It is hard to believe that our children will hardly understand what a newspaper is or was. The ability of receiving instant news online, with personally chosen content, is making newspapers extinct. Of course, most of the newspapers, as well as small news media outlets, are adapting by publishing the content digitally and trying to get subscribers online. However, there are many bloggers, "citizen journalists," that are not necessarily trained professionals, but do get traffic of viewers. Even with unedited content, editorial review, etc. people still strive for instant news. So, that the journalism is going online, is a fact, but the questions is whether it could be sustained. I think yes and there are at least few options that would guarantee that. From the website from journalism school that focuses on the new business models for journalism newsinnovation.com provides a variety of options how journalism could be sustained online. For most part it would be through a training, improvement of product, creation of networks, and, of course, advertising. Whichever way it is, journalism is online and most likely will be there. From given examples, some bloggers managed to create $200,000 revenues, which proves that journalism online could be manageable.
But for the local news stations that already have enough to worry about, News Near You, created by YouTube may soon provide a fresh forum for independent broadcasters and hyperlocal videographers to post their content and keep it apart from stuff like crazy cat videos.
I guess, where is a will, there is a way. For now, we have to adapt and learn from the ongoing changes in the media.
Shown above is a short film made by Carlos Alvarez, who has a series of short stories that are made proffesionally with simplistic effects. Actually, the introductory credits make it look like an actual Hollywood movie. It looks like though it was done with Apple, since transitions and the style looks familiar (I do so called micromovies myself :))
But the questions is whether it would pose a threat to the movie industry. I believe it would not, at least not yet. So far, most of the short films are mainly created because of the passion, interest and not money. Even if they get millions of hits and recognition in festivals, the rewards are minimal. In order to pose a threat and actually compete with movie industries, they would need an exorbitant budget, and to create it would be a challenge. So far, we could compare minicinematic movies to movie industry as the grassroot journalism and blogging to the new's network. Both underdogs create interest because of variety, as well as saving time, whereas "The Bog Dogs" are still in control as long as they will hold the $$$.
Today most people are certainly aware of the influences or threats that the social networking causes in the U.S. But, even though limited, in other countries (especially the Middle East) the use of social networks can turn into the explosive force.
This actual video is a proof of what happened after government's try to shut down common media platforms. An instant message on Twitter managed to gather this group for protest. The message simply stated:
ALL internet & mobile networks are cut. We ask everyone in Tehran to go onto their rooftops and shout ALAHO AKBAR in protest #IranElection
That a new information technology could be improvised for this purpose so swiftly is a sign of the times. It reveals in Iran what the Obama campaign revealed in the United States. You cannot stop people any longer. You cannot control them any longer. They can bypass your established media; they can broadcast to one another; they can organize as never before.
Denied traditional sources of public information, the world turned to social-networking tools that provided services ranging from conventional news reports to a means for organizing protests worldwide.
People used Web 2.0 technologies in support of at least four kinds of activities:
(1) street journalism,
(2) mobilizing the Iranian diaspora,
(3) organizing the activists
(4) information warfare.
This shows that even though government tries to censor and protect itself from any disturbance, the available SN sources help people to raise their opinions to such extent that it even leads to revolution. To what was and is happenning in Iran, could be a lesson to many governments. Not only governments should prepare and adapt themselves to handling such situations, but also activists should monitor whether the received information is credible. The times have changed and with available mediums, especially the use of them among Millenial generation, governments, even though with trials of censorship, loose their power to the internet. I believe it is not only Iranians who trust what they find online more than they trust official media.
Seriously, “There’s an App for that” is really getting to its fulfillment. It created such a phenomena, that I’ve recently saw a commercial about TV converting into this idea and supposedly your TV screen will look like a big iPhone. I don’t think many would reject that, since iPhone became more like a necessity rather than convenience. I saw a report once about the process a group of guys had to go through creating an application for Apple. Actually, there are more than 1000 submissions a day for possible applications. If they pick yours, you got a job J Personally, I have an idea of my own, I just need a programmer J Anyway, what caught my attention was recent topic on the news (apparently everywhere) about the launch of the App “The Ugly Meter.”What? It’s like people cannot tell themselves anymore whether ugly or not someone is? And out of many possible submissions of applications that might be useful, this one gets picked? But then I realized it’s only for fun, right? Apparently it has already caused the controversy. App is available for 0.99 cents and it scans features of the face and rates them from 1-10. The higher the score, the uglier you are. Funny fact that Brad Pitt’s profile scored 8!!! Dare to try yours…Joshua Rhett Miller, writing for FoxNews.com, explains the concerns that this app raises:
“While the app's creators say they're just having some fun, some critics say the software can be malicious in the wrong hands. It's "right on the borderline" of appropriate and inappropriate, said Stephen Balkam, CEO of the Washington-based Family Online Safety Institute.
"I can see that the guys who programmed it were having a bit of fun and all," Balkam said. "If you're 25, 26 or 28, this sort of thing could be quite funny or amusing. But in the hands of a 14- or 15-year-old, it could be quite the reverse, and particularly if someone is submitting someone else's photograph and then circulated that photo around school.”
For now, the applications is still available for download and creating story lines across most of the news. Do you think it should be banned or people worry too much? Source: Huffington post
Today information and technology is changing so fast, that I can't even keep up with new phones, etc. As soon as I paid some $$$ for flip razor, here pops the touch screen... I remember while teenager, I was happy to have my first "personal" phone that could text, with lit up screen and few ring tones to choose from. And then, social networking. I was involved in mIRC and e-mails were fastest option to "network" with friends (I hope I don't sound too old :) ). The phenomena of social networking is now inevitable. What does make me feel older is that MY DOG CAN TWEET! Apparently, Mattel Inc. came up with an electronic device to be attached on you dog's collar. It would detect pet's movements, sounds and would send tweets to a Twitter or smart phone. "Puppy Tweet" won't work on cats or small dogs and you can't reply - at least not yet. If you curious, check out the full article Dogs can't talk but now they can tweet
Yesterday I was "googling" for sound files from Shrek quotes. I was not logged in anywhere. As soon as I clicked on YouTube, right in the "recommended for you" section there were multiple videos of the Shrek Musical. I honestly would hardly have noticed it if it wasn't for this class. Some people "follow" celebrities, etc. on Twitter, I guess I must be special since Google "follows" me :).
image from Google.com
Also, this week I saw a news special on BBC about Google. I though I'd share this story since it's related to the whole Google theme. The report talks about the consequences that are faced by a town called Sunrise, FL, after Google by mistake removes it from its maps. I've heard something similar about Google "creating" a town on the map where in reality it did not exist. This time the mistake is done by removing a whole town from the map for a month. If you would like to check a full report, click on the link below.
I’m surprised that there is so much debate going about Google right now. I guess people are worried of it becoming a monopoly. In reality, there are many more so called “monopolies” that should make us worried (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) At least, like many of you noted, Google is for free. Not only it is free, but we also have a choice, till now at least. If Google will be a more “mandatory” necessity that we will have to pay for, then watch out for riotsJ. What raises my doubt is the idea of enticementthat eventually might lead you to a trap as soon as it becomes a habit. In my view, we are dependant on Google or at least the convenience of getting information fast. I grew up without much influence of the internet, but the staggering amount of teens using the internet proves the dependability. Just think if you had to get from point A to B (alone) in an unknown environment without the internet or phone (or GPS J). Does that seem like a challenge?
