Beyond Broadcast 2007: from Participatory Culture to Participatory Democracy
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Estonia Internet election
Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip casts an online ballot in the municipal election in Tallinn, Estonia, on Monday.
Estonia will become the first country in the world to allow voter to vote over the Internet in a national parliamentary election. Computer specialists estimated 20,000 to 40,000 of 940,000 registered voters will vote via the Internet from February 26-28 ahead of the March 4 election.
Voters will put their state-issued ID card into a reader attached to a computer, which will read the electronic chip in the card and then enter two passwords.
Despite being one of the poorest nations in the European Union Estonia has set up many wireless networks allowing Estonians to use their cell phones to pay for car parking or buy bus tickets.
Back in the states we are still struggling to figure out electronic voting. It maybe several years before we try any voting online or even have the wireless networks needed to allow people to buy public transportation passes with their phones.
Only 22 states require voting machines to produce VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail) as of 9/20/06. Two bills have been introduced in Congress to require a Paper Trail in future elections but they may not be able to fix it before 2008 if one of the bills pass. After the mess in 2000 and the problems in Ohio in 2004 how can we must do something about the voting system before 2008.
There is also legislation endorsed by house Speaker Nancy Pelosi that may come to the floor for debate next month to give Washington D.C. two votes in Congress, one representative in the Senate and in the House.
Sounds like a good idea but you could just go ahead and declare them a separate state instead of a territory if you give them two senators like the other 50 states get.
One second though you might have to give state rights to Puerto Rico, Guam or the Virgin Islands.
Washington D.C. is not the only territory that is not represented in Congress.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
AP jump head first into citizen Journalism
Libby attorney Ted Wells argued vigorously to Judge Walton to bring Tim Russert back on the witness stand; "Scooter" Libby is in right foreground.
The AP has made a deal with Mediabloggers.org to provide blog coverage, from inside the courthouse of the Scooter Libby Trial that looks like hour by hour commentary on the trial. The latest blog entitle the "Jury has a Question" talks about how the Jury is passing notes to the Judge but Court TV correspondent Savannah Guthie will not know what is on the note until tomorrow when the court meet. (Some news is better left till Tomorrow). The blogs are done by Talk Left, The Hindsight Factor and Dean's World.
Does the world really play by play of this trial by liberal bloggers and one reporter from Court TV with way too much time on her hands? The AP thinks so.
Is this just another example of why we should have cameras in the courtroom? I think so. Better to film the actual events then blog about them from inside the media room of the courtroom. Let us inside to see the actual trial. Keep the part where the jury decide on a verdict in private.
NowPublic; let the age of citizen journalism began;
NowPublic Member
roland nowpublic looking for the "story behind the story"
AP also has a wider deal with the citizen Journalist site NowPublic.com
NowPublic.com has registered base of 60,000 contributors who can upload text, photos, audio, and video to the site. Thousands of people upload material to the site on a daily or weekly basis.
The way it works is if a breaking news story occurs on NowPublic the AP Will be alerted and the wire service can then purchase the content by paying the content creator and a cut will go to NowPublic creating a network of Freelance Citizen Journalists.
NowPublic has news posts from citizen journalists who just write their comments above a few paragraphs from an article by a real journalist working at a organization like National Geographic. Other posts have comments along with pictures that the citizen journalists took of a Landslide in San Francisco for example. In a way this works like blog posts.
Reuters covering virtual news
At a time when many media organizations are cutting their international bureaus Reuters has added a bureau in the virtual world Second Life
Now that Second Life logged its 1 millionth registered "resident" media companies like Wired and CNET are actually buying virtual property in the virtual world to host events there.
Reporter Adam Pasick has been assigned to head Reuters virtual bureau under the Avatar name Adam Reuters. Reuters has also created a special website for SL in fact there hiring. If only I had send the last six months on Second Life going instead of the last 2 years trying to get my master degree in Journalism I could have a job reporting for Reuters by now.
