In Summary

I have posted a lot about the internet and I am truly fascinated by the ways in which this topic is covered. Despite the media source, it seems that this question of what one can and cannot do on the internet is extremely obscure. However, I noticed that this topic is mostly framed so that audiences feel like they must take a side. The dramatic structural bias is definitely utilized. I think the western media tries to paint a fair picture of what is happening on the internet, however it fails to be totally objective for two reasons: first it mainly examines stories from a human rights perspective and neglects all the other ways this topic manifests itself in our daily lives and second, it is all done from a western lens. There is very little insight or voice given to the subjects of these stories. I think this is a topic I would really like to elaborate on in my final paper.

- Chibuzo

Us Against Them

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews

There was an article yesterday posted on Foxnews.com that discussed Iran's plan for a new 'Halal' internet. According the article, Iranian officials have decided to launch a new type of internet that would "counter the influence of the western world wide web." The point would be to promote an internet that would adhere to traditional Islamic morals and customs. However, members of the National Iranian American council called this move "repressive." They said that the actions on the part of Iran to limit internet freedom are characteristic of an oppressive regime and must be stopped. Again, the media is framing this topic (the internet) in terms of rights and freedom and not only that, it is becoming an us against them situation - a liberator versus subjugator dynamic.

- Chibuzo

Some More Thoughts

Most of my posts up till this point have been article-based. I thought it would be helpful to give a few thoughts on my overall perceptions of media reporting on the subject. After following Wikileaks stories for a couple of months, it seems like most news sources I've checked have moved from focusing less on Julian Assange (although there was a period of time where his sexual escapades were made internationally known) and focusing more on the type of information that Wikileaks releases. In this sense, I've seen news sources move away from pure dramatization and more towards utilizing Wikileaks as an essential information source. Since my last post, I've researched the Guantanamo Bay leaked documents on other sites and have seen the great extent to which news sources manipulate news events to serve political goals. Fox News (unsurprisingly) posed the Guantanamo leaks as being evidence of the political benefits of the detention camp although it generally took a negative stance on Wikileaks itself. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, took a more positive stance on Wikileaks, arguing that it prevent citizens from being "duped by their governments into entering war" in the future.

- Connie

Gitmo

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/26/wikileaks-9-11-mastermind-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-says-he-killed/

I recently came across the above article from AOL on information that was released through Wikileaks from high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainees. One of the key findings from the documents was that in 2002, a senior Al-Qaida military commander had actually warned against killing Wall Street Journal Reporter, Daniel Pearl. If we rewind back to 2002, when Pearl was first kidnapped, taken hostage, and later decapitated, we could easily find evidence of the media firestorm that immediately followed which further galvanized American citizens into war. Though this atrocity was ascribed to Al Qaida as an organization, the documents reveal the complex power dynamics of Al- Quida's leaders and that his murder was not uniformly pre-meditated. The leaked documents also reveal damning evidence that officials at Guantanamo Bay had knowingly detained two innocent men as well as gave an eye-full into the government's questionable use of interrogation tactics on detainees. Though the Obama administration condemned the release of such high-security documents, it also begs the question of whether or not American citizens have a fundamental right to this information? The debate between security and transparency is one that has been given a lot of attention in the political sphere. How can we gauge the danger of too much transparency?

- Connie

The Internet and Free Speech

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380710/Student-Avery-Doninger-looses-free-speech-battle-calling-school-officials-douchebags-online-rant.html

Today I found an article in Mail Online which details the court battle between a young girl and the administration of her school over free speech. This article adds to a collection of articles which discuss freedom of speech and the internet. Avery Donniger, a high school student, called the administrators at her school "Douchebags"on her blog, and as a result, she was banned from serving as the student body secretary. The administration thought that Donniger's comments were "unbecoming of a class officer." When the case was brought to court, the judge agreed with the administration and Donniger's free speech defense was denied because her comments could have potentially " [disrupted] student government functions." The article also mentions that despite the fact that the incident occurred off-campus, the ease of communication and accessibility of the internet effectively makes it an on-campus incident. This is interesting. On the internet, the public and private discourse is blurred and virtually the same. I do not condone Donniger's actions; however, I believe there is something about the internet that makes seemingly trivial expressions of free speech far greater than they ever intended to be, and as such they incur greater consequences. What Donniger said is not unlike what late night comedians say on a daily basis or what politicians say about their opponents, and yet she is not supported by free speech. I am confused. Does the internet undermine free speech?

