most likely be asked tonight at his press conference. Bloomberg talked about the legislation that Obama is trying to get Congress to enact, where he stands on certain issues (including the Chrysler/Fiat deal), what laws he wants to put into place and when he plans on bringing the troops home from Iraq.

Overall, I would say that when it comes to describing Obama's first 100 days in office Bloomberg did the best job. The other two blogs mainly discussed questions he might be asked rather than what has happened in the last few weeks.

The 100th day according to the A-list

Almost every major blog you can find on the internet today has a piece on President Barack Obama's 100th day in office. Everyone seems to have an opinion. I took a look at six blogs and their pieces on this monumental event and have posted my findings here.

Daily Kos

This blog featured quotes from several sources about how they felt about Obama's hundred days--without failing to comment on them, of course. Earlier in the day they had at the top of their page a video of Sean Hannity saying how he thought Obama was good for the GOP because he hasn't donw anything, etc., etc. This is an obviously left wing blog that is open to posting opinions...which is what I think makes it popular. People like opinionated stories that they can either agree with or make fun of.

Crooks and Liars

This blog had a video of Obama himself speaking about his accomplishments over the past 100 days. I thought this was interesting because, though this is also an openly very left-wing blog that pokes fun at those who they deem worthy of being poked fun at, they chose to post a very serious piece on this story--Obama himself. I felt this is popular probably for the same reason Daily Kos is.

Politico

Politico posted questions that they had for Obama after his first 100 days in office. These were questions that the average American should be asking and, I thought, led to real and constructive discussion on the topic. People on this site seem to be having serious discussions on all kinds of political happenings--which leads me to believe that is why it is well-known.

Daily Beast

When I looked at the Daily Beast, I thought I must be missing something when all I could find on the event was a post about Michelle Obama's first hundred days and another titled "100 days of PDA" Whether they were going for irony or are simply just much more soft news focused, these 100 days themed stories made me smile...in an I'm giggling at you, not with you kind of way. I've never been to the site before, but I have a feeling it is more enlightenment and entertainment driven--light-hearted in other words.

Barackobama.com/blog

The only thing that Obama's own blog had was a few words about how we should all watch tonight’s address from the president himself about his first days in office. There is only one good answer to why this would be a popular blog--it's (supposedly) from the president himself.

Talking Points Memo

This blog had a link to a thirty picture slide show of the first hundred days. The pictures were mostly of the president doing his job. TPM seemed to be mostly straight-forward and news-driven.

I feel like most of the blogs were waiting to post their big stories about the event until Obama's speech was over because when I went bacl nearly all had another larger story about what the president had just said.

And to be true to Youtube, here's something light-hearted about Obama's first days.

I like to come back to comedy and to things like Youtube because I like to see what regular people are thinking about the same things I'm thinking about--regular people as in not the politically immersed A-list bloggers.

Be sure to check out that entire series of videos. It looks like there are nine.

Blogs Reporting on the 100th day of Obama's Presidency

The Huffington Post reported on Obama's 100th day in presidency by having a video of Obama speaking about his 100th day. The DailyKods blog also had a video with Obama talking about his 100th day in presidency. Obama discussed his views on abortion among other things. Among the previous blogs that I have mentioned, Politico also reported on Obama's 100th day in presidency. There were many different articles posted on Obama's blog about different issues that he has been dealing with. One was about Obama's limitations and another was about the Pentagon concerns with Pakistan aid. On Obama's blog he posted a video of himself discussing the problems that  he needs to address. It was interesting to see how on all of the blogs I looked at, each one had something on it regarding what Obama has done in the first 100 days of his presidency.

I think that all of the political blogs needed to have something about Obama's 100th day and I was happy to see that each one did. It was important to hear Obama speak about what he has achieved so far and what he intends to do in the coming months. 

Obama's 100th Day

Many of the "A-List" blogs that I looked at concerning Obama's 100th Day in office had slide shows or at least pictures of Obama looking heroic and almost godly.  The Huffington Post's coverage of the first 100 days was in the form of bloggers saying what they thought about what Obama has accomplished thus far.  What I noticed right away were the kinds of people who were commenting.  It was not obamafan29, or some other anonymous character, but instead the bloggers were people like Madeline Albright and Robert Kuttner.  This makes the site seem more "A-List" because these are people whose opinions are more likely to matter than an anonymous blogger throwing in his two cents.  

21889.html

The Politico blog entitled their story, "Questions for Obama on his 100th Day," a different take on the event.  The story is laid out in question and answer format, similar to something that a mainstream news source might choose to do as well.  I found this to be very informative and I hardly felt like I was reading a blog at all.  I think that these websites do a good job of portraying their information in a clear manner that is well written and accessible, all qualities that Shirky would agree gain them popularity. 

Blogosphere: Fairness or Fame?

As I looked over several of these A-list blog sites I noticed several differences in their leading stories concerning President Obama’s 100th day in office.
For starters they are very clear on their political stances right off the bat with their biased laden headlines. For example, Michelle Malkin titled her feature story headline concerning the day’s importance, “100 Days of the Poser Presidency.” Whereas the more left-friendly blog site Politico titled their headline, “Questions for Obama on his 100th day” with a picture looking up at President Obama with a god-like glow (pictured below).

