The Hypermedia Hazard 334
But the problem isn't only responsibility and ethics, it's technology. There's too much media, and when it's combined with a dreadful and scientifically complex story, and rapid-fire, immediate and ubiquitous information technologies, the results are disturbing, as well as dangerous. Even the most serious media executives seem unwilling to even consider the unthinking and frightening way complex stories like this are transmitted, reported and explained.
A generation ago, most Americans got their news once or twice a day -? from daily papers and evening network newscasts -? no matter what was going on. These were delayed, filtered media. Information could be transmitted, digested and organized before it was presented to the public. No matter how serious the story, you couldn't wallow in it for too long -- evening newscasts only lasted a half hour and there was only so much space in the paper. And reporters and editors had time to consider and check some of the information they passed along. In the Age of Hypermedia, it's commonplace to pass along information immediately and continuously before it can be verified or considered. The public, already frightened, seems to quickly lose track of what is factual and what isn't -- a perfect environment for panic.
But digital and screen technologies, from cable and satellite transmissions to the Net (especially the Web), have created an immediate, unfiltered, 24/7 kind of information delivery system. The mediastream is incessant, even when there is no new information to support it, or little time to make sure it's accurate or coherent. We are told continually, for example, that terrorist cells are dormant and waiting to strike again, and each new anthrax spore seems to have its own cable news hour.
Websites like CNN's bring the news to consumers, giving subscribers e-mail headlines all day long. Like the Net and the Web, cable TV channels are on all the time, every day, desperate and dependent on vivid and disturbing imagery, information, discussion and argument, even when the information isn?t reliable, the discussion not useful or the argument unhelpful. A staggering amount of alarmist information -- innaccurate or best incomplete -- has swamped the country in the past month, yet little is corrected or explained in the continuous rush of reports. This tidal wave of screen and e-information creates a distorted environment, a surreal sense of being surround by an ugly story. This is, literally, hyperreality. Trauma becomes pervasive, and all-encompassing. Normal, routine news and information -- that is, any sense of normalcy -- is drowned out, which adds to the Hypermedia-spawned environment. Even though the vast majority of people are living, working and behaving routinely, the images pouring out of screens suggests just the opposite.
Hypermedia have thus become a civic nightmare. They helped create the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the death of Princess Diana; they helped elevate a sordid presidential scandal ?- the Monica Lewinsky affair -? into a national political crisis.
And now, since the much more serious and legitimately newsworthy attacks on the World Trade Center, and especially following the anthrax mailings around the country, Hypermedia are generating waves of misinformation, confusion and panic. Politicians, reporters and bureaucrats rush in front of TV cameras before they know the facts or have considered how to present them. Images of death, destruction, and hazmat response teams are triggering waves of anxiety and depression. Even though only a handful of Americans have actually contracted anthrax, and it is treatable with available antibiotics, the House of Representatives fled the Capitol last week. People all over the country are flooding emergency rooms for nose swab tests and calling 911 when the see artificial sweetener on a coffee counter or flour residue on a pizza crust. Meanwhile, lobbyists, politicians and professional ideologues crowd the cable channels to take advantage of all that airtime, squabbling over everything from military strategy to airport security. National unity is not sustainable in an environment shaped byh Hypermedia. Whether there is any real news or not, you can turn on MSNBC or Fox or CNN any time of any day and get some saturation coverage. Hypermedia spreads rumors, prompts action where none is required, panic and anxiety where none is necessary.
Meanwhile, as with Desert Storm, the military conflict has been morphed into a techno-war, covered mostly in terms of exotic new weapons systems, analyzed by the generals and military analysts who created them. The corporatized networks no longer pay for enough foreign correspondents to cover conflicts; they prefer to rent military retirees who can talk about AC-130 Spectre gunships and their firepower.
Learning to cope with Hypermedia is an essential survival skill in difficult times. People are learning not to believe much of what they see, read or hear, even when it comes from the Speaker of the House of Representatives (who rushed to microphones Thursday to report -- falsely -- that anthrax spores were making their way through the Capitol ventilation system) and to take their media in small, managed regimens. You might try watching the news for 15 minutes in the morning, then again for 15 minutes at night. You'll be amazed at how little happens in between, and how much of it can wait.
It's no accident that anthrax is being mailed to media organizations. Hypermedia has become the dream tool of terrorists everywhere, sowing precisely the same sort of overblown rhetoric ("things will never be the same in this country again"), and fear that prompted the blowhards who run Congress to shut most of the Capitol down last week, even though the health threat to them and their staffs was both minimal and treatable. Sparked in part by a panicky media, Congressional leaders missed the chance to demonstrate that we aren't in terrible danger. Instead, they embraced the terrorist message that we are falling apart.
In a curious way, this is an old story for America's bizarre relationship with technology. Nobody makes more of it than we do, or is less prepared to deal with its consequences, from airline safety to hypermedia to biological terrorism. Sometimes it seems our ignorance about how technology really works -- and what its consequences really are -- will ultimately do more damage than terrorists can.
Oversaturation (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, when a big story strikes, the coverage is basically the same stuff rehashed every 30 minutes. Most of the time, things don't happen quickly enough to warrant it. The events of the morning of 9/11 did happen quickly enough to warrant it, but what about the constant coverage that lasted for several days?
I've gotten to the point where I no longer want to watch the news. I'll watch the Yankees in the World Series instead.
Not the problem... (Score:1)
The human mind is a good filter (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem starts when people ONLY read biased news, and don't know about it. CNN is a good example here - if you have access to other sources you trust, you probably know as well as I do that the current affairs in Afghanistan are _very_ US-centric reported by CNN. When others say there are confirmed reports about civilian casualities, CNN still claims there are no such reports etc.
There's a saying that americans are ignorant - can't point out Egypt on a map, don't know that Sweden and Schwitzerland aren't the same countries etc. With the risk of immideate "flamebait" moderation, I must confess that I agree with that view. Do a test sometime, and compare your knowledge (if you're american) about the world affairs with someone from Europe or Asia
Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT] (Score:2, Funny)
Your last point brings to mind an old riddle I heard once:
Q: If someone who knows three languages is called trilingual, and someone who knows two languages is called bilingual, what do you call someone who knows only one language?
