21st Century Media.

Saying goodbye to another year.

2006-12-11T19:34:00.000-05:00

Boston.com has a very extensive "Year in Photos" feature that I find to be pretty interesting. In case you forgot about the Entwistle case or the death of State Rep. Deborah Blumer, the pictorial is here. So long, 2006.

Globalized discussion.

2006-12-06T09:22:00.000-05:00

I'm a big fan of the BBC, and they've introduced something that is pretty cool, in my opinion.

It is a section on their site called "School Day 24," and it links students, often from different countries, to discuss issues such as terrorism, religion, marriage, ethnic struggles and education. The various discussions are called "Link-ups" and often feature discussions between very different kinds of people. Several of the link-ups have already occured, but many are on the way, including a discussion between Mexican students and Hispanic students from Chicago. Prior to the "link-up," which is updated online about as quickly as it happens, readers have the ability to submit questions to the "link-up" moderator.

This is the kind of thing the information superhighway was built for, and I think the BBC understands that.

Good journalism amidst tragedy.

2006-12-04T15:10:00.000-05:00

In light of World AIDS Day on Friday, The Los Angeles Times has put up a really moving photo slideshow of children living in the wake of the HIV epidemic in Swaziland. AIDS awareness is my favorite cause and this slideshow outlines the true victims of HIV and AIDS in Africa - the children that are abandoned as their parents die, and, worse yet, the babies that are fated to death due to their mother's infection.

The feature is located in the middle of the page, just below "The Week in Photos."

Like I need another social networking site to be obsessed with.

2006-12-03T22:48:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to tackle this subject for quite some time: MySpace for politicos!

Essembly.com has been discussed a lot lately, a self-described "fiercely non-partisan social network that allows politically interested individuals to connect with one another." I joined the site a few months ago and have only been back a few times since, but was inspired to take another look after stumbling over an article on Personal Democracy Forum examining Joe Green's unique web site.

It's actually a lot like Facebook, with similar profile fields. The big difference, obviously, is the interaction. The site is built around "resolves," ideological statements that you can either support or counter, and you can add your personal comments after you vote. The main focus of your profile is your resolve answers, and you can create resolves if you don't find anything you can discuss. Not only do you have friends, you also have allies... and nemeses. Rather than secretly building campaigns and endlessly fact-checking to disprove people who disagree with you, you can be outward in your dislike of them. You can compare your opinions on resolves to those in your network, and examine the differences in your ideological bases.

I find the site to be really fun and interesting, I just haven't convinced anyone else I know to join it, so I've confined my comments to a minimum. I fear the nemeses.

Trouble on the horizon?

2006-12-02T15:59:00.000-05:00

I've been struggling for the past week to actually find any good material to blog about. I found something that seemed worthwhile today.

According to CNN.com, a victory has just been won for electronic speech. The California Supreme Court ruled that web sites cannot be sued for libel, following a case where a woman posted allegedly libelous emails concerning two doctors. The ruling determines that people can only sue the original sources for libel, not the sites that publish the material.

This, to me, is both good and bad news. It's a victory for eBay, Google, Yahoo and several other sites that backed the defendant, afraid that if the defendant were to lose, they would be held liable. This means, also, that Google and Co. are not going to have to watch their backs. It also means a lot more inaccurate crap can float around on the internet and no one has to answer for it. Strange implications....

Partnership.

2006-11-24T15:04:00.000-05:00

According to the Globe, Yahoo has just reached an advertising partnership with seven newspaper chains. It will begin with a jobs board, then expand to providing content and search capabilities to the websites of some of the papers, possibly putting a global focus into the local news arena.

Good news for Yahoo, which has taken a backseat to Google recently.

Nothing like waking up in sheer terror.