Adam Reuter
I think that Second Life has been getting just a little to much hype recently for media organizations and presidential candidates like John Edwards. One day in the not to distance future like five years virtual worlds like Second Life will have a lot of people regularly checking in on them and caring more about their Second Life then their First Life. Today only Adam Pasick is dumb enough to do that because Reuters is actually paying him.
anyway in five years when more people can afford high speed Internet, and the pin heads that created Second Life figure out how all the glitches that slow the virtual world down Journalists should write about Second Life on a regular basis. We do not need a bureau at a time when so many bureau in First Life Earth are being cut to lower costs at major media organizations.
Second Life will check on, the WarCraft virtual world already has 6.5 million registered users but not until a few things change.
Now that Second Life logged its 1 millionth registered "resident" media companies like Wired and CNET are actually buying virtual property in the virtual world to host events there.
Reporter Adam Pasick has been assigned to head Reuters virtual bureau under the Avatar name Adam Reuters. Reuters has also created a special website for SL in fact there hiring. If only I had send the last six months on Second Life going instead of the last 2 years trying to get my master degree in Journalism I could have a job reporting for Reuters by now.
Adam Reuter
I think that Second Life has been getting just a little to much hype recently for media organizations and presidential candidates like John Edwards. One day in the not to distance future like five years virtual worlds like Second Life will have a lot of people regularly checking in on them and caring more about their Second Life then their First Life. Today only Adam Pasick is dumb enough to do that because Reuters is actually paying him.
anyway in five years when more people can afford high speed Internet, and the pin heads that created Second Life figure out how all the glitches that slow the virtual world down Journalists should write about Second Life on a regular basis. We do not need a bureau at a time when so many bureau in First Life Earth are being cut to lower costs at major media organizations.
Second Life will check on, the WarCraft virtual world already has 6.5 million registered users but not until a few things change.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Conservative Alternative to 'Daily Show"
McNally anchors the fake newscast in the Fox News Channel parody 'The 1/2 Hour News Hour."
Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots
This Sunday at 10 P.M. Fox News will air the first of two episodes of "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" the conservative take on Comedy Central's "Daily Show". The second episode will air on March 4. The Boston Globe was not thrilled by the first episode and said that the show only makes you appreciate Jon Stewart and "the Colbert Report" more.
The article also points out how these show succeed by poking fun at TV news by saying the things they cannot say. The daily show work because it can point out how stupid government officials look when they try to elude the questions of the press. They can mock President Bush and his cabinet on a Daily bases.
They can refer to Iraq as "Mess O' Potamia". The Daily Show is funny because they do not have to hold to the standards of attempting to be Fair & Balance. We know it is unbalance from the get go. By pointing out their basis and referring to their news as "Fake News" the show can poke fun at every other newscast out there that tries to make their viewer believe that they are fair and balance and at our political figures who want you to believe that they are acting in the best interest of the public. The funniest contributor to the Daily show for my money is Lewis Black
Comedy Central: Shows - The Daily Slackhow With Jon Stewart - Lewis Black
"The Colbert Report" succeeds because it makes fun of everyone from Bill O'Reilly "Poppa Bear" to Lou Dobbs who has a show dedicated to showing the audience what the host feels is wrong with America. He coined the term "Truthiness" to point out that these shows are more interested in spreading the opinions of the host, and shocking the audience with how screwed up America is then about bring the truth to light.
While its good to have a show that looks at the lighter side of conservative news Fox should study what makes Comedy Centrals news line up so funny before they try to imitate them.
Its nice to know Fox is trying to be funny for once but serious stick to the unfair and angry conservative balance. Comedy Central needs more clips of O'Reilly yelling at guesses, Geraldo feeding us the latest rumors on who the father of Anna Nicole's baby, more clips of Ann Coulter pointing out how evil liberals are and most of all more Chuck Norris on Fox News subbing for Sean Hannity. Ever since Conan O'Brien gave up his special leaver of "Walker Texas Ranger" clips the TV world has not been the same.
Chuck on YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Jokes about Chuck
Chuck Norris Facts
Viacom's answer to YouTube
Independent Online Edition > Business News
Viacom has agreed to license its content for viewing on Joost. Joost will be launched in spring offering television-quality video over the Internet. Its like TVIO for your PC. They can watch what they want when they want.
Users will be able to create their own channels, share their own videos and chat with other users. Joost will split the proceeds of advertising with the content providers.