A: American
Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT] (Score:2)
Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT] (Score:2)
A: American
I am always surprised when this comes up. By the time the US entered the war against the Nazis Britain had fought them off 2 years before in what is generally called "The Battle of Britain" where the RAF stopped Hitler from gaining air superiority over Britain and so they did not invade. It was a close run thing, and it was a combination of technology/brains (RADAR, Enigma cracking etc) guts (I think the average lifespan of an RAF pilot was just a couple of days in the air) and luck in that the Nazis started bombing the civilian population vs. military targets and they turned their attention towards the Western front. By the time the US entered the war, there were thousands of SOE (Special Operations Executive) commandos in continental Europe sabotaging the Nazi military and organising resistance groups and the Nazis were losing on the Western front againt the Soviets. The US entry into the war did shorten the conflict, and stopped the Soviets from having an almost complete monopoly on all of Europe. This was all because the US before Pearl Harbour had considered WWII as a "European war" and didnt give a damn about the slaughter of Jews / Gays / Romany Gypsies / mentally or physically disabled people, as say compared to Britain that took an immediate stand on the invasion of Poland by immediately declaring war on Germany. The US entered the war out of self interest, Britain had forces in the Pacific area, more advanced technologies like RADAR and code cracking par excellance. If you are going to spout off about things, please in the future be informed.
Q: What do you call the inventor of the Internet and most of the technologies that allow you to post your anti-American drivel?
A: American.
Packet switching was invented in Britain, well ahead of the US, IP which did come out of the US is basically just like the technology developed in the UK. The reason the UK did not persue the technology was due to the government turning down funding for the R&D by the Science Minister of the time Tony Ben MP. Again, please get your history right next time, thanks in advance.
Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT] (Score:2)
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2, Interesting)
The americans I've met in person hasn't been ignorant, but then again, I don't like to be around morons. I've met plenty of complete morons in Sweden as of yet. You can't save yourself from them, because let's face it, most people are morons (and before you flaimbait me as well, do you consider yourself a moron or do you agree with me;)).
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
actually funny to watch our current government try to do "spin" like the Americans and fail miserably
Isn't this the country that passed the RIP act with almost no opposition? Sounds like you are being "spun" and don't even realize it.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you should also read this! [yahoo.com]
Re:The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:2)
Kuwait was about oil, but none of the other U.S. military actions of the last few decades have been about oil--Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo.
A pipeline across Afghanistan would be extremely costly and impossible to defend. It's just the black helicopter set that takes this idea seriously.
Re:The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:2)
Not surprisingly, it's now being run by an American firm. Or perhaps an American board of directors. Either way, it ain't owned by the locals.
Re:The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:2)
And of course they don't run the country and in other news The Warren Commision is now required reading at US schools and mention of The Grassy Knoll is grounds for immediate suspension...
Re:The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:2)
Would that have been the Right Thing to Do? No, probably not. But, like it or not, the United States does have a vested interest in the oil reserves of the Middle East, and does have the responsibility to defend those interests, using diplomacy when possible or the military when necessary.
Welcome to geopolitics. It's not a nice game, but people who stop playing it start speaking other languages.
Re:The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:2)
--Blair
Garbage in, Garbage Out (Score:2)
It was posted elsewhere [radiofreenation.net], where I saw it.
So remember, as with any other computing problem, the results you get are entirely dependant on the quality of your data. Propanganda is concerned with making sure that the data you think with generates the results that the propogandists want.
Fortunately, even compared to the Gulf War, the availability of alternate data is much more open than it was back then. The main problem seems to be that perpetual problem of the criminals trying to intimidate the ethical with concerns and worries of un-ethical actions against themselves, the criminals.
It is like saying that police cannot do their job because of the possibility of upsetting the neighbors, etc. You have to be able to take effective action. The caveat is that once you step in, you got to clean up the mess you made after the fact.
Re:Garbage in, Garbage Out (Score:2)
"Physicists operate with an incorrect formula representing kinetic energy....Energy has been misdefined in that the formula for kinetic energy is incorrect. The formula is KE = ½mv. It indicates that the energy of motion is in proportion to mass times velocity squared. Squaring the velocity is the problem, because no mass can move at velocity squared."
Ugggh, "no mass can move at velocity squared" indeed, so E=mc must be completely wrong because mass certainly can't move at the speed of light squared. Hell, anything more than 55mph is illegal in the states... This kind of "debunking scientific myths" makes my brain ache.
Re:Garbage in, Garbage Out (Score:2)
He is not a physicist, and so the stuff on physics I would likely toss.
Just another example of trying to apply expertise in one area incorrectly to another. He obviously has not had the years of experience in physics that he has in biology.
simple experiments with decent measurements to see what is would likely clear this up for him, as the formulas are measurements of what is, not what one believes.
Anthrax strain came from US Military (Score:2)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 91473
Of course, the nut cases are going to have a field day with this one.
Re:The human mind is a good filter EXAMPLE (Score:3, Insightful)
It could be linked to the same group that destroyed the WTC towers and slaughtered all those people
It's not weapons grade stuff
It is, but someone told us not to tell you
It's all from the same strain
and lots of stories of buying antibiotics, dangers of opening mail, etc.
The one significant nugget I picked up, and only heard once, was that the particular strain of anthrax is native the the US, not the middle east, not somewhere else in the world. This is very significant because it begins to shed light on who's behind, and who may not be. In my humble, and possibly flawed, observation and induction: Someone likely has a lab, in the US where it came from, start looking for it. I suppose the FBI already is on this tack, as there's a lot we don't know until someone tells someone in the media.
Another thought, Loose Lips Sink Ships was once an admonition to keep a tight lip on where soldiers or sailors where departing for, when and such, during WWII. I've been disturbed how often I hear something in the news, which, if I were part of a cell or friendly to the Taliban, I would consider very useful information. The TV and radio virtually spews what I would consider sensitive information. Saddam Hussein even commented, back during the gulf war, that his best source of information as to what the US was doing or planning to to was CNN.
It's not beyond possibility that the US govt. wants this dispersal of information, for psychological or other strategies, i.e. "Man, are we pissed, we are so pissed we are sending 3 aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and arming B52s for carpet bombing of some country in the vicinity of Kabul, that's how pissed we are, will you give up before they get there and we start using them, huh? will ya?"
Re:The human mind is a good filter EXAMPLE (Score:3, Informative)
sPh
Re:The human mind is a good filter EXAMPLE (Score:2)
Is every human's mind a good filter? (Score:2, Insightful)
I must ask: Do you watch TV news all day long? I work at HSN, which is a telephone ordering company broadcasts to every state in the US. I work in customer service and speak with people all over the country 8hrs a day, and I must say that this continuous flow of news needs to be filtered, at least a little, before it reaches the general public.
