BBC News has a particularly good set-up for editors to interact with readers. Editors each blog Monday through Friday about various issues in the news recently, and viewers can respond to the blog posts in a comments section.
The Web site is fairly simple and clean making it easy to track posts and read responses.
The interaction can be found here:
BBC News "The Editors" Blog
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Web: A Powerful Medium in Tragedy
The shootings at Virginia Tech have highlighted just how much technology, particularly the Web, has completely changed the dynamic of how reporters and citizens respond to crises. Not only were news channels using a student's cell phone video recording in their broadcasts, but they depended on the blogosphere to provide them with the most up-to-date information.
And now, we've learned that even the shooter took advantage of the technology at his fingertips. Cho Seung-Hui sent NBC a "multi-media manifesto" on the day of the massacre with video clips and disturbing photos of the killer, including some of him pointing a gun into the camera. These images are now plastered on news sites and networks and are incredibly disturbing.
On the NBC evening news, host Brian Williams commented that these photos gave us a look at what the victims saw immediately before he shot them. The media has an obligation at this point to strike that fine balance between what comments and images the public should be exposed to, and what crosses the line of indecent. While they provide insight into Seung-Hui's state of mind, I have to say the media's response crossed that line.
On the other hand, the student's cell phone video is compelling because the sounds of gun shots placed the rest of the world in the moment. No other recordings captured the scene as it played out, and for that reason alone I agree with the decision by the networks to broadcast the video. In those moments immediately following the shootings it was the best information the media could get their hands on. The public was waiting for anything that could help them grasp the reality of what had happened, and that is what the video did. The sounds of shots and screams are disturbing, but no more disturbing than the descriptive stories from students about helping their wounded peers.
And now, we've learned that even the shooter took advantage of the technology at his fingertips. Cho Seung-Hui sent NBC a "multi-media manifesto" on the day of the massacre with video clips and disturbing photos of the killer, including some of him pointing a gun into the camera. These images are now plastered on news sites and networks and are incredibly disturbing.
On the NBC evening news, host Brian Williams commented that these photos gave us a look at what the victims saw immediately before he shot them. The media has an obligation at this point to strike that fine balance between what comments and images the public should be exposed to, and what crosses the line of indecent. While they provide insight into Seung-Hui's state of mind, I have to say the media's response crossed that line.
On the other hand, the student's cell phone video is compelling because the sounds of gun shots placed the rest of the world in the moment. No other recordings captured the scene as it played out, and for that reason alone I agree with the decision by the networks to broadcast the video. In those moments immediately following the shootings it was the best information the media could get their hands on. The public was waiting for anything that could help them grasp the reality of what had happened, and that is what the video did. The sounds of shots and screams are disturbing, but no more disturbing than the descriptive stories from students about helping their wounded peers.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tragedy at Virginia Tech: What Now?
Since I learned of the tragedy at Virginia Tech April 16, I have been glued to CNN waiting for updates, video and pictures. I can't help but imagine myself sitting in a university classroom at the same time. As I picture myself in the seats of the victims, it gives me goosegumps to hear stories of those who played dead, jumped out windows or held their feet against the door to prevent the shooter from entering.
That said, this is an act that could have happened anywhere. In an office building, a subway car or an auditorium. Increased security on college campuses is a natural response as we all look for answers and ways to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, but it's not logical. If there are metal detectors outside lecture halls, then there needs to be the same precautions taken in almost any enclosed space people go. Shootings are not unique to college campuses.
What is unique to college campuses is the police response and communication to the campus community. Virginia Tech has been criticized for assuming the shooter left campus and failing to notify the community about the early-morning shooting in an appropriate amount of time. I have to agree this was a key mistake. A single shooting on a campus, particularly in a campus dorm, is a serious security issue. The campus should have been shut down and the police should have immediately sought to get the suspect into custody. A brief email notifying students and faculty to remain at home may have kept many from attending classes, and kept them safe.
