Cell phones, the internet, blogs and web streaming technology have created an almost seamless interaction between any event you witness and the world wide web.
Source, September 13, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/technology/14novel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
STILL keeping in touch with friends by texting? [Still waiting until you get home to upload those videos of human rights violations and political faux pas?] How old-fashioned. Some early adopters of technology are now using their mobile phones to send not typed words or photographs, but live video broadcasts. They’re streaming scenes from their daily lives — like trips to the mall, weddings, a new puppy’s antics or even a breaking news story that they happen upon.
“You can record whatever’s happening around you and send it back to wherever you’ve embedded your channel,” Ms. Thompson said. “You don’t have to set up a camera — it’s really instant.”
Viewers can respond immediately to videos, typing messages on their keyboards, for instance, and sending them along to a live session. The typed chat appears instantly at the bottom of viewers’ screens.
The relatively simple technology, which requires no television cameras or satellite links, has much potential, Ms. Thompson said, although the quality will vary when users stream live video, depending on the available bandwidth from the provider.
Original, August 11, 2008 New York Times
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.
This is an oped about how human nature and the Network Age are forcing the corporate media to bend to our will, and our demand for choice in news, information and content. The web and related networking technologies, as this article points out, can be a powerful positive influence on their news gathering and dissemination; trying to interfere with it may be their downfall.
Emerging technologies that threaten to destroy the current paradigm can have precisely the opposite effect. Remember when VCRs and then DVDs were going to lay waste to the movie industry and ended up saving it instead? The Web leaks of entertainment that NBC bought and paid for served as a kind of trailer for the real thing.
There is a lesson there for rest of the media, most specifically The Philadelphia Inquirer, where the managing editor, Michael Leary, issued a memo last week suggesting that all of the paper’s good stuff — “signature investigative reporting, enterprise, trend stories, news features and reviews” — would not appear online until they first appear in print.
“For our bloggers, especially, this may require a bit of an adjustment,” Mr. Leary informed the staff. “Some of you like to try out ideas that end up as subjects of stories or columns in print first. If in doubt, consult your editor.”
Even to the eye of this reporter — to use a hack newspaper term — The Inquirer seems to be making a mistake. If the future of our business is online, then why set up a firewall, delaying the best content to protect a legacy product? And more adept reporters are beginning to realize that the Web is not just a way to broadcast news, it is a great way to assemble it as well.
I favor paper ballots marked secretly/cast publicly, hand counted in full public view on election night in the local precincts with results posted immediately in the precinct and online, with numerous independent exit polls to verify the results. I also favor campaign finance reform; getting corporate money out of the political process. Less commericals and more debates, including 3rd party and independent candidates. Range voting and Approval Voting offer better security, choice and reflection of the People’s will than instant run-off voting. If “elites” are really elite, they should be able to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. Level the playing field, and let the best hearts, minds and ideas be seen and succeed.
Original, August 23, 2006 http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1163
A majority of Americans—61%—are aware of news reports of flaws in electronic voting machines and want members of the general public to be able to watch votes be counted following an election, a new Zogby International poll shows.
The telephone survey of 1,018 likely voters was conducted Aug. 11-15, 2006. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
Asked whether Americans have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes, 92% of respondents concurred.
“The 92% support for the public’s right to view vote counting and obtain information about it is a very strong political value of transparency and against secret vote counting outside the observation of the public,” said Paul Lehto, a lawyer and sponsor of the survey. “To put this figure in context, support for election transparency exceeds the support for tax cuts, exceeds the approval of Pres. Bush immediately after 9-11, and virtually all other political values being measured.” Mr. Lehto is counsel in the 50th Congressional District election contest in California.
Most of those surveyed— 80%—said they want votes to be counted in front of observers representing the public, and that elections officials should not rely solely on the proprietary software that operates electronic voting machines that are presently being installed all over the United States.
Original, August 5, 2008 http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=148199
UPDATE: After this story was originally published, Brian Ross (the lead ABC News reporter on the 2001 anthrax stories) offered comment via TVNewser — primarily to defend his original reporting and to contend that he was not duped by his sources. Meanwhile, CJR’s Justin Peters amplified the call for transparency from news organizations.
News organizations are accustomed to fending off demands from judges and law enforcement agencies that they reveal their confidential sources. But what happens when this demand comes from news-savvy bloggers? Currently, ABC News is facing this quandary. This blog “meme” was sparked by two noted journalism professors: Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor, in response to Salon columnistGlenn Greenwald’s criticisms (Aug 1 and Aug 3) of ABC News’ coverage of the 2001 anthrax scare.