Many of the people I speak with every day may be disabled, elderly, or simply addicted to TV, but as nearly every call comes to an end the customer makes a remark such as: "be safe", "make sure you wear gloves when you open your mail", "pray for our souls, we won't be around much longer", or some other nonsense. These people do nothing but flip channels all day long and watch mostly news, and these people are affraid to leave their homes because the terrorists will attack them while driving down the street, or that they will die of antrax after stepping off the front porch to pick up the morning paper. Many of the customers have called HASMAT because of a badly damaged envelope, or broken bottle received from HSN. This is an utter waste of time, and of course the local news breaks in with a special report showing the community pictures of a local family whose house is crawling HASMAT officials, inciting further panic. It isn't so much the information that causes the anxiety, but the repetition of the information, using new words, and unconfirmed details 24/7.
To be honest, these people would be much better of having news broadcasted in 30 minute, facts only, segments. It would incite far less panic.
I am an American. I can point out Egypt on a map. I know there is a difference between Sweden and Schwiterland. I keep up to date on current affairs. It isn't being an American that causes people to be ignorant, but simply that there are just ignorant people every where. Those insearch of the unfiltered truth will always find it, but those that are unable to digest the unfiltered truth 24/7 need some form of protection.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
What bullshit!
"There's a saying that Europeans are ignorant - can't point out South Dakota on a map, don't know that West Virginia and Virgina aren't the same states etc. With the risk of immideate "flamebait" moderation, I must confess that I agree with that view. Do a test sometime, and compare your knowledge (if you're European) about the state affairs with someone from New York or California."
Dude, our states are the size of your countries. Give my fellow Americans a break if we don't have every one of yours memorized just yet.
You happen live in a place where your daily life crosses with other nations more frequently due to geography. You are more cognizant about world affairs because of this, not due to superior intellect, savviness, or coolness. This typical superiority complex annoys the hell out of me.
You'll find that a typical American knows as much about their local continent as much as you know about yours. The fact that our continent has only a few giant, countries where yours has lots of little ones says nothing about the intelligence of their people.
And yes, I can point out Egypt on a map. Before Sept 11.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
Well Bush Jr didnt know the leaders of Pakistan and India remember? Maybe when I have made my billions I'll buy every American a globe and a CIA World Factbook for Xmas...
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
Yeah I think some Americans travel to Tijuana or Bogota for some stimulation unless they are invading a country of course, never invade when you're stoned out of your mind, you'll never remember which end of the M16 is right one.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but that's not the same level of granularity. Sweden is just barely larger than California, and the average State in the U.S. (which is likely the world's most powerful nation/empire at the moment, and is well over twice the size of western Europe) is 8 times larger than the average län in Sweden.
Name me the eight largest counties in California off the top of your head, and then we'll talk about Swedish län.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
You can call me arrogant for recognizing that fact if it makes you feel superior. Whatever floats your boat.
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
First, you said Americans don't read unbiased news. That's a lie.
Then, you said Americans don't know geography. That's a lie. You then dodged repeated challenges to demonstrate your own geographical prowess.
Now, you're dusting off the death penalty? Come on. Admit that you're a euro-centric bigot and leave off.
If you think that there's no value or intellect in America, you are an idiot. Hell, Europe is unifying its ENTIRE ECONOMY to try to compete with the United States. If that's the way you rise to the challenge of a bunch of drooling idiots, what are you going to do about Japan and Taiwan?
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
Sure all the pretty blondes in LA come from a bottle and your *cough* leaders don't have bank accounts offshore...
Re:The human mind is a good filter (Score:2)
Nothing New (Score:3, Insightful)
Anthrax Scars (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that information has to get out there, and it seems as if most of the calls we get are people who are playing pranks more than anything else. Lots of people are exposed to Anthrax every day - it is a naturally occuring spore. And it is highly responsive to treatment when caught early. Take something like smallpox - that has potential to be dangerous. Something that hasn't been seen for years, we don't have enough vaccine for, AND is contagious? But again, it is treatable when caught early.
There is a fine line between reporting the news, keeping the citizens informed, and reporting to the point that you push people to the limit where copycats start happening and fear is rampent. I don't have a TV, so I don't know how well the TV media have done with the story, but all of the 'net coverage I have seen has been pretty responsible.
So should we run in fear because the media says it is so? Or perhaps we should merely take that as an opportunity to do more research and find out just how much danger you are really in. Remember, the media are humans too, and prone to make mistakes. Make sure that what they are reporting truly affects you before you go out an by Bio suits and build your bunkers.
Information (Score:2)
I agree that information has to get out there,
This is something that everybody needs to read right now: http://cryptome.org/dont-panic.htm [cryptome.org]
Re:Information - seen this article 3 times today (Score:2)
Someone said that CNN would never cover something like htis because the panic is good for ratings. True, but I wouldn't be a bit surpised to see the author of this on Larry King tomorrow night either. Remember that Afghan ex-pat that circulated his email comparing radial islamics to christian kkk members? I can't find a link to it at the moment but many/most of us saw it. Bill Moyers dug the guy up and interviewed him on PBS for 15 minutes. That incredibly preachy West Wing script basically plagarized the entire thing and put in in a character's mouth.
Can somebody tell me what we are supposed to do? (Score:2)
I don't want this to sound sarcastic at all, because I seriously want to know what I should be doing. I have what appears to be a cold. Unfortunately a good strong cold or flu has all the same symptoms as an Anthrax infection. Now, if Anthrax is only treatable when it is caught early, do I go to the doctor right now and get tested just in case? If every person in the country is running to the doctor for anthrax testing every time they get a cold, we are going to way overburden the healthcare system.
So what do we do? We are being told "not to panic" and we are also being told to "be alert". Alert to what? What are we supposed to do? Aren't we supposed to be reporting every mysteriously unattended package? Aren't we supposed to be reporting every unusual powder? Aren't we supposed to be making sure we catch an Anthrax infection before it is too late? If not, then what are we supposed to be doing.
It seems that realistically the only approach we can take is either to vaccinate the whole population or use people as canaries in the coal mine. So basically we have to wait for people to die before we can take anybody seriously who comes to the hospital afraid that they have Anthrax. This is the facts, but I don't hear anybody in government saying this. They are saying it's treatable and that we can stop it, but they don't admit to the fact that ultimately we have to assume the first infected victims for any particular attack are screwed (like those postal workers and the guy in Florida). Frankly if they would just come out and say, "if you are one of the first infected you are screwed but we can help the rest," I might stop worrying about my cold because I'd realize there was jack shit I could do if it was Anthrax.
Not to plug myself, but I've got an article [bigbrother.net] I wrote on my site earlier today where I discussed this. Okay, I suppose I am plugging myself, but oh well , it isn't like I make a cent on it
Re:Anthrax Scars (Score:2)
If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.