But, the real issue here isn't an inadequate security response. Although we may never truly know the killer's reasons, we have an obligation to explore the issue of crime in America and what drives people to commit such vicious acts, and the weapons that allow them to do so. In the next coming days the media will reveal bits of pieces of the killer's life, and perhaps we can look at what happened more thoughtfully without placing blame on university officials.
That said, this is an act that could have happened anywhere. In an office building, a subway car or an auditorium. Increased security on college campuses is a natural response as we all look for answers and ways to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, but it's not logical. If there are metal detectors outside lecture halls, then there needs to be the same precautions taken in almost any enclosed space people go. Shootings are not unique to college campuses.
What is unique to college campuses is the police response and communication to the campus community. Virginia Tech has been criticized for assuming the shooter left campus and failing to notify the community about the early-morning shooting in an appropriate amount of time. I have to agree this was a key mistake. A single shooting on a campus, particularly in a campus dorm, is a serious security issue. The campus should have been shut down and the police should have immediately sought to get the suspect into custody. A brief email notifying students and faculty to remain at home may have kept many from attending classes, and kept them safe.
But, the real issue here isn't an inadequate security response. Although we may never truly know the killer's reasons, we have an obligation to explore the issue of crime in America and what drives people to commit such vicious acts, and the weapons that allow them to do so. In the next coming days the media will reveal bits of pieces of the killer's life, and perhaps we can look at what happened more thoughtfully without placing blame on university officials.
So long, Imus. I Won't Miss You.
If radio host Don Imus had to be the scapegoat for backlash against racist and sexist slurs, then I have no problem with it. We have for far too long openly accepted calling women "hos" and using derogatory names for minorities. These comments may not offend us all, but they offend some and for that reason alone they shouldn't be brushed under the table.
Too many times comments like Imus' are laughed at and ignored as "just jokes," not meant to be taken seriously. But underlying all these "jokes" are real sentiments that prevail in American society, sentiments that lead to hate crime and reinforce hurtful discriminatory actions.
The fact that Imus has made a career of making such offensive remarks, or that so many others do the same, is in no way justification for him to remain on the air. I applaud Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for helping propel this issue into national attention. Imus is only an example of the hateful language that is prominent in our culture, and I hope the attention surrounding his career will lead to meaningful dialogue which addresses why this is accepted and what we can do to stop it.
Too many times comments like Imus' are laughed at and ignored as "just jokes," not meant to be taken seriously. But underlying all these "jokes" are real sentiments that prevail in American society, sentiments that lead to hate crime and reinforce hurtful discriminatory actions.
The fact that Imus has made a career of making such offensive remarks, or that so many others do the same, is in no way justification for him to remain on the air. I applaud Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for helping propel this issue into national attention. Imus is only an example of the hateful language that is prominent in our culture, and I hope the attention surrounding his career will lead to meaningful dialogue which addresses why this is accepted and what we can do to stop it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Don Imus: A 7-day Downfall
April 4: Don Imus, radio show host of "Imus in the Morning," refers to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” (Media Matters story and video).
Imus apologizes for his "insensitive and ill-conceived remarks" (CBS).
McCain said: “[Imus] has apologized…I’m a great believer in redemption.” Presidential candidates respond to Imus’ comments (Washington Post Politics Blog).
Rutgers women's basketball team at a press conference April 10: “We have not come to a conclusion on whether we will accept the apology” (Audio from New Jersey's The Star-Ledger)(Transcript from Rutgers University).
Al Sharpton in a radio interview with Imus asked: “Mr. Imus, do you think it's funny to call people nappy-headed ho's?” (YouTube) (Transcript from the New York Times)
Biggest sponsors pull ads from Imus’ show “indefinitely” (Bloomberg).
MSNBC ends its simulcast of Imus’ morning show April 11 amid controversy over the radio host’s slurs last week (MSNBC).
Imus’ firing “isn’t the end, but the beginning of a national dialogue and fundamental change” (MSNBC).
Regular guests on Imus’ morning show “are now faced with a dilemma: jettison a longtime relationship, or be associated with a show now widely regarded as disreputable?” (Washington Post).
Some African-American groups reject Imus' apology and call for him to be taken off the air (NPR).