This is how big media should deal with YouTube. Instead of complaining and threatening to pull clips or sue video pirates they should offer a better alternative. I think the services like Joost will revolutionize TV away from hundreds of cable channels to a world of different TV shows competing with shows made on the Internet, videoblogs and home videos for your attention. Ratting will be based on how many times people download the latest episode of a TV show not on how many times they watch it on the Boob Tube.
Joost™ - Frequently Asked Questions
Viacom has agreed to license its content for viewing on Joost. Joost will be launched in spring offering television-quality video over the Internet. Its like TVIO for your PC. They can watch what they want when they want.
Users will be able to create their own channels, share their own videos and chat with other users. Joost will split the proceeds of advertising with the content providers.
This is how big media should deal with YouTube. Instead of complaining and threatening to pull clips or sue video pirates they should offer a better alternative. I think the services like Joost will revolutionize TV away from hundreds of cable channels to a world of different TV shows competing with shows made on the Internet, videoblogs and home videos for your attention. Ratting will be based on how many times people download the latest episode of a TV show not on how many times they watch it on the Boob Tube.
Joost™ - Frequently Asked Questions
madrid bomb trial online
The trial of Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, with head in hands, and other suspects in the Spanish train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 began in Madrid. Mr. Ahmed denied any involvement.
courtroom sketch of Zacarias Moussaoui as he plead guilty on April 23, 2005 to conspiring with the 11 who hijackers that carried out the terrorists attacks of September 11.
Hopes for Healing as Spain’s Terror Trial Starts - New York Times
Court officials spent more than $2 million on new technology to allow Spanish citizens access to their "Trial of the Century" even as the country was on terror alert.
The bombing took the lives of 191 people in March 2004 a few weeks before the Spanish election. At the time of the bombing Spain's conservative government initially blamed the bombing on the Basque separatist group ETA, when they had no evidence to support this claim. This caused the many in the Spaniards to accuse the government of trying to manipulated them and the conservatives were voted out-of-power in the election.
Many people in America especially conservative took the election results as a sign that Spaniards voted for the socialists because they wanted their troops out of Iraq. Many conservatives believed this was a sign that the Spaniards were scared of the terrorists to the point where they were willing to appease them by leaving Iraq to avoid future violence. A few months after the election the new socialist Spanish government made good on their election promise by pulling their troops out of Iraq.
In America the election was seen as a win for the terrorists in Iraq and an attempt by Spanish voters to appease the terrorists. Few Americas actually know the real reason why the popular opinion shifted. Now the story is too old for any TV News stations to fill Americans in on the truth. The truth can only be explained in newspapers and only the few people who care about the news will bother to read the whole article and go online to find out what really happened.
The other issue that this brings up is while the Spanish are giving access to this trial over the Internet the only access that the citizens of Illinois get of most trials are paintings. No cameras allowed. Only a rendering of the jury and the witness. Why do they even bother?
What is so bad about having cameras in the trial room in the day of court TV?
Why Aren't Trials Televised in Illinois?
Why can't they make it available over the Internet so the public and the media can piece together what caused the verdict without having to hunt down the jurors who cannot always remember all the details. in court cases the defendant is support to be innocent until proven guilty but in the court of public opinion they are always held guilty until proven otherwise. Cameras in the court will give the public a chance to learn the details of the trial and Judge the defendant based on all the evidence.
Without cameras in the court all we get are the few clues that come out as the media bugs the police about their investigation of the crime scene. Many revelations of a investigation do not come out until the trial, but by that time most people believe they are guilty anyway.
The trial for the 12th Hijacker also favorite ketch artists over cameras. Have cameras in the courtroom will help the public a chance to see that what really goes on in the classroom is much different then what TV shows would let you believe. It would show them that many murder trials go to court without DNA evidence or a "smoking gun".
People are set to life in prison all the time based on circumstantial evidence. I'm not saying that's wrong, In real life the line between innocent and guilty is much thinner than TV shows would have you believe.
Madrid watches as bomb trial begins - Europe - MSNBC.com
This article includes a slide show of the bombing and the trial.
The trial is being broadcast live on Spanish television and on the Internet (www.datadiar.com). The court is providing simultaneous translation for witnesses or defendants who do not speak Spanish.
The site is in Spanish so here is a shortcut to where you can watch the trial Live.