- Chibuzo

Framing the Internet Debate

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-google-china-idUSTRE73P2XJ20110426

Lately there has been a lot of discussions about the internet and censorship. In fact, this morning an article in Reuters addressed the developing situation between Google and China. Apparently, Google pulled out of China after refusing to adhere to it's strict censorship guidelines; as a result, Google has suffered major financial losses. China has had a long history of censoring the internet and there are many stories detailing China's problems with Google. However, this is the first time I have read this story from an economical frame. Usually, journalist will talk about this story as it relates to censorship, freedom of speech, and the free flow of ideas. However in this article, much of the emphasis is placed on the the economic ramifications of China's refusal to be open. One of the google executives said, "China's massive internet market should not be singled out and treated differently than other markets in the world." This is very interesting because the story becomes a lot more complex. Now, not only is this an issue concerning human rights, but it is also an issue concerning the global economy. Will this significant shift in how this story is framed produce a different response from audiences?

- Chibuzo

Wikileaks Reveals Media Bias

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/analysis-of-civilian-casu_b_660273.html

I included this article as a source on my last paper because it provided a very interesting perspective on the positive externalities of the Wikileak's Afghan War Diary. Before releasing over 10,000 documents related to the War in Afghanistan, Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, first gave access to the documents to The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel (a German publication). Eric Michael Johnson, a writer for the Huffington Post, compared the three stories on the Afghan War Diary on the day they were released to compare how each publication covered the event. He found that the NYT was seven times more likely to downplay civilian casualties in Afghanistan than the other publications. This was further supported by the fact that The New York Times had approached the Obama Administration regarding the news story prior to its release which reinforces the theory that news can be highly influenced by the government. I think that Wikileaks lends itself to a lot of side benefits-- like this content analysis-- that can help reveal media biases in our most trusted news publications. It goes to show how complex the media system is and how newspapers take information from a primary source like Wikileaks and reinterpret news for its own readers.

-Connie

Political Figures Utilize the Internet

I decided to use "Google News" in order to find recent information regarding the application of the internet. Through this I came across an article that addresses the use of the internet and video blogging by prominent political figures like Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Earlier this month I posted an article that also included a video of Obama addressing one of his policies, and attempted to analyze whether or not this form of presentation was beneficial for relaying information. According to this article, using media sites, Youtube, videos, and other direct forms of media are very beneficial to campaigning (particularly in raising money, as McCain proved successful). The article points to Obama as the man who really used social media to his advantage, by doing everything from broadcasting information via text message to garnering grassroots supporters. I can't think of any draw backs of this strategy. If all campaigning were done online, I would be concerned that certain groups (particularly the older generation) were being left out. However, it seems as though online campaigning/information services are just a complement to traditional forms of campaigning/providing information at this point. 

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=319004

~Zakiyyah~

Digital Self-Publishing

In class we've talked a great deal about bloggers and how the public has in some senses taken on the responsibility of informing itself. However, the internet has taken this concept to a new level through e-books. Authors are no longer waiting for publishing companies in order to advertise their books. Instead, they are going online and attracting audiences who support their work. What does this mean for the validity of authors who did go through the grueling process of trying to get published? Is this simple process a good thing or is it merely allowing people (who may or may not have credibility) to influence a potentially uninformed audience? On the other hand, is this another positive example of the "ordinary people" taking over the media, while traditional literary authors possibly diminish in importance? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ebooks-published-star/story?id=13316310

~Zakiyyah~

Customizing the News

Media sites seem to be attempting even more efforts to make the news more personalized. Media companies, including Google News, are attempting to track users' interests and filter news information based on the user's interests. Essentially, the site would create a customized news homepage based on your past news history. We've discussed in class the benefits and draw backs of personalized news, so naturally I have a few concerns. This encourages users to only receive access to limited information or one-sided information, which is already a problem with many other aspects of the media. Is this a good move for Google News and other media companies? Won't this new feature encourage further polarization?

http://www.webpronews.com/google-news-gets-more-personalized-2011-04

~Zakiyyah~

Evacuees of Texas Turn to Internet

I found an ironic example of how the internet can be of use in times of chaos. An article in the New York Times describes a recent incident in Texas where wildfires were threatening the safety of a community. Of course, in times of disaster, it is important to be able to communicate with other people beyond your own community. One woman had recently created a blog on her company's website and used the blog to complain about the horrible phone service that she, along with everyone else in the community, was receiving. The news traveled over to AT&T executives and other "high-level contacts" until an AT&T truck pulled up in the community to provide direct service and improve the community's phone service to five bars. The article connects this incident back to the power of the internet and the blog in particular, as a space in which members of the community can exchange information (including aerial surveys of their property). I believe one woman captured the essence of the article and what it is implying about the blog and the internet in general. She claims, "It’s the first time in my experience in a domestic disaster where citizens are taking control of their information,” Ms. Foster said. “We’re on the cusp of how we can use digital media to respond to these things. But it takes citizens to keep it together” (Seelye 1).  I do wonder how the results might have been different if this incident occurred in a poorer community that included people with less connections, but I do appreciate the importance of the blog itself in allowing people to seek help in the first place. What are your thoughts on this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/us/25wildfire.html?ref=internet 

~Zakiyyah~

Freedom of Speech in the Age of Wikileaks

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Free+speech+Twitter/4662251/story.html

I found this somewhat interesting article in the Montreal Gazette today that, among other things, discusses the effects of free speech in the age of Wikileaks and other social media. Despite the fact that this piece was incredibly long-winded and slightly tangential, it did raise several important points. Early on in the article the author, Juan Rodriguez, cites a line from Noam Chomsky's book that says, "When you get to a case where nobody likes what's being said, then somehow defense of freedom of speech disappears." This sentiment is directly related to what happened with Wikileaks. I understand that the Wikileaks dilemma is very complicated in that it is very hard for the government to be both secure and transparent -- there are just some secrets that must remain secrets. However, Asange's actions also come from a very real place; he was motivated by his right to freely express himself. I don't know that I'll ever really understand the ramifications of Wikileaks. However, I am not sure that it is right for the media to vilify Asange and call him a traitor nor is it right for the media to praise him and call him a hero. Within reason, people like Asange should be able to exercise their constitutional rights. Due to the evolution of the internet, the public has the opportunity to exercise its rights more than ever before and in new and different ways so not only should we welcome this sort of civic engagement, but we should be better prepared for it.

-Chibuzo

Internet Freedom and Democracy

I found a fascinating article in the Huffington Post that discussed the relationship between the internet and modern democracy. It provides an analysis of how "Freedom House" ranked the independence of various countries according to their internet freedom. According to the article, internet freedom is defined as "absence from politically motivated control". While reading this article, I immediately thought of countries like China and Egypt, who have attempted to maintain control of their citizens by restricting internet access. Apparently, the United States comes in at number two on this list, with nations such as Russia and Thailand being of the most concern. However, I'm glad that this article was written because it expresses the role of the internet, blogs and open dialogue in shaping democracy. When certain nations were seen as having more internet freedom than others, I tried to contextualize that information based on the state of politics in those countries and whether or not they had stable democracies. Are there any thoughts on this article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-wagstaff/global-internet-freedom-bloggers_b_852514.html?ir=Technology

~Zakiyyah~

Is the Internet Taking Over?

There's a recent article in the Huffington Post about the impact of the internet on our daily lives. The article points out that on one hand, the internet allows people to tie different aspects of their lives together and can be very beneficial in the political realm. However, it also mentions that the excessive use of the internet could be detrimental to society, and distort our ideas of the real world. I have personally found that the internet, particularly social media sites, have been very useful for political figures seeking to promote their ideas. Do you agree with either of these statements? If it's just the excessive use of the internet that is harmful, could we possibly find a way to indirectly mediate people's use of the internet?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-friedman-lmsw/internet-addiction-should_b_851684.html?ir=Technology

~Zakiyyah~

Social Networking, Competition, and Privacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/googles-news-on-two-fronts-and-other-headlines/2011/03/28/AF5oySPC_story.html

I found a brief article in the business section of the Washington Post that talks about the privacy violations incurred by google after releasing "Google buzz," a new social-networking component of their site. Some users of google buzz reported that their information was insecure and open to the public and as a result, Google had to agree to strict privacy rules that ensured that the names and personal information of users would be protected. The article also said that Google Buzz was created to "counter the rise" of other popular social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. As such, I must pose this question: though social networking sites have in many ways brought the world closer, are they not a greater risk to our security in general; how does the competition between companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter contribute to our diminishing privacy and in what ways can we avoid this?

- Chibuzo

Obama Speaks to You

An article in the Washington Post discusses Obama's idea to move away from imported oil and into cleaner forms of energy with the hope of creating jobs. President Obama also uses his weekly internet and radio address to elaborate on the issue, and I admit that this was my first time ever seeing/hearing any of his weekly briefings. I personally had an easier time following the article as opposed to the video (although this could be due to the fact that I watched the video after reading the article, so some of the information was redundant). However, I wanted to see whether or not there was a difference in how I absorbed the information and whether or not the video/article contained any structural forms of bias. The idea of having Obama personally speak to me, as opposed to watching him speak to an audience, is biased in itself as it is more personalized. I found that I actually absorbed more information from the article, and that the video was a bit distracting, as I was more focused on the details while missing the big picture. In addition, the video takes longer to watch, which might not agree with the majority of the public's attention span. Do you think there is a difference between reading the article and watching the video in terms of comprehension and bias? Do you think Obama's weekly briefings are a good way to inform the public? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-shifting-from-imported-oil-to-cleaner-forms-of-energy-will-help-boost-job-creation/2011/04/02/AFUqnNMC_story.html

~Zakiyyah~

Google Gets Friendly!!

Inspired by social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Google has decided that it wants to add a social layer, leading to its idea of "online friendship". However, Google friends would be people within your Google contacts, Google talk, and people connected to your Google profile. Although the confusion that this might cause is problematic, my major concern is how Google plans on using this social layer as a new source of information to add to its search engine. Apparently this new feature would be used more for sharing information than for simply providing more interaction. From my understanding, Google, which is widely known and designed as an informative search engine, is now trying to add a social feature where people will have more access to information based on who in their network of friends has liked it, regardless of credibility or applicability. Although this may link people within the same network together, could this also potentially alter Google's somewhat objective nature and provide more possibilities for the polarization effect?

Decide for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/03/31/google.friendship.plus1/index.html?hpt=Sbin

This link provides a better explanation of the feature itself:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223854/google_wants_you_to_like_1_but_will_you.html

~Zakiyyah~

Wikipedia: Communication Styles Make a Difference

I found an interesting article in the New York Times that explains why men seem to be more frequent contributors to Wikipedia than women. Initially I was puzzled by the idea because we have discussed in class that women tend to be more frequent users of social media sites. What makes Wikipedia so different? According to Susan Herring, Wikipedia presents a tone of communication that is more intimidating to women, causing them to shy away from it. Unlike social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Wikipedia doesn't allow its users to have as much control over communication and has a "neutral point of view" policy that matches a more masculine style of communication. What do you think? If "far fewer women than men said they weren’t interested in the topics of discussion" as the article states, could it be the partiality of this virtual environment that is preventing women from participating?

Read more about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/communication-styles-make-a-difference  

~Zakiyyah~

Wikileaks & Manmohan Singh

This past week Wikileaks caused yet another controversy by releasing cables related to the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh that suggested that Indian's ruling party had bribed lawmakers in a confidence vote over the US-India Nuclear Pact. On this issue, I checked out a number of different American and Indian news outlets and I noticed a general consistency in the news reporting although some news articles were significantly easier to understand than others. One of the best articles I came across was from India Realtime, a blog extension of the Wall Street Journal which aggregated responses from columnists from different Indian news outlets on the subject.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/03/26/what-they-said-the-wikileaks-allegations/?mod=google_news_blog

I wrote in my paper that Wikileaks represents a new type of news outlet in that it provides news (directly from primary sources) yet, is also a popular subject of news articles given its controversial nature. Though the Singh refuted the veracity of the Wikileaks documents, it is difficult to argue with primary-sourced information.

On another note, I've noticed that I rely on traditional news sources like the Wall Street Journal to filter through the Wikileaks documents for me instead of directly reading from the Wikileaks site. In this sense, traditional news sources are still very relevant to making information accessible and easy to understand.

-Connie

Blog Posting DQ's

Blog Posting

A post should describe briefly (no more than a paragraph) and with enough information to be useful to you in crafting your final paper. Include the hyperlink to the story.

Here are some suggestions about what to look for and comment on ….

1. How much attention does the issue gets in the news overall? (Consult the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s New Index and New Media Index (journalism.org) as well as the Pew Research Center’s News Interest Index for information on which news stories are prominent and which interest the news audience.
   
   

2. Which aspects of your issue are reported?

3. Which stories grabbed your attention? Why? To what extent did the stories provide background for understanding what happened? Was background information common in some outlets and not others?

4. Which news frames (e.g. conflict, celebrity, human interest, personalization, dramatization, simplification or popularity) predominate in news about your topic? If there are contested frames (e.g. Administration vs. Republicans in congress), which frame predominates? Is the news about your topic mostly negative? Does morality play a role? Is the news nation-centric? Were there differences in framing or emphasis across media or countries?

5. Were explanations offered for actions or events described in the story? Did explanations vary across ideological, national, or media divides?

6. Were there many visuals or video reports? What was in the visuals? Did the visuals favor one side or interpretation of the story? Include examples.

7. Who are the sources (e.g. public officials, experts, people on the street) for the views expressed in the stories you follow? Is there a balance of views in reporting your issue?

8. Did the stories contain advice about how to influence events? Was the reporting on your topic useful to citizens?