2006-11-22T12:25:00.000-05:00

I'm sure everyone is just trying to figure out what happened last night, and I should applaud the slowly-growing photo coverage on Boston.com. The press photos are pretty good, but I'm impressed by the four reader-submitted photos that really show the extent of the fire. I slept at my boyfriend's last night (just off of School Street in Beverly, just across the water from Salem and Danvers) and from the skylight, I was able to see the fireball go into the sky and the subsequent flames. I think probably one of the greatest parts of new media and citizen journalism is the ability to capture an image the second something happens - long before the Globe and Herald photographers could get there.

Also, I'm hoping Prof. Kennedy is uninjured and his house is not in shambles.

Fighting in a video game = fighting over the console?

2006-11-20T15:02:00.000-05:00

Slashdot, through Dailytech is reporting that the Nintendo Wii, which was about as anticipated as the PS3, sold out yesterday with no reports of violence. This comes a few days after a Massachusetts man waiting in line to buy a PS3 at a Wal-Mart in Putnam, Connecticut, was shot by two robbers for refusing to give up his money. In addition, a volunteer for John Edwards just got in trouble for attempting to cut in line to get the former senator a Playstation for his kids.

What is wrong with Americans and video games? The Zune (my current obsession) launched with no extraneous fanfare, no fistfights and no hitches. (Also, in case anyone cares, I did a little bit of snooping and figured out that my mom has already bought me one for Christmas. It's white, it's hot, and I'm excited.) No one was punching each other to get an iPod nano, and you can guarantee there will be no one waiting in line to get the newest and hottest Blackberry. We are an entertainment-obsessed culture that apparently has nothing better to do than camp out for three days so we can spend hours on our couches absorbed in a virtual world that is meaningless and in no way enriches our lives or our minds.

But what really gets me is how Sony and Nintendo were hyping the crap out of these systems, aware of the fact that it would perpetuate crime, price gouging, and their profits. Whatever happened to corporate accountability? And whatever happened to Americans having lives? I'm just glad that the Wii launched without reported violence. At the same time, I'm miserable. Christmas season is here and that just means more materialism, and new technology is going to control all that. Bah humbug.

My Jay Rosen wrap-up.

2006-11-17T10:54:00.000-05:00

I didn't get around to it earlier in the week (jury duty), but as I'm sure everyone on earth knows by now, the Journalism of the Web class attended Jay Rosen's talk on NewAssignment.net at Harvard's Berkman Center. The video can be found here, but for the less patient, I've collected some main focal points.

"The more you give away, the more you win."

"Capacity does not create activity. If you build it, they won't necessarily come. You need to do more than that."

"The challenge is for professional journalists to work with their own group of people to break stories."

and, my personal favorite:
"Take, borrow, steal, adapt."

The project seemed to have such bright beginnings, but it seems like many (including Rosen himself) are starting to lose a bit of faith. The lack of funds is definitely a likely cause, but moreover, it's my own personal belief that nothing really comes for free - which leaves me wondering how effective and reliable sources could really be.

My new media obsession.

2006-11-12T16:06:00.000-05:00

So jealous. Apparently, a Best Buy in the Bay Area is selling the Microsoft Zune several days before its official release date, according to Gizmodo. Lately I've been fairly preoccupied with this gadget and have been mostly begging to receive it as a Christmas gift. Gizmodo also did a good full review of the device, though the Zune Marketplace (the Microsoft iTunes Music Store equivalent) won't be launched until Tuesday. Zune is considered to be revolutionary, as it contains a WiFi component which allows users to send songs to one another, and its massive screen can be converted to landscape mode to better view videos.

You were expecting something else?

2006-11-08T16:46:00.000-05:00

Although basically everyone in the free world is talking about the election, I thought I would enlighten you with my own opinions about the online coverage of the races (even with timeliness aside, this crap is right up my alley).

Mere minutes after the polls closed in our great state, I checked Boston.com, which boldly declared victory for Patrick, even with only 3 precincts reporting. But I noticed that somewhat early this morning, the coverage was minimized into a small picture of Patrick and a small headline, "Patrick plots transition plan." I guess I understand the immediacy of online news and the belief that breaking news passes quickly, but the election was YESTERDAY. Not everyone has immediate internet access, and some people actual have lives and weren't slaving over the keyboards all night. I was too busy watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off and eating stir fry, to be honest.

