Old vs New

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/bin-laden-death-burned-twitter-legacy-media-won-big/227442/
 "As the week went on, bin Laden's demise actually played to, and paid off for, old-school news operators, far more than you might have expected after hearing so much about social media's role in recent news events. Twitter averaged 3,000 posts per second during peak activity late May 1 and into last Monday, May 2, its highest sustained rate of tweets ever. But TV won Sunday night as President Barack Obama's speech averaged 56.5 million viewers over about nine minutes, Nielsen said."


According to this adage article, the killing of Osama bin Laden revitalized "old" forms of social media. Throughout this semester, we have been discussing the best form of social media..Twitter? Facebook? Blogs? However when it came to breaking news, not only were "new" forms of media flooded with traffic, so was the "old" media. The lesson to be learnt from this article is that during an age where information is so accessible, we still must cater to all types of audience, since there were people following "old" and "new" media. Without satisfying all forms of media, candidates in the upcoming presidential elections are likely to fall behind!

Picture Proof

Throughout the semester we have been discussing the power of imagery in journalism. Without photographs, many live uninformed of the atrocities that are occurring daily across the globe. By releasing pictures, journalist have managed to change the nation's reaction to the Vietnam War as well as many other contentious situations. As a result of previous controversy, the White House has been hesitant about discharging photos of Osama Bin Laden's body. Many Americans want proof that Osama is dead and these pictures would provide the evidence they are looking for. You know what they say a picture is worth a thousand words.... What do you think- should the Obama administration release photos of "Osama’s" dead body?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/white-house-weighs-the-photo/?hp

Text Away

In today's paper- the NY Times has an article about the "Rise of Iraq Youths Stunted by Elites". The article discusses the protest by the Iraqis as well as the violence that has broken out as a result of the protesters. Within the article, the author mentions that the security forces shot bullets into the air only after the Prime Minister sent each soldier an SMS. 

This got me thinking about the power of technology and relationships. A few weeks ago a classmate mentioned that she receives text messages from President Obama or rather the Obama campaign. She acknowledged that these text messages are not personally from the president but they giver her warm feeling that Obama and his administration cares about her well being as a citizen. Thus it is interesting to compare the text message of a president -constituent to a prime minister- soldier relationship. 

These orders via SMS probably provide each solider with some sort of personal relationship to the government and control of protesters. These texts are an affective way to unite an army as well as communicate with your fellow soldiers. What do you think?

NYTimes Strikes Again!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

This picture depicts the Palestinian oppression caused by the militant Israelis. This image shows readers that Israel's harsh authority- begs for another Arab state. However Arab leaders do not want UN admission or even a two state solution- rather they just want the building of settlements to stop. 

“We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements,” said Nabil Shaath, who leads the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority.  

 Instead of sitting down and negotiation with the Israelis over settlements, the Arab extremist have decided to take matters into their own hands and brutally murder civilians who live in these settlements.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing if Israeli should build a life in these areas, but I argue that the solution cannot be for Arabs to terrorize these settlers. Israel must take a stance, unfortunately the NYTimes has used this conflict as a photo opportunity to make Israel look bad... yet again

Glenn Beck: I stand with Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0DjOC74zI

This is a short clipping of Glenn Beck discussing the support or lack there of for Israel. He is questioning why we support countries that jail bloggers or fund terrorism.  He claims that instead we should be supporting Israel- the only free nation in the middle east "Where women can walk down the street and drive".

 In addition he criticizes the american support for listening to the "evil people". What does he mean by evil people? and encouraging evil? Thoughts?

Words of the Wise

http://majorityleader.house.gov/newsroom/2011/03/leader-cantors-statement-on-violence-in-israel.html

This press release is from House majority Eric Cantor (R-VA). He believes that these recent attacks on Israel will not subside with peace talks or land negotiation. He says the root of all Palestinian aggression stems from the "Anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian mosques, schools and media – and the blanket refusal on the part of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist that it has created"

While it sounds easy to point out the problem of constant anti- Israel media, it is much harder to actually present a viable solution to this dilemma. Israel does not have the capability to change the entire Arab- extremist culture or supervise all of the terrorist activity. This Middle East conflict is a complex and century long problem that has yet to be solved. So while I appreciate the support from Cantor, it would be more helpful if he actually presented a solution instead of stating the obvious.

Julian Assange Reaches Out to Cambridge Students

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/web-spying-machine-julian-assange

This past Tuesday Cambridge students had the privilege to hear Julian Assange speak. He said the following ""While the internet has in some ways an ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing, and to let us co-operate with each other to hold repressive governments and repressive corporations to account, it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen," he told students at Cambridge University. Hundreds queued for hours to attend."

This goes back to the question that we were debating in class. Does the public have a right to know everything? Can the government hold back information? According to Assange- Every piece of governmental information should be public.

He continued on to address Facebook , Twiter and the role it plays in the Middle East revolt. He says the following, "Yes [Twitter and Facebook] did play a part, although not nearly as large a part as al-Jazeera. But the guide produced by Egyptian revolutionaries … says on the first page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter', and says on the last page, 'Do not use Facebook and Twitter'. Assange believes that Facebook and Twitter do not have as big of an impact as one thinks. I find his opinion to be interesting and not entirely accurate, it seems as if Facebook and Twitter played an integral role in communication amongst protesters