CBS fires Imus April 12 in a final blow after one week of intense criticism (Houston Chronicle).
Imus downfall could also mean the fall of a successful franchise his show and appearances have helped create (New York Times).
Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press said if Imus had to go, then we’ve got a lot more firing to do (Detroit Free Press).
Gwen Ifill said on "Meet the Press": “My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and a lot of the debate in this society is not that people are sorry that they say these things, they are sorry that someone catches them” (Think Progress) (YouTube).
Imus apologizes for his "insensitive and ill-conceived remarks" (CBS).
McCain said: “[Imus] has apologized…I’m a great believer in redemption.” Presidential candidates respond to Imus’ comments (Washington Post Politics Blog).
Rutgers women's basketball team at a press conference April 10: “We have not come to a conclusion on whether we will accept the apology” (Audio from New Jersey's The Star-Ledger)(Transcript from Rutgers University).
Al Sharpton in a radio interview with Imus asked: “Mr. Imus, do you think it's funny to call people nappy-headed ho's?” (YouTube) (Transcript from the New York Times)
Biggest sponsors pull ads from Imus’ show “indefinitely” (Bloomberg).
MSNBC ends its simulcast of Imus’ morning show April 11 amid controversy over the radio host’s slurs last week (MSNBC).
Imus’ firing “isn’t the end, but the beginning of a national dialogue and fundamental change” (MSNBC).
Regular guests on Imus’ morning show “are now faced with a dilemma: jettison a longtime relationship, or be associated with a show now widely regarded as disreputable?” (Washington Post).
Some African-American groups reject Imus' apology and call for him to be taken off the air (NPR).
CBS fires Imus April 12 in a final blow after one week of intense criticism (Houston Chronicle).
Imus downfall could also mean the fall of a successful franchise his show and appearances have helped create (New York Times).
Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press said if Imus had to go, then we’ve got a lot more firing to do (Detroit Free Press).
Gwen Ifill said on "Meet the Press": “My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and a lot of the debate in this society is not that people are sorry that they say these things, they are sorry that someone catches them” (Think Progress) (YouTube).
Monday, March 19, 2007
Abusing the WWW
The World Wide Web is making me worried, wary and wistful.
By providing seemingly boundless access to information, some of us are getting a harsh lesson in reality, learning that the Internet could be one of the most helpful, or damaging, resources in our lives.
Last week, The Washington Post reported that when a Yale law student couldn’t land a summer job, her astonishment caused her to do a little web research. That research led her to AutoAdmit.com, a message board run by University of Pennsylvania law student Anthony Ciolli and insurance agent Jarret Cohen.
To her horror, she found someone had taken her photo off Facebook.com, posted it on the site and threatened to sexually violate her.
Even worse, she wasn’t the only one.
Another student found someone else used her name in a particularly distasteful discussion, implicating her participation. Photos were also taken off other sites and used in a contest to choose the “hottest female law student at top 14 law schools.” There were offensive comments about women, gays, blacks, Asians and Jews, and even one crude note about a holocaust victim.
The self-proclaimed “most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world” has posts with titles like “I am getting all A’s and I lay all the hottest [expletive]” and “rate this hot girl.”
There are, however, some insightful comments that you would expect from any lawyer: “We’re lawyers and lawyers-in-training, dude. Of course we follow the law, not morals.” And another thought out defense: “Rape is a crime. Ridiculing on a message board is not.”
According the site operators though, there is no reason to judge them, because this is after all, a “forum for free speech.”
“In fact, one finds overall a much deeper and much more mature level of insight in a community where the ugliest depths of human opinion are confronted, rather than ignored,” Cohen said.
As a journalist free speech is certainly a right that I hold near and dear, so excuse me as I exercise my right in saying they are severely abusing their privileges.
I’m not sure our founding fathers would be happy to hear that one person’s blatant abuse of this right is violating another’s right to the pursuit of happiness.
A December survey by the Ponemon Institute found that about half of employers use the Internet when looking through job applications. What worries me is that the Internet could be the single force preventing someone from landing that dream job, and they would have no idea. It has the ability to destroy reputations and a person’s dignity, all with a few clicks of a mouse.