Additionally to two went on completely different paths in addressing the day’s importance for the presidency and our country. Politico based its story off questions the President will be asked concerning our future, while repetitively documenting his high approval ratings as well. There were no links within this feature article and it basically summed up what the Presidents plans for the future were/are and what he is doing to stay in touch with the American people; i.e. Reading 10 letters a day from citizens, sent to the White House. Whereas Malkin goes on a rambling rant of what the President hasn’t done thus far. She uses several hyperlinks that demonstrate the original story/event that she is criticizing Obama on. Language like, “Let’s have some of that vaunted transparency Barack Obama is always talking about” clearly shows her stance too.
It seems that blogging can provide all sides to a topic and suffice links to even further demonstrate a point or idea, but is this really fair media, even though it’s coming from an A-list blog site. I understand the idea of “fair inequality” and that these are merit-based, cheap, and endless sources that feed off what the public asks for and that’s how they survive and essentially thrive, but isn’t that the same thing as jumping off a bridge because someone told you to or being the class clown just to get some attention? Or is this type of media just going to plunder into a race for 15 minutes of fame?

Politico...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21889.html

Michelle Malkin...http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/29/100-days-of-the-poser-presidency/

100th Day

On the Huffington Post, the overall blogging response was positive. Almost all of the bloggers, in some way, had President Obama's back and showed great support for the first 100 days he has already put in. Even Arianna Huffington, herself, had primarily positive things to say about the newly elected president but brought up a few of the mistakes made and faults committed by him, as well. She presented her positive and negative views of him in a pro/con list sort of format which was visually different from the other websites I looked at and put things into a better perspective. The Daily Beast was another website that held Obama in positive respects. Anna Marie Cox's main article, "God Loves Obama", similarly backed Huffinton's question, has it really already been 100 days? However, compared to Huffinton's article, Cox was much for casual with her jokes and wrote her article with more sarcasm than anything else. Bloggers that followed her article wrote similar, uplifting comments to those on the Huffington Post Blog. Here and there, there were a few downers (usually Republicans) who would completely throw the positive vibe off, but for the most part, bloggers were using pride and praise to describe his past 100 days. 

Huffington Post

Daily Beast 

A List Bloggers

On Obama’s 100^th day as President many A list bloggers put up posts about this progress so far.  Almost all of the posts I looked at had a slide show of Obama throughout 

his presidency.  The blogs made it easy to tell what political party they were associated with.  Conservative blogs, such as Michelle Malkin, made it a point to talk about Obama’s ego and all of the money he has spent on photo ops.  Points were brought up about Obama spending too much time talking.  Liberal blogs, such as the Huffington Post, showed a lot of slide shows and focused more on his 60% approval rating and the things ha has done so far.  The blogs liberal blogs used a lot of the same photos.  It was very interesting to compare the blogs and discover the major differences between the conservative and liberal blogs.

Response to Shirky

Shirky's article brought up really interesting points about how to become a "star" on the internet that I have actually always wondered about...and somehow, in his own science-y, mathematical way, he makes sense out of it. I've never understood how some people can become famous through the internet and the entire concept seems very strange to me. However, Shirky addresses it in a smart way. Even still, it is hard for me to comprehend how, though everyone is free to choose what they want to visit, read, link, etc., certain people, ideas, whatever gain status while others of equitable quality do not.

I also find it incredible (relieving incredible or nerve-wracking incredible, i haven't quite decided) that it can all be explained, at least in some way, through math. It figures. What I'd prefer to boil it down to, however, is that the more you get out there-the more blogs you post, the more friends you add, the more self-promotion and networking you do-the more famous you have the possibility of becoming (of course it helps to be talented, as well).

This guy (whose video I chose because he had nearly half a million hits-not star quality, but some status in the Youtube world) discusses how people become famous on Youtube. It's kind of silly, but it's the kind of thing I would view normally (sadly) and I thought that made it a good choice.

Personally, I think the thing that is the best way to become internet famous, other than to get yourself out there as much as possible, is to be different. Different because your better, because your controversial, because you're funny, because you're just different-it doesn't matter. Being different gets noticed and when something is noticed, people are more likely to pass it on or come back to it.

Again, it's a hard concept to come to grips with, but many of the issues we have been discussing in class about what is going on in journalism right now is difficult to understand. The important thing, in my opinion, is that it is happening.

My question: As I've been thinking about the video I put up, I can't help but wonder to myself how many views, hits, comments, etc. does a person have to get to be considered "famous"? Is it even quantitative? What do you think...

A Response to Clay Shirky's Article

Shirky's article was very interesting to read. It is true that in every society there is a core group that seems to steal the spotlight. Webblogs are no different in that there is going to be inequality. Not every blogger is going to get a lot of attention. It is impossible, with so many blogs on the internet, for there not to be a hierarchy. One blog that has become very popular in the gossip network is Perez Hilton's blog. In his blog he reports on what celebrities are up to and also makes fun of them. Perez posts up a number of different pictures of celebrities and draws things on their faces. Perez has become a very popular blogger in Hollywood, and is just one example of the blogging hierarchy.

Blogs are becoming a new way for people to communicate with one another therefore some blogs are going to slip under the radar in terms of popularity. It was very interesting to watch the video on Parson's and the course that students are taking to learn how to became famous on their blogging websites. It was cool to learn about how the students have software that they can check how many hits their blog receives and how popular they become. Sven Travis, the communication design and technology chair at Parsons made a very true comment about how the internet is changing society and explained how Parson's is trying to figure out what that means for our society. 

Both the article and the response video were very interesting to read/ watch. Blogging has reshaped connections between people and has become a new media outlet. It is going to be interesting to see how blogging progresses now that academic institutions have noticed its increasing dominance on global communication.