Retransmisión del Juicio por los atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004 - Datadiar.com
courtroom sketch of Zacarias Moussaoui as he plead guilty on April 23, 2005 to conspiring with the 11 who hijackers that carried out the terrorists attacks of September 11.
Hopes for Healing as Spain’s Terror Trial Starts - New York Times
Court officials spent more than $2 million on new technology to allow Spanish citizens access to their "Trial of the Century" even as the country was on terror alert.
The bombing took the lives of 191 people in March 2004 a few weeks before the Spanish election. At the time of the bombing Spain's conservative government initially blamed the bombing on the Basque separatist group ETA, when they had no evidence to support this claim. This caused the many in the Spaniards to accuse the government of trying to manipulated them and the conservatives were voted out-of-power in the election.
Many people in America especially conservative took the election results as a sign that Spaniards voted for the socialists because they wanted their troops out of Iraq. Many conservatives believed this was a sign that the Spaniards were scared of the terrorists to the point where they were willing to appease them by leaving Iraq to avoid future violence. A few months after the election the new socialist Spanish government made good on their election promise by pulling their troops out of Iraq.
In America the election was seen as a win for the terrorists in Iraq and an attempt by Spanish voters to appease the terrorists. Few Americas actually know the real reason why the popular opinion shifted. Now the story is too old for any TV News stations to fill Americans in on the truth. The truth can only be explained in newspapers and only the few people who care about the news will bother to read the whole article and go online to find out what really happened.
The other issue that this brings up is while the Spanish are giving access to this trial over the Internet the only access that the citizens of Illinois get of most trials are paintings. No cameras allowed. Only a rendering of the jury and the witness. Why do they even bother?
What is so bad about having cameras in the trial room in the day of court TV?
Why Aren't Trials Televised in Illinois?
Why can't they make it available over the Internet so the public and the media can piece together what caused the verdict without having to hunt down the jurors who cannot always remember all the details. in court cases the defendant is support to be innocent until proven guilty but in the court of public opinion they are always held guilty until proven otherwise. Cameras in the court will give the public a chance to learn the details of the trial and Judge the defendant based on all the evidence.
Without cameras in the court all we get are the few clues that come out as the media bugs the police about their investigation of the crime scene. Many revelations of a investigation do not come out until the trial, but by that time most people believe they are guilty anyway.
The trial for the 12th Hijacker also favorite ketch artists over cameras. Have cameras in the courtroom will help the public a chance to see that what really goes on in the classroom is much different then what TV shows would let you believe. It would show them that many murder trials go to court without DNA evidence or a "smoking gun".
People are set to life in prison all the time based on circumstantial evidence. I'm not saying that's wrong, In real life the line between innocent and guilty is much thinner than TV shows would have you believe.
Madrid watches as bomb trial begins - Europe - MSNBC.com
This article includes a slide show of the bombing and the trial.
The trial is being broadcast live on Spanish television and on the Internet (www.datadiar.com). The court is providing simultaneous translation for witnesses or defendants who do not speak Spanish.
The site is in Spanish so here is a shortcut to where you can watch the trial Live.
Retransmisión del Juicio por los atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004 - Datadiar.com
Monday, February 19, 2007
YouTube Anti-Piracy
YouTube Anti-Piracy Software Policy Draws Fire
By offering anti-piracy tools and helping companies to filter out some of their content YouTube is opening the door to their competition and hurting their reputation. What was great about YouTube when it first came out was it was the one stop shop for any short video from videoblogs to a Saturday Night Live scene. If you take away a good chunk of the copyrighted stuff will push people over to other websites that catalog video clips.
earlier this month Viacom demanded YouTube remove more than 100,000 Viacom video clips after the two sides failed to reach a distribution agreement. Some of these clips used music from other artists and content that Viacom does not own all the copyrights for so its hard to know for sure who they belong to in the first place.
MySpace Makes Anti-Piracy Play
Myspace can get away with this without seriously affecting their reputation because Myspace is more about personal profiles and networking then sharing music and video clips.
While the big media companies like Viacom may have a case about uploading clips of shows before they are aired on TV, once a clip is aired on TV or in a video blog it should be fair game for YouTube or any other site. Once it is out there you should be able to watch it or download it to watch as many times as you want.
The free-exchange of copyright material on the Internet may not be legal but its going to happen no matter what tools YouTube or MySpace uses. It is to easy to pirate these clips just like it is too easy to pirate music. they could create a site like iTunes that would provide an alternative of clips and entire episodes of TV show that is legal and of better quality.
demanding YouTube to remove clips will only hurt Viacom in the end. the easy it is to access clips of TV shows the more people are gong to get interest and watch the show.
YouTube is only helping out those companies that it has agreements with so they an still be considered
the one stop shop for video and make their partners happy.
what does this have to do with how we get our news? while TV brought us the 20 minute round up of whats going on right YouTube has allowed viewers to go right to the latest celebrity gossip, the latest terrorist attack, or the latest speech by Obama. the viewer does have to watch the nightly news they can put it together by watching different clips mixing a clip of CNN with a clip from the daily show.
In a YouTube world news is all about the spectacle, the latest shocking, strange, funny, or retarded event that has happened. Its the pictures of Birtney's balled head, its the video of the employees of the cartoon network who were suspected of placing the ads around Boston that were mistakened as bombs and cost there parent company millions talking about their hair in a news conference on FoxNews. Refusing to answer any serious questions of the media. YouTube - Boston Ad Prank Suspects Talk About ... Hair
The details of the story of who did what and why that Newspapers cover so well often go by the way side as people watch the stories with spectacle over the ones with any substance.
By offering anti-piracy tools and helping companies to filter out some of their content YouTube is opening the door to their competition and hurting their reputation. What was great about YouTube when it first came out was it was the one stop shop for any short video from videoblogs to a Saturday Night Live scene. If you take away a good chunk of the copyrighted stuff will push people over to other websites that catalog video clips.
earlier this month Viacom demanded YouTube remove more than 100,000 Viacom video clips after the two sides failed to reach a distribution agreement. Some of these clips used music from other artists and content that Viacom does not own all the copyrights for so its hard to know for sure who they belong to in the first place.
MySpace Makes Anti-Piracy Play
Myspace can get away with this without seriously affecting their reputation because Myspace is more about personal profiles and networking then sharing music and video clips.
While the big media companies like Viacom may have a case about uploading clips of shows before they are aired on TV, once a clip is aired on TV or in a video blog it should be fair game for YouTube or any other site. Once it is out there you should be able to watch it or download it to watch as many times as you want.
The free-exchange of copyright material on the Internet may not be legal but its going to happen no matter what tools YouTube or MySpace uses. It is to easy to pirate these clips just like it is too easy to pirate music. they could create a site like iTunes that would provide an alternative of clips and entire episodes of TV show that is legal and of better quality.
demanding YouTube to remove clips will only hurt Viacom in the end. the easy it is to access clips of TV shows the more people are gong to get interest and watch the show.
YouTube is only helping out those companies that it has agreements with so they an still be considered
the one stop shop for video and make their partners happy.
what does this have to do with how we get our news? while TV brought us the 20 minute round up of whats going on right YouTube has allowed viewers to go right to the latest celebrity gossip, the latest terrorist attack, or the latest speech by Obama. the viewer does have to watch the nightly news they can put it together by watching different clips mixing a clip of CNN with a clip from the daily show.
In a YouTube world news is all about the spectacle, the latest shocking, strange, funny, or retarded event that has happened. Its the pictures of Birtney's balled head, its the video of the employees of the cartoon network who were suspected of placing the ads around Boston that were mistakened as bombs and cost there parent company millions talking about their hair in a news conference on FoxNews. Refusing to answer any serious questions of the media. YouTube - Boston Ad Prank Suspects Talk About ... Hair
The details of the story of who did what and why that Newspapers cover so well often go by the way side as people watch the stories with spectacle over the ones with any substance.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Who do you work for?
Does the media work for you or for corporate CEOs? Do we have a say in the future of the media? Where are people getting their news? Who do we trust and does the news really matter? These are all big question that no one can answer in fewer than ten words. (However you may try? if you have too much time on your hands) They are however fun to ponder, so here is a place where we will try to peer into the future on these questions. Remember there are no right answers, only wrong ones. now its time to boldly go where no Irish, catholic, college student has gone before. this is the final frontier of media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