So many of us have personal blogs and photos on sites like Facebook.com. Just a quick search for my name, and anyone could find photos from my summer vacation, learn that my favorite food is hot dogs and that I am a 21-year-old college female. I’m sure we can all imagine how those three things could be used against me.
I do give the Internet credit though. It has brought us all together in ways I could never have imagined. People use it to find future husbands and wives, they talk with relatives living on the other side of the world and share cultures and information. It’s an incredibly empowering tool.
But perhaps some of that power is getting to our heads. The anonymity that the Internet allows
does foster an uninhibited “forum for free speech,” yet the right to free speech is no defense for malice. When reputations and careers are at stake, such comments are hardly contributing to the “marketplace of ideas.”
I hate to think that people’s efforts to use the Internet for good, to communicate with friends and family and share their lives with them, can actually be used against them. Used to destroy reputations and with no chance to defend themselves.
I can’t help but be wistful for the days when the tools at our fingertips weren’t used to exploit free speech.
By providing seemingly boundless access to information, some of us are getting a harsh lesson in reality, learning that the Internet could be one of the most helpful, or damaging, resources in our lives.
Last week, The Washington Post reported that when a Yale law student couldn’t land a summer job, her astonishment caused her to do a little web research. That research led her to AutoAdmit.com, a message board run by University of Pennsylvania law student Anthony Ciolli and insurance agent Jarret Cohen.
To her horror, she found someone had taken her photo off Facebook.com, posted it on the site and threatened to sexually violate her.
Even worse, she wasn’t the only one.
Another student found someone else used her name in a particularly distasteful discussion, implicating her participation. Photos were also taken off other sites and used in a contest to choose the “hottest female law student at top 14 law schools.” There were offensive comments about women, gays, blacks, Asians and Jews, and even one crude note about a holocaust victim.
The self-proclaimed “most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world” has posts with titles like “I am getting all A’s and I lay all the hottest [expletive]” and “rate this hot girl.”
There are, however, some insightful comments that you would expect from any lawyer: “We’re lawyers and lawyers-in-training, dude. Of course we follow the law, not morals.” And another thought out defense: “Rape is a crime. Ridiculing on a message board is not.”
According the site operators though, there is no reason to judge them, because this is after all, a “forum for free speech.”
“In fact, one finds overall a much deeper and much more mature level of insight in a community where the ugliest depths of human opinion are confronted, rather than ignored,” Cohen said.
As a journalist free speech is certainly a right that I hold near and dear, so excuse me as I exercise my right in saying they are severely abusing their privileges.
I’m not sure our founding fathers would be happy to hear that one person’s blatant abuse of this right is violating another’s right to the pursuit of happiness.
A December survey by the Ponemon Institute found that about half of employers use the Internet when looking through job applications. What worries me is that the Internet could be the single force preventing someone from landing that dream job, and they would have no idea. It has the ability to destroy reputations and a person’s dignity, all with a few clicks of a mouse.
So many of us have personal blogs and photos on sites like Facebook.com. Just a quick search for my name, and anyone could find photos from my summer vacation, learn that my favorite food is hot dogs and that I am a 21-year-old college female. I’m sure we can all imagine how those three things could be used against me.
I do give the Internet credit though. It has brought us all together in ways I could never have imagined. People use it to find future husbands and wives, they talk with relatives living on the other side of the world and share cultures and information. It’s an incredibly empowering tool.
But perhaps some of that power is getting to our heads. The anonymity that the Internet allows
does foster an uninhibited “forum for free speech,” yet the right to free speech is no defense for malice. When reputations and careers are at stake, such comments are hardly contributing to the “marketplace of ideas.”
I hate to think that people’s efforts to use the Internet for good, to communicate with friends and family and share their lives with them, can actually be used against them. Used to destroy reputations and with no chance to defend themselves.
I can’t help but be wistful for the days when the tools at our fingertips weren’t used to exploit free speech.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
First blog
Hi, this is my blog for my Jour 352 class. I have never owned, posted or consistenly read a blog before, so this is really something new to me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