If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.
I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):
Independent Media
DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media [dmoz.org]
ZMag: Left Wing media resources [zmag.org]
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage [indymedia.org]
Guerrilla News Network [guerrillanews.com]
Project Censored: Censored news stories [projectcensored.org]
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism [alternet.org]
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement" [mediachannel.org]
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community [commondreams.org]
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity [www.public-i]
Pacifica Network News [pacifica.org]
The Onion: Media Satire [theonion.com]
Media Analysis
"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership [promo.org]
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs) [army.mil]
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm [mediaaccess.org]
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press [rcfp.org]
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting [fair.org]
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read [poynter.org]
Columbia Journalism Review [cjr.org]
Who Owns What [cjr.org]
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information" [bettertv.org]
LS
slashdot =HYPERMEDIA (Score:2, Insightful)
Articles (like the microsoft .net pricing) are full of distortions, half-truths, and other ramblings.
The YRO shit is designed to inflame and anger the slashbots.
Remember Michael's "US Trashes Civil Liberties" headline not too long ago??
I love this! (Score:2)
What you speak of (hypermedia) has existed for DECADES!
I'm glad you noticed it after sept 11th, but it isn't something new!
You even covered most of the topics in your last article.
How about we talk about something new, k?
Supply and Demand (Score:2)
As a culture, we thrive on media and access to current events. Otherwise, all of these net-based news networks would go under in a day. I recall a photographer being interviewed following the death of Princess Diana as to why the paparazzi were so persistent about getting photos of celebrities. His answer was simple, "You ask for them."
Don't like continual coverage? Most devices come equipped with a power switch. Use it.
I'll go one further. (Score:2)
I think this Anthrax scare isn't it. While there has been a lot of missinformation, even some that might get you killed if followed, it's certainly not the stupidest garbage to make it on under the guise of news. Why once on Fox News (and I realize this admission has cost me any credibility I might have once had) I saw a gentalman from a "think tank" say that we would have "zero point energy" generators in our homes in 4 to 5 years, if the big oil companies didn't interfere. This is probably one of the stupider things I've ever heard in public, and they decided to put him on TV.
To me the great thing about capitalism is it brings the information and resources together so increadibly quickly. But at some point people factor in, and before more money is sunk into poor development models for ethereal companies who have a logo looking for a product, it might be nice if we tuned up everyone's bullshit detector.
once upon a time (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, remember that time CNN.com blew up a truck in front of the US Embassy?
Re:once upon a time (Score:2, Insightful)
This is completely valid, and i agree with you that at some points Katz may have been a bit overdramatic in his claims. However, I believe that if you looked more closely at the actual point he was trying to make, you would realize the error in your refutation. One must remember at all times that terrorism is defined as both 'acts of terror,' _and_ 'the use of terror to achieve political goals.' After all, the ultimate object of terrorism is not simply to blow up buildings and kill people, but to achieve a particular political goal. The recent anthrax scares are not meant to cause mass deaths in the United States, cutaneous anthrax simply isn't an effective enough bioweapon for that to occur, but rather to instill terror in the American people. Thus, by "transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news," the 'Hypermedia' helps to accomplish the terrorists' goals. Keeping these points in mind, one can easily see that "learning to cope with the Hypermedia" _is_ absolutely critical if we wish to maintain the cohesion of our nation. Next time, try to look at the deeper message beneath the sentence before you attack its superficial phrasing.
Re:once upon a time (Score:2)
your point i take it is that the media just reports the news - what an idealistic mindset.
Media spins the news and slants it to what they like (umm YEAH i actually started out my worklife as a journalist - i still hold my C Grading so i know what im on about)
We were tauught to look at a story and work out the possible angles and spin offs on it - a controversial stroy or one that affects public safety is a big story (big in that it can sell newspapers and get viewers for TV)
The fact is that the media have helped tie up the western world in knots of fear over the last month - in Australia we had scenes of people being evacuated from building after building due to anthrax hoaxes and the media headline screamed things like "Anthrax in australia - the truth about it all" and such crap - yet not one anthrax spore has been found ? Only lots of baby powder and flour - this has or course stopped after the governments of most states announced 10 year jail terms for anyone found to have done this shit.
The media is to blame for so much panic and fear across the world - they hype up events that have no meaning and are not averse to ignoring the facts (EXAMPLE - the photograph of the Saudi Airlines pilot who was questioned after the WTC attacks - and his brother (dead for over 12 months) on the front page of a paper here with the tagline THE FACE OF TERROR - of course neither man was found to be involved)
If you think the media dont do this then you are fooling yourselves
Spreading the word.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So I devised an example, I ask them to think of any time the mass media has ever reported on a subject they understand really well. I then ask them to think about how it was reported.. Was it accurate? Did it actually explain anything? or was it just trite generalisations interspersed with political, commercial and personal bias?
Since the answers to those three questions are generally 'No', 'No' and 'Yes', the next step is to ask them if they really believe that the media reports anything else (stuff they do not understand so well) with any level of accuracy and objectivity.
This is a useful little argument, and while there are exceptions, it has helped me convince several of my peers and family to be a lot more critical and subjective about 'facts' they hear on the mass media.
Content is King vs. the Boredom (Score:2)
Unlike 10 years ago, we have an infrastructure that can push and pull text, audio, video and pretty much everything else but flesh and blood through a simple wire. It allows us to optimize, customize and quantize what news we're getting.
When we're bored at work, and depending on our social and religious leanings, we go to places where the content is continually changing, like
Those of us who surf this stuff alot are usually burned "once is often enough" to know know not to believe everything we read online.
Moreover, when we do take our vactions and get away from our computers, we realize just how much "hypermedia" we can live without.
The journalists' role (Score:2)
This is probably one of the most stupid things a terrorist could have done. Most reporters have a liberal slant. That's no secret. If they weren't targets of anthrax, they may have intruduced a liberal bias into their reporting as civilian casualties mounted. Or they could have simply tried to find something negative about the war effort. No since they are pissed off at being target they may simply say screw the bastards and give a more hawkish bias into their reporting.
Another thing is the sending of anthrax to only democrats. Democrats are liberals and usually doves. They would probably be the first ones to try to bring about a peaceful ending. Before the Gulf War the vast majority of democrats voted against the war resolution. You don't try to kill of the peacemakers.
Re:The journalists' role (Score:2)
Read This !! (Score:5, Informative)
Somebody should give this guy a medal !
From a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert : The truth about Bio/Terror/Chem Weapons. [cryptome.org]
Nerve agent symptoms (Score:2)
Re:Read This !! (Score:2)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter17.htm [religioustolerance.org]
http://minjungkim.homestead.com/101901psa.html [homestead.com]
The question is, which carefully formatted version is the original? Is either of them?