Prof. Chuck Fountain, my History of Journalism professor, today said that while the results of this election were extraordinary, the coverage of the election was not. I have to agree. Despite the clear county-by-county results on CNN.com and the rapidly updated and written political opinion columns on Boston.com, the coverage fell flat. Why is no one analyzing what the election of the first black governor of Massachusetts (and the second black governor in American history) may mean? Why is no one delving into how politics in Mass. have been altered completely, as a woman posed a significant chance of being elected the first female governor of Mass.? And Nancy Pelosi! I'm ALREADY tired of people glossing over the fact that Pelosi will be the first woman to ever be Speaker of the House (but CNN's article is pretty comprehensive, so kudos to them).

The news coverage, even online, seems to be more shallow than most of the puddles I sloshed through to get to class today. I'm disappointed that journalists have missed the big picture with this election, which is certainly bound to alter the course of history.

What a letdown.

2006-11-06T15:02:00.000-05:00

TimesSelect is free this week, until the 12th. Read the crap you cursed the New York Times for not letting you see, then realize that all you're really missing is Maureen Dowd's hair, some Frank Rich zingers and a praise of Christy Miho's "Heads Up" ad. Sigh.

And yeah, I found out from Wonkette.

You can't handle the truth.

2006-11-05T18:13:00.000-05:00

The other day I was sitting in Curry Student Center, minding my own Wendy's, when two kids at the table next to me were engaged - loudly - in a discussion concerning politics and campaign issues. I couldn't help but notice that every time one of them made a point, the other refuted its credibility, simply stating that he needed to go factcheck.org. Factcheck.org, he repeated, over and over again.

I've visited the site only several times in the past few years, but the guy's vehement support of the Annenberg Political Fact Check made me feel inclined to give it a second look. I have to say, the reporting on the website is great, but it's so... minimal. It's more of a source for investigative journalism than an actual fact checker. I understand completely the value of the site, but in a sense, it's kind of misleading.

What I would like to see - what does not yet exist, but should - is a site with the magnitude of Wikipedia that contains the kind of in-depth political fact checking that only an independent institution could provide. The Campaign Desk, a pre- and post-presidential campaign political fact checker, seemed to literally disappear from the Columbia Journalism Review site, and there has been no definitive place to find any consistent political facts, aside from voting records (which are scattered and inconsistent). Fact-checking, as a career, has seen somewhat of an uprising in recent years, due to the ability of the internet to make anyone an expert - as a past entry of mine demonstrated. Maybe there's a future for me in creating the kind of site I've been looking for. Or maybe politics isn't meant to be decoded by truth. Who knows.

I just wish I could find that kid and tell him he was a little off.

AOL users read the news?!

2006-11-03T16:38:00.000-05:00

Quick little update. The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a poll of AOL, Fox News, Yahoo and NY Times online readers to see what they're emailing to their friends. No surprise - the majority of stories emailed from Fox News readers was soft news. And AOL users sent the largest amount of hard news. Interesting stuff.

2006-11-01T10:44:00.000-05:00

Heard this originally on WBZ 1030, so I thought I'd link back to my original source.

Google has acquired JotSpot, a wiki site that attempts to be more interactive, user-friendly and human-oriented than sites like Wikipedia. The site incorporates a new style that is similar to photo albums and spreadsheets, making user-created and edited material a bit more interesting. It's looking like it may commercialize wiki-ing in the future, which is definitely the most forward-thinking form of citizen journalism.

The odds are in our favor.

2006-10-30T14:52:00.000-05:00

I've been tooling around with the New York Times Election Guide of 2006 for a good part of today. It's actually a very good interactive feature that gives insight into the overall predicted outcome of the midterm elections.