--Blair
Misuse of the term "hypermedia" (Score:2, Insightful)
In its current usage, "hyper" refers to beyond, as in "hypertext" (with a connotation of "beyond linear").
Mr. Katz is attempting to redefine the "hyper" in hypermedia to mean "hype" (a contraction of hyperbole), or possibly "hyper" as a contraction of hyperactive. This kind of misuse of terms which already have an important and useful meaning is damaging to communication.
The Web is an example of hypermedia, and television is not.
I define it thus: hypermedia occurs when multimedia information is structured in a hyperlinked information space. Simple enough? Please Jon, find another term with which to flag your rant. You'll only confuse and irritate your readers, especially playing to the
Re:Misuse of the term "hypermedia" (Score:2)
Whoops too late on that front.
Katz has proven himself a moron time and time again. When he's busy not being able to hold a coherent thought between articles, he's making up words, or "facts" or anything else that suits his needs.
Katz is worse than all of PC Mag. rolled together.
Re:Misuse of the term "hypermedia" (Score:2)
problem is journalism, not hyperwhatever (Score:5, Insightful)
So the problem is not hypermedia, it's hyper people on TV who report anything immediately, in order to keep us "informed", without checking their facts.
Re:problem is journalism, not hyperwhatever (Score:2)
Re:problem is journalism, not hyperwhatever (Score:2)
But that's exactly the issue; sure, people once got "official" news from "official" sources, but there was also a lot of gossip and water-cooler reporting to keep them filled up on details in between. The difference now is that the size of the professional media has grown to include that information in its pool, just to have enough. To put it another way, the water-cooler reporters have gone professional. And somewhere there is a water cooler or break room made much more pleasant by the simple fact that Matt Drudge isn't there bothering the other employees.
For now, at least, the professional gossips and armchair journalists are maintaining the pretense of objectivity (usually) and accuracy (usually). When that pretence falls, some weird Verhovian nightmare of latent fascism will come crawling into daylight until the great broom of justice chases it back to a dark place.... Come to think of it, the rumor gibbering about the Middle East these days is that Israel was behind the Sep 11 attacks; this gets publicized and televised as literal fact, despite not one shred of evidence. When you consider how far the Western (and Eastern) media have fall to reach that point, it seems premature (even churlish) to play at being a canary in a coalmine, as Katz is doing in this article.
I won't bother pointing out how sadly stupid it sounds when Katz, a writer, complains about too much media. What's next, cops complaining about too little crime?
Does anyone else remember.... (Score:2)
... the early days of the WWW, when journalists put their noses in the air and said "No one will ultimately use this newfangled net-thingy. There are no editors, no jouralistics ethics. It propagates wild rumors and out right-lies mixed in with the truth. When people see how untrustworthy it is, they will come running back to traditional media, which they can rely upon to be fact-checked, considered, and true?"
Is anyone else as amused as I am by the recent turn of events?
Is it just me, (Score:2)
Metahysteria (Score:2, Insightful)
Katz, please, write something original, something that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed. You know, writing, imagination, primary research, unique insights. Give it a shot.
more, not different content (Score:2)
News of old may have been more carefully checked out, with less content that really says nothing, but the level of propeganda probably wasn't much different. As in it's very, very pro-USA. There is never any critical analysis of our government and what it's doing, which is unfortuante, because it's necessary to keep a democracy flourishing. Jingoistic chest-beating (as of late) does not make up for this.
Sensationalism is newer, or at least more sophisticated in how it grabs the viewer. But an American public whose biggest daily worry is how to pack all those groceries in the SUV is ripe for irrational thought.
If anything technology has led to a homogenization of media, even though there is far more content. Lets face it, all the news stations are saying pretty much the same thing. This started when television became the primary means of information dispersal. We don't have the Labor press handing out newspapers to factory workers like we did in the early 20th century. Media with different points of view and ideas like the labor press had don't exist except for a few fairly marginalized magazines like The Nation.
Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in a small city in Canada, and every single news article to which I've had insider information has been totally botched to the point of being unrecognizable. Out of dozens of verbatim quotes, I've never seen one that someone never said "that's not what I actually said". I've more faith in the regularity of earthquakes than I do in the validity of the media.
Not to sound like a specialist luddite or paranoid conspirator theorist, but I think the news media is only a pawn of corporate media and corporate media a pawn of political and corporate interests.
Slashdot excluded.
Well written, katz (Score:2)
But perhaps this is not necessarily all bad. Hopefully, the mainstream media (which is generally seen as having a responsibility to deliver relavent and truthful news) will lose a bit of credibility in the eyes of the common person, due to crying wolf one too many times. I think American media has for a long time been reporting one-sided and skewed news. For example: "International news" in mainstream US media is a joke, usually focusing on a couple US-focused events that happen to occur outside of US borders. It's pathetic. So the media flushing their own credibility down the drain is not necessarily a bad thing.
Now, the question is, how much credibility will mainstream media lose in the eyes of the people, and will it be enough to cause any sort of change in the general perception of reported events?
-Laxitive
Look a little deeper (Score:3, Troll)
One striking trend: technology has spawned too much instant and unfiltered media.
No. Humans have spawned too much instant and unfiltered media. I've seen things like "5 ways you can protect yourself from terrorists" on the news. This isn't news its fear mongering and it isn't about informing the public-- its about people (not technology) maximizing eye balls and profit for their own greed. I hope they shall be judged accordingly for using a tragidy to their benefit.
Obligatory Jon Katz flame:
And yet again Jon fails to see the root of the problem instead sensationalizing the idea of technology controling everything the exact same way the big media sensationalizes terrorism.
More Katz drivel (Score:2, Informative)
The question that needs to be asked (Score:2)
Can't disagree (much) (Score:3, Interesting)
- The Mall was on fire.
- The White House had been attacked.
- A bomb had blown up in the USA Today headquarters (which faces the Potomac, just up from the mall).
- Another hijacked plane was circling Dulles airport, practically over our heads.
- A car bomb had blown up outside the State department.
Needless to say, *none* of these stories turned out to be true - but it took hours to discover that, as all media outlets were reporting rumor as fact. Even the next day, the Washington Post was *still* reporting the State department rumor, even though anyone driving through downtown could clearly see that it was false.
You'd think that it would just have been the hurried rush of events, and that surely in the month since then, calm and reason would have returned to reporting. But if anything, some outlets seem to have become even more sensationalist. Many times the headlines look like something out of the New York Post. Granted these are extraordinary times; but that just calls for extraordinary measures, to make sure that facts are facts and the public isn't needlessly panicked. The past month has been a real eye-opener for me in terms of my ability to trust what the American media says.
On a separate note, describing this phenomenon in a hysterical meta-story, and creating a titled meme ("hypermedia") to describe it, are some of the same tactics that cause the problem in the first place.
And finally, the term "hypermedia" is already taken. Perhaps "hysterimedia" would work for you, if you have to have a meme to rally around instead of just calmly reporting facts.
24-Hour News Cycle = 21st Century Crack (Score:2)
We say the media manipulates the news to create panic- and this is probably true. However, since people consume news faster than it can actually happen, reporters have to find new ways to re-hash old stories, making old bad news look like fresh bad news.
[Many people were convinced the world was coming to an end before 9/11 and now believe it already has.]
In light of the Anthrax situation, news organizations are already predicting the next big terror wave.
What's next? Cooties?
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?disp
Run for your lives!! It's an attack of hysteria!! (Score:2)
Irrational Fear and The Lottery (Score:3, Insightful)
As for this "hypermedia" -- well, I hate to be cynical (not really), but being factual and rational aren't conducive to RATINGS. Our "respected news organizations" are more like the tabloids than they (or their viewers) would like to admit, and as long as this profitable, they're not going to stop exploiting paranoia.
Personally, I fear anthrax about as much as I fear Michael Jackson, and I fear a rogue briefcase nuke about as much as I fear Bill Gates...which is saying that Gates is only a TINY bit more frightful than MJ, but they're both still mostly harmless. :)
(Oh, and how to make up for that first week of good reporting without ads? How better than by running spots that exploit patriotism...you've bought YOUR genuine U.S. Flag Pin and Medallion Set haven't you!? No? You must be a terrorist sympathizer then!)
What does this remind me of? (Score:2, Funny)
Darn...that reminds me of something...some news site on the web. Can't remember what it's called.
Garbage in, garbage out (Score:2)
It's bad enough how commentary masquerades as news these days, but the biggest problem is the media quoting unreliable, heavily biased, or strictly speculative sources as fact. Just the other day I saw a segment on CNN on sites you might want to check out for more information, including Stratfor [stratfor.com], an interesting but mostly speculative independent analysis group, and the perennial clinton-hating Drudge report [drudgereport.com].
More significantly, they also cited Debkafile [debka.com], a right-wing Israeli affiliated rumor/news site with the bad habits of:
1) presenting "facts" that later prove to be false, and then not acknowledging them (i.e. they said terrorists shot down that russian plane, when it was later shown to be an errant ukranian missile - they changed the story but did not admit error)
2) basing their headlines and articles entirely on unnamed "Debkafile sources" which they make out to be deep within the upper eschelons of every government in the world (US and China included).
If you follow the TV news closely, you'll see how "news" is making if from web to TV in record time. This needs to stop.
I wish there were 'status' pages instead of 'news' (Score:2, Interesting)
3 cases of Anthrax in Florida
CDC reports that 5 media cases isolated.
22 testing in DC, 4 positive in early results.
Second man dies of Anthrax.
Two reported dead due to Anthrax.
The point is, you never really get a clear picture of how many cases there are, where they are, etc. You might think that there were way more cases and deaths because they keep getting rereported, and its not clear if they are totals or new cases.
A map with all of the cases and a color code for death, infection, exposure would be nice.
advertising driven (Score:2, Informative)
National TV news was much the same way for many years; people trusted 60 minutes and Walter Cronkite because those shows were not expected to pay for themselves. They were paid for by advertising revenue from other parts of the network, the idea was that if people trusted your news people, they would like your network and watch your other shows, too. Having a good evening news program was a public service designed to maintain viewer loyalty to the networks.
Enter the Cable News Network. How has this changed things? Well, how does CNN exist? On advertising dollars. How do you generate add revenue? You provide viewers for those ads. And how do you provide viewers? You repeat the same sensationalistic story over and over again, with a slight variation each time so that people are afraid to turn the channel.
"Oh my God! Anthrax is everywhere! I'd better stay home and watch CNN today instead of going to work and providing for my family and reassuring them that their chances of contracting anthrax are about one-tenth that of them winning the Florida lottery."
Any time the presentation of news is contingent on that news' ability to attract advertising dollars (whether explicitly or implicitly -- I'm not saying CNN only runs stories that it thinks will attract advertisers, but they sure as hell don't run things that will offend, or deal with issues that the majority of Americans aren't interested in) there is something dreadfully wrong. As a journalist, if money or politics (e.g. The Insider) is driving the content of your news, you should be cricified. But by and large, the public seems to accept news-as-entertainment without so much as a blink. Oh well.
And speaking of old-school journalism, Katz, how about a little proof reading. For a fun game, find the place where the word "the" shouldn't be, in the above article.
Sanitizing the Past and Demonizing the Future (Score:2, Interesting)
People have to learn to be smart about what they read in the popular news media, and to speak up when they are spouting a line of BS. I am also offended by the sanitation of the past that occured in Mr. Katz's commentary. Sure, people only got news once or twice a day. It does NOT mean that coverage was good, well thought out or even accurate. There were media barons back then, just as there are now. For some reason we seem to think that the media barons were defeated.
Guess what, they were not. They just learned to keep a lower profile. Yellow journalism and outright lies were the order of the day 100 years ago. We went through "self-correcting" phase after that, and journalism got better. News reporting got better. We will self-correct again, now that some news is not as good.
One of the things to remember is that while errors occur in our hyper-fast news, corrections appear just as fast.
People need to use there heads. Question authority, and question what you are told. Have a skeptical eye. A healty dose of skepticism makes the world a better place.
Its the blind believers that cause panics. Its people who do not even begin to TRY to find out what is going on. Its ignorant commentary and a reliance on "common sense" that cannot be sensible due to lack real information. The only thing true about "common sense" when it comes to news is that it is is COMMON. Meaning that every ill-informed, ignorant fool who has seen a 5 minute video clip has an expert opinion.
If people do not educate themselves about issues that they care about, they will be decieved and deceive themselves about what news organizations present.
Take for example the E-mail that has been going around about former President Clinton and his promises to "get the terroists and make them pay" and the "common sense" failure to do so.
While I am not a big Clinton supporter, do you REALLY think that there was enough outrage in the public or in Congress to justify an invasion of another country over a couple of embassy attacks and the attack on the USS Cole, all spaced out over eight years?
Guess what, there wasn't. We all went about our merry little lives, and so did Congress. Had Clinton gone to war, he would have been decried as doing it for political reasons. He couldn't do it, so he didn't.
But yet we get ignorant, uninformed, badly thought-out email about it. For God's sake Paul Harvey even read the thing on the air. Common sense says that email is right. Examine your own attitudes about military action AT THAT TIME. Now is it REALLY right? Try to see through the fog of patriotism.
Be skeptical! Don't believe everything you read or hear. Look it up! Study it! And don't offer an opinion on something until you understand both sides of the issue.
Gedvondur
I Actually Agree (Score:2)
As far as the anthrax "scare" goes, they could report on it once a day, for one minute and sum the necessary facts into a few sentences like so....
"To date, there have been xxx total exposures.
The most recent exposures have been in xxx,yyy
There have been xxxx total infections.
The most recent infections have been in xxx,yyy.
Be careful of suspicious mail.
Wash your hands after opening the mail.
If you feel ill, do not take any chances. See a Dr. immediately and ask for antibiotics as a precautionary measure.
To date only x people have died from anthrax exposure. In comparison the CDC estimates that upwards of 20,000 Americans will die from the flu.
Now on to Tom with the weather...."
Would that be so hard?
careful on the terminology (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with JK here, I find it interesting that he's chosen to use "hypermedia" to describe the phenomemon. Here's the definition I get from OmniDictionary:
Note that this says nothing about immediacy, overload, spastic news cycles, etc. This is exactly the kind of fuzzy/distorted communication that gets us in trouble. It's just as wrong to describe the admittedly hyperactive news media as "hypermedia" as it would be to describe US Steel as "ironic".
Unfiltered media is BAD??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having unfiltered media over an anarchistic system is now a BAD thing? If people read everything at face value, then they're not properly exploiting the instant-access-to-everything paradigm of the Web, and really do have the rulers they deserve.
Lack of CNN Gulf War style coverage (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you misinterpreted this one... (Score:2)
I have to say I think you completely mis-read this one. It's the traditional news outlets such as the 6 o'clock news and daily newspapers that are the primary source of hysteria these days. By non-stop anthrax coverage and "special reports" on the one or two nuts who have outfitted their families with gas masks, they are obscuring the fact that this threat is relatively minor. Only three people have died of anthrax -- tens of thousands of people die every year in the U.S. from the common flu.
In fact, I usually turn to technology (the internet) to get the real facts. For example, the 6 o'clock news teaches you that the USA is involved in the Middle East because they're dependent on Gulf oil. However by surfing the web you learn that the USA gets the vast majority of its oil domestically, and most foreign oil from South America. However since many U.S. allies are heavily dependent on Gulf oil, the USA tries to maintain the status quo in the Gulf to prevent global instability.
It's amazing what you can learn when your news isn't filtered for you.
Not so bad if you ditch the TV (Score:3, Insightful)
With hypermedia, I'm back to the newspaper model of having news from different sources, with the advantage that I can choose the update rate (modulo the timeliness of the source, of course). With the newspaper, I have to wait until the next day, even if something important is happening, With TV, I get it shoved at me even if nothing is happening. Hypermedia puts you back in control of your information consumption.
What hysteria? (Score:2, Insightful)
All in all, I think the American public is pretty much dealing with the situation in a calm and reasonable way, but you'd never know it by listening to the media wail. But then again, I suppose "Nation Gripped By Anthrax Terror!" makes a much better headline than "Anthrax Not So Bad After All".
Wrong assumptions (Score:2)
He claims that the media and government is responsible for providing clarity and coherent information. I'm sorry, I've read the U.S. constitution, and I don't see anything that gives them that responsibility.
JonKatz doesn't believe in this theory called "economics". It is a simple theory, really; it just states that people pay for things that they want. People are paying a lot of money right now to dredge up every last bit of information related to the Sept11 attacks, regardless whether it is substantiated, relavent, or "coherent". For example, people are tuning in to CNN to see the latest details. Unfortunately, there is about 5 minutes of "coherent" news each day, so in order to satisfy the viewer's wishes, CNN fills in the remaining time with the "non-coherent" stuff.
This is where the idea of "responsibility" comes in. It is the consumers who are irresponsible: they will keep searching for more news related to Sept11, and when they hear an unsubstantiated rumor, they treat it as fact rather than as a rumor. If all the "responsible" journalistic outlets refused to give it to them, they will continue searching until they find irresponsible providers. I guess this is why hypermedia is bad -- it doesn't impose any limits on how far you can search. Actually, if you were to stick to a single news source, you actually would find a nice coherent synapsis. It is just that consumers aren't sticking with one news source, but hoping around through all of them.
I'm always at a loss to understand JonKatz. On one hand, he believes that there is some sort of Big Conspiracy that hides information from the Populace, giving Us only the information They think We should have. On the other hand, he is critizing Media and Government for NOT doing that: he wants the Media/Government to be responsible and give us only the coherent news They think We should have, hiding from us all the other details.
Anyway, the choice is yours. You can be a whiner like JonKatz and demand flimsy news and then complain it's flimsy, or you could choose better news sources (WallStreetJournal,Slate) and interpret the news responsibly.
thank you (Score:2)
Katz is Right (Sort of) (Score:2)
Because scare headlines/stories boost ratings, which are they going to run:
"Mail safe for ordinary citizens", or
"Anthrax! Are you at risk!!!!???"
Hint, it's not the first. In the US, at least, news is now more entertainment with ratings as the bottom line, rather than journalistic integrity.
Anyone remember Oprah's interview with Michael Jackson? If you watched ABC news (local anyways) that night, absolutely nothing else happened in the world except the interview. It's all about ratings, and unless their feet are put to the fire somehow, nothing's going to change.
What happened to 'Information wants to be free?' (Score:2)
Jon seems willing to ignore previous statements he's made, frequently contradicting himself so he can write some new BS. What happened to the information zealot JonKatz, talking about geeks gathering online and Old media dying in the face of new media? Did the JonKatz who wrote this piece [slashdot.org], about how newspapers can't compete with 'new media', do an about face since then?
Face it, Jon: distortion of facts pre-dated your 'new media' by many, many years. What, you say? There were rumors and urban legends BEFORE e-mail forwarding became a national pastime? The list of pre-1990s frenzies and distorted facts is too numerous to list them all.. how about:
The LSD scares of the 1960s, which last to this day: Teens staring into the sun, jumping out of windows, evil 'pushers' getting your elementary-school kids hooked on Mickey Mouse acid. The 'old media' reported on much of this as if it were fact.
The psychiatric debacle called 'repressed memories,' where the power of suggestion has caused thousands of people to invent stories of ritual and satanic abuse. Again, the old media ate this stuff up.
Jon, you can't change your opinion every time it would result in a good story. A year or two ago, you were singing praises of the Internet and online communication.
This is the media's function. (Score:2)
Faulty Cause and Effect (Score:2)
The reason you see so much prattle and talking head pundits with nothing new to say is becuase the real media aren't allowed access to a lot of material that the US government has.
Nearly a dozen federal agencies have dismantled their Web sites or removed information from the sites. News helicopters are still grounded. Cameras and film belonging to the press and the public were confiscated at the World Trade Center and further photography banned. Journalists' reporting on U.S. military operations has been confined essentially to official briefings and announcements.
Are these restriction necessary? The press historically has been very careful in reporting sensitive information in the past.
It is this fettered access to information, combined with the increasing reliance on "experts" over the past 20 years that has led to "Talking Heads" syndrome.
This behavior will backfire on the press in the long run. A study I read recently (don't recall the source but it was something akin to The Economist) stated that the public's opinion of the press deteriorates as these practices continue. The public opinion of the press dipped into new lows when it covered the Monica Lewinsky case, and more recently the Gary Condit charade. These drug out non-events hurt the press.
Whether the gravity of the bombing of Afghanistan and the World Trade Center disaster chaneg the equation i unknow at this time. However, if the press and media continue the same techniques of providing non-relevent and trivial information with no confirmation and no access to hard facts I fear the press and the media as a whole will suffer the same confidence slip that it has inthe past.
TV != hypermedia (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with hypermedia. The term "hypermedia" refers to media with links between documents. If anything, hypermedia are a little bit of an antidote to media hysteria because there is a much better chance that going to another information source via a hyperlink will provide you with more accurate information.
Client Side Filtering (Score:2)
We need thick clients to allow us to control our own view of the news.
Think of our news clients: the television, the radio, the Web browser. Each of these are particularly dumb entities.
What you need is a program that can search your favorite news sources, download the appropriate stories, apply your filters (e.g. "Drop all articles with a Jon Katz byline; give top priority to crypto articles; ignore all sports except major league soccer"), and give you a personalized, online newspaper.
This program could be on your own computer, or virtually hosted elsewhere (so that you can be mobile and get your news scroll anywhere), but it needs to be under your control.
This sort of thing, done right, would allow us to go to one place for all our news, because that has gone to every other place for us and applied our own filters. IMHO, there is economic incentive to do this as well. If a company wants to run virtual news filter hosting, they can track your preferences and advertise based on those prefs. Or, you can subscribe to it and pay a monthly fee like a newspaper if you hate ads.
For training, read /. (Score:2)
Let's just have everyone read Slashdot for a few weeks. They'll quickly learn to deal with "huge amounts of data and misinformation." They'll learn that, although information [on CNN | in a "5, Informative" comment] is more likely to be accurate than information [on Drudge | in a "-1, Troll" comment], it's still far from an absolute guarantee of accuracy.
The good ole days (Score:2)
"This new, mostly screen-driven strain of Hypermedia are becoming a health and civic hazard all of their own, transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news. "
Yeah. What ever happened to the good old days when we used to get all our misinformation and fear along with the real news on channels 4,5, and 7 only?
8^}
Wrong again. (Score:2)
They've kicked all foreign correspondents out of the country, remember?
The Taliban wants to make sure the only footage coming out of the conflict are the shots of the collateral damage.
Please think more, or at least think.
www.informationwar.org - anti-war news filter site (Score:2, Informative)
There's a great source of anti-war articles, plus background information on American military involvement in the middle east and elsewhere at www.informationwar.org [informationwar.org].
Oh, come on (not a troll... honest!) (Score:2)
Seriously... I agree that the ease of the internet gives anyone with a half-decent web site a quasi-official status... but is this any worse than the yellow journalism of the turn of last century?
Jon Katz really is a modern journalist! (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone please send Katz on a tour of the historical archives of any library or newspaper. Read the newspapers of the 18th or 19th century; you'll see the same hysteria and rumors-as-news whenever war or disaster struck. Rumors have always spread faster than accurate news; this is nothing new.
As for the overload of cable/internet/nightly news: turn the damn things off if it bothers you! If hearing that the postman in Podunk, Nebraska is being tested for anthrax every half-hour is causing you panic everytime one of your fellow office slobs spills the dairy creamer in the coffee room, stop listening to it! You don't actually need to know the news every hour, on the hour unless there's a tornado or hurricane bearing down on you. I'd rather watch Dragonball Z than Peter Jennings any day.
As for all the stuff about our neat high-tech war machines, one might note that the Pentagon is not releasing a whole lot of information about the actual combat in Afghanistan for obvious reasons. (I'm sure certain people in the Pentagon remember when CNN and other news reports were happily broadcasting to all and sundry real-time reports of troop actions). In the absence of real information about the war, the newsies resort to interviewing talking heads and showing pictures of neat hardware--they have to show *something*, after all. I do not doubt that the Pentagon encourages the news networks to show off our high-tech stuff--it's a form of propaganda, a show of power meant to intimidate our enemies, encourage our allies and hearten our own citizens.
Doesn't anyone remember the Gulf War, where talking heads were the order of the day when there was no combat news forthcoming? It got to the point where the reporters were interviewing each other about reporting the war!
What bothers me most... (Score:2)
I want real information - I want the truth on what is happenning. For all I _really_ know - nothing is happenning - no war, no anthrax - other than the WTC collapse, nothing else has verifiable impartial 3rd party support. Maybe the anthrax stuff does - but I already know that I should fear it less than getting in my car to drive to work.
But the war? No info, every day - it seemed immediately after the attack on the WTC, the news was bustling - new stories every day - stories of horror and hope. A week later, the shutdown began.
Now, nothing new really happens - or so it seems. I think if this sense of "nothing happening" goes on long enough, the average joe on the street is going to end up not caring about anything that is going on in regards to the "War on Terrorism" - that it will become pure background noise, nobody caring about rights and other crap being trampled upon.
Similar to the "War on (some) Drugs" - today, nobody really cares, and even the news have stopped reporting on it - but it still goes on, every day - I remember in the 80's when it seemed like they were reporting a drive by gang-related drug related shooting every day - now, it still happens - but you never hear about it anymore - people have tuned it out, to the detriment of their rights, among a ton of other stuff.
The same thing is occurring with the current situation, but it seems to be occuring faster - it has been barely a month since the WTC attack - but it feels like years, in a way...
Re:Heres one (Score:2)
Don't you just hate it when the powder leaks out of you email client and piles up at the bottom of the screen?