The only page I am a little confused about is the "Race Profile" page. Massachusetts has one of the most hotly debated and severely bitter governor's races, and all they can say is "Strategists expect the race to be a tight one." Hello? No mention of rapists, education or the phrase "soft on crime?" Also, who are these "Multiple" Democratic candidates? Last I checked, Massachusetts is screaming Deval Patrick - and have we all forgotten that Christy Mihos initially wanted to run as a Republican?

But on the main page, if you click on state by state, the coverage is easily viewable and completely comprehensive. It even displays a gauge of how liberal or conservative an incumbent candidate has voted. A definite example of new media done right - more interesting and interactive than plain old text.

P.S. Read this while you can. I dunno how long the links will last, since I can't use the link generator with these pages.

Get your webcams ready.

2006-10-25T19:49:00.000-04:00

A recently released article on NYTimes.com has thousands scrambling to make dumb videos of themselves singing Backstreet Boys songs into a hairbrush. According to David Halbfinger, talent agencies, particularly United Talent, are now scouring web videos to find fresh faces and new marketing opportunities. In addition, they are making deals with producers and directors of such videos, introducing them to an increasingly competitive industry that would otherwise be nearly out of reach.

I can see the appeal, but personally, I think about 3/4 of the user-generated web videos online are pure crap. Who is really thatinterested in a 20 second clip of a pretty Japanese girl posing for a camera, or some desperate 35-year-old guy's reply and analysis of Lonelygirl15's last video? But I guess that's what talent agents do - weed out actual entertainment value and production skill from the millions of people worldwide who just want to be famous.

And some of the stuff that I think they should take note of? Things like The Ghana Youth Photo Project, a very interesting video and one of the most powerful things I've seen on YouTube (which I guess isn't saying much, but oh well). I know they're going for what's going to appeal to the American public, and documentaries aren't exactly valuable materials to the advertising world, but I hope it means that some of the people that are doing great things and putting them online will get noticed.

Also, in the related realm of powerful web videos, watch Execution of a Teenage Girl, about a 16-year-old from Iran accused of "crimes against chastity." It's long, but it will change your life.

Online ethics (fun fun!)

2006-10-23T14:56:00.000-04:00

So the rest of the world may think this is completely boring, but Poynter just had a conference about online ethics. Since the online realm is where I think I'm headed careerwise, this is pretty relevant to me. They broke it down into 3 categories:

Linking. Rick Edmonds asks:

But if accuracy, transparency (about where the information is coming from) and taste are ethical values of an organization -- and part of what the "brand" stands for -- how should those values inform decisions about links? Isn't linking to below-standard material just another way of publishing it?

I understand the worry about bringing in unreliable sources, but isn't linking a new way to prove credibility? Rather than keeping readers and sources in entirely different realms, linking provides the reader with an ability to actual see where things are coming from - and I can see nothing wrong with that. The only concern I would have is taste - a small story about a new celebrity sex tape may be discreetly revealed by a respectable news source, but a link to a night-vision trailer for Another Night in Paris might be fairly damaging, even for Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa. (Low-blow, I know.)

Revenue and content. Edmonds says:

A complicating factor is that the newness of the Web and frequent site redesigns have created publishing formats without the physical and visual boundaries that are fairly obvious in a printed edition. In other words, it may not be clear, just by looking, what is editorial, what is advertising and what is some sort of hybrid.

This is probably what terrifies me the most. Advertorials. Infomercials of the print world. The last thing we need is someone hawking Orange Glo and disguising it as a well-developed piece of editorial writing.

This is one of those things that I think will not affect the serious news organizations, despite the pressure they're under. The bonds between the business departments and newsrooms will really need to be cemented, however, to make sure that profit is considered, but not before news. Who knows, it could mean massive steps in the right direction, so long as everyone who works for a news organization actually cares about their institution.

And finally, user-generated content. Again from Edmonds:

On the one hand, user-generated content is integral to a broadened mission of developing community as well as reporting the news. It positions a newspaper or broadcast outlet as getting attuned to multi-directional conversation in which the audience becomes a valued contributor.

But, boy, are there landmines.

You got that right. This is an issue of people who are seriously interested in contributing their knowledge and opinions to a news-based community versus bored morons at work who think its funny to insert the f-word six times into a two-sentence comment. For this reason, I don't think anonymity should be allowed. If you are contributing your point of view, you should take responsibility for your words and be unashamed to stand by them, if you really believe in what you're saying. They don't allow anonymous letters to the editor, so why should they allow some jerk with a computer and no life ruin an opportunity for intelligent Web discussion?

Things I've missed.

2006-10-22T13:11:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of updates - a bit of family crisis. It's been a rough week/weekend.

Anyways, I'm kind of sad I missed the well-publicized Bob Woodward chat on washingtonpost.com. Woodward is a personal hero and the possibility of having his fans/readers interact with him directly via a chat is, I think, a good technological advance. The transcript is nowhere near as fascinating, but still gives you a good idea of what happened. Read for yourself.

A new Apple mistake.

2006-10-18T16:01:00.000-04:00

Apple is now admitting that iPods shipped in the past 5 weeks may have a virus that could, in fact, infect computers with Windows. Shock! Horror! We always knew that Apple hates Windows, but to punish Windows users for making a bad choice? This Microsoft vs. Apple war is getting too severe.

In all seriousness, the Washington Post Security Fix blog reported the story and apparently, the virus was spread by a Windows machine used to test compability on new video iPods. The virus can be easily removed with any basic anti-virus software, according to Apple. What shocks me the most is that Apple, one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world, somehow lacked the foresight to run Norton while testing new devices. Looks like they're so busy pumping shabbily-made new iPods, they forgot to actually follow what most would consider to be protocol.

Forgive me for my anguish - my 2-year-old iPod has broken 4 times.

So I'm not the only one.

2006-10-15T20:02:00.000-04:00

I was talking a few weeks ago about Friendster and how it's failing as a social network. The New York Times site now has a video that chronicles the decline of the site and an accompanying story discusses how it lost out on a billion-dollar deal (log in might be required).

C'mon now.

2006-10-11T15:22:00.000-04:00

Fortune senior editor David Kirkpatrick is virtually licking the boots of Mark Zuckerberg in a recently released Fortune/CNN.com article. Zuckerberg, apparently over lunch, had this to say to Kirkpatrick:

"A lot of companies get grouped as social networking. Lots are dating sites, or media sites or sites for community. But our mission is helping people understand the world around them."

Yeah, right, so all those girls who post pictures of themselves with shots of tequila in their Facebook albums are really out to "figure out the world." This really makes no sense, particularly since Zuckerberg goes on to say that for the most part, the average can only access less than 1 percent of the total Facebook network. Kirkpatrick also revels in the privacy controls of the site - which basically enable people to show their friends the pictures of themselves with a 4-foot bong, yet hide those from the people at their company. So apparently, self-restraint is no longer necessary.

But as far as I'm concerned, Zuckerberg IS concerned with money - he did drop out of the world's most distinguished university for some dumb website - and Facebook is an instrument for us to brag about who we are. And there's nothing wrong with that, but... just call a spade a spade.

New media: Something of a World War III.

2006-10-10T16:05:00.000-04:00

I got it from the Washington Post, which got it from Reuters, but it is, in fact, everywhere: Lonelygirl15 and her cohorts are now operating on a website owned by Google.

The world is in a state of non-uproar at the in-no-way-a-surprise move.

What I do find surprising, however, is that News Corp. paid only $580 mil to acquire MySpace, which is consistently among the top three most visited sites on the web, and Google forked over $1.65 billion dollars for YouTube. Aside from that, the news seems, well, rather flat. As new media sites gain more and more popularity, they're just going to bought up by the media giants. I'm just waiting for Facebook to go to Google as well. It's all rather unimpressive.

I was even more bored by the message from the founders featured on YouTube's front page. They may be totally rich, but whatever happened to grassroots media?

The strong keep getting stronger.

2006-10-08T14:00:00.000-04:00

The staff at the Washington Post allegedly want to be bloggers, and who can blame them?

Editor & Publisher, covering the annual convention of the Online News Association, reports that Post editor Len Downie said that everyone in his newsroom wants to be a blogger. Wonkette also had a tidbit about the story.

Downie went on to say that rather than feeling threatened by the blogosphere, the paper shares a "symbiotic relationship" with bloggers such as Matt Drudge. In addition, he noted that readership of the Post has dramatically increased since the introduction of an online edition, making the Post an internationally-known brand. It looks like Downie and the Post are moving in the new media direction, and its staff members are more than happy to follow the shift. That's all fantastic, but what about localized news?

It goes without saying that for superb international coverage, you go to the New York Times. You go to the Wall Street Journal for the best business news. You go to the Post for in-depth political coverage and analysis. And in a connected, online society, we can get all this information without ever leaving our homes. But what will happen to the Boston Globe, the Times-Picayune, the Observer? There's no doubt in my mind that the print media giants will blossom into multimedia empires, but I fear that in that, we will lose the necessity and availability of local news. In our ability to get the highest quality news whenever we want, we could be putting the local papers out of business and lose the sense of community that a local newspaper used to instill in its readership.

So busy - but not too busy for Hastert's excuses!

2006-10-06T11:18:00.000-04:00

Since I've been so inundated with working on my *feature story* I've hardly had time to update. That and the fact that I'm basically living in three cities right now.

Anyway, found an interesting tidbit on Wonkette - Dennis Hastert is now blaming the internet for the Foley scandal. Apparently, the instant messaging application is somehow to blame for the messages that were sent OVER it. Looks like the GOP now has a bit of problem with new media.

More later, I promise.

Now THIS is the definition of media about ourselves.

2006-10-03T21:07:00.000-04:00

Yes, this is the newest toy of 14-year-old social networkers and bloggers alike - my celebrity look-a-likes! I know most of the matching is based on the angle of your face, according to the database of photos that they have, but still, it's pretty damn cool.

How on earth I got both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, I'll never know. But Gael and Obama - freakin' awesome!

And I thought I was using the internet a lot.

2006-10-02T15:52:00.000-04:00

A CNN.com story about the move of Baghdad life from the streets to the internet caught my eye today. The article discusses how citizens now create their communities via video conferencing and instant messaging, for fear of the danger that befalls those who get caught amongst the violence. I particularly thought this tidbit was interesting:

Perhaps the hardest part is electricity. Much of Baghdad had electricity for 12-18 hours a day before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Most neighborhoods now get electricity from the grid for just four to six hours a day.
It means ordinary people have to know their ohms from their amperes and their megabits from their kilohertz.

Most middle class households now have cables snaking down the street to a neighborhood "generator man" who gives them diesel-generated power for a monthly fee of about $10 per ampere. Six or seven amperes are usually enough for a computer, a TV and a fridge. An air conditioner costs more.

A neighborhood Internet cafe will sell a subscription for wireless Wi-Fi access to its satellite broadband hookup for about $40 a month.

One of the best parts about all this, I think, is that it's not about using the web to communicate with people across the world that you will never meet - it's about the real sustainment of a community and the ability to stay in touch in real time, despite hardship. Call me sentimental, but I don't think any discussion with a stranger - be it on a forum or in a chat room - can compare to discussions with friends. It's an example of a globalized network that works locally. And it keeps people safe.

Musical genius.

2006-10-01T17:10:00.000-04:00

I'm a HUGE music person. I spend about 50% of my online time on social networking sites (I know, it's humiliating), 25% educating myself, and 25% on music. A huge interest of mine in new media is the new culture of recommendations, and music is on the cutting edge of all this.

About a year ago, a friend introduced me to Pandora Internet Radio, a music portal that retains your personal music preferences and makes channels based on an artist or song that you select. Pandora is possible thanks to the efforts of the Music Genome Project, a group of music lovers who have attempted to make the most exhaustive encyclopedia of music, analyzing everything from lyrical topics to harmony styles. I'm in no way an internet radio person - it usually tends to bore me - but Pandora keeps it pretty interesting, particularly in the fact that channels are created using both mainstream and very underground music. My only complaint is that the musical license seriously limits how many songs you can listen to per hour.

I recently just found this neat little toy called Liveplasma, a self-proclaimed "discovery engine" that makes maps that link artists to one another according to style. Liveplasma, formerly Musicplasma, recently incorporated a search for movies, actors and directors. I don't really get the relations - what does Something's Gotta Give have to do with Kill Bill Vol. 1? - but its interesting to see the connections, and it's also more interesting than looking at lists. Downfall: no information about the things on the map!

Last but not least, we come to my personal favorite: Last.fm. Last.fm operates by installing an "Audioscrobbler" into your iTunes, keeping a record all of the songs that you play on your computer and making lists of your listening habits. My personal "dashboard" will display recently played tracks, top weekly artists, overall top artists and overall top songs. Seeing your own habits is interesting - I was completely unaware that I actually listened to "Sorry" by Madonna 5 times - but the features that connect you to other people are much better. "Neighbours" are people with similar music taste. There is an option to add friends, join groups, and write on people's "shoutboxes." It feeds the needs of internet radio junkies, with neighbour radio - what your neighbours are/were listening to - and regular recommendation radio. The best part? You can tag artists, songs and albums in your own personal music journal, which reaches a community of listeners just like you.

Last.fm is the winner of the musical recommendation game as far as I'm concerned. It mixes the best elements of digital media and new technological capabilities with the one thing you can always trust - good old word of mouth.

Ping (and I'm not talking golf).

2006-09-27T15:15:00.000-04:00

A "packet" in the New York Times new Technology: Circuits section talks about a new kind of instant messenging - "pinging." The Pinger is an application that allows you to send hands-free voice IMs in lieu of text. The application can send the messages between mobiles phones and computers, and from computer to computer, as long as the computers are equipped with microphones. Starting this week, Pingers can be sent to MySpace pages.

Personally, as a consistent AIM user since the age of 13, I don't think it's going to work. While some in the online community have no problem talking singularly into a webcam, to me it always feels awkward outwardly speaking to no respondent. Truth be told, I don't even like leaving voicemails. Plus, the main point of instant messaging is instant response, and I don't see any instantaneous contact involved in any of this.

What happened to Friendster?

2006-09-25T16:02:00.000-04:00

In the past month or so, a lot of people have been talking about an MSNBC report which claims that MySpace.com does little to protect its users, of which there are over 10 million. The oft-used quote many have taken from the report is that MySpace is a "hotbed" for computer infection.

The New York Times has also recently reported about the investigation by 20-year-old blogger Trent Lapinski into MySpace's history (though it has been recently archived, damn you TimesSelect, I will not pay $4.95 for an article you published 9 days ago). According to Lapinski, everyone's "friend" Tom and his partner, current CEO Chris Wolfe, previously worked at a spyware company before the website's launch in 2003. Public outcry - as in, you know, web comments of angry 18-year-olds - suggests that people are going to start leaving the site and seek other methods of online networking.

But seriously - is anyone really going to go back to Friendster?

I logged in today after probably a year of forgetting/not caring that I had an account. Considering that on MySpace I have 138 friends, and on Friendster I have 12, I would say that my Friendster profile kind of makes me look like a dork. Not to mention the fact that my default picture is my yearbook picture from high school. I'd link but I'm too ashamed.

The features are really the same as MySpace - at times, even better. Friend updates enable those of us who actually enjoyed being stalkers with the Facebook news feed to find out what our friends have done to their profiles recently. Album features allow not just for self-aggrandizing photographs of 14-year-olds in bikinis, but also allow for your friends to view your photos and see what you've been up to lately. There are connections to group and fan profiles, as well as profiles of people in your area that are close to your age. There's music, there's blogs, there's classifieds. The best part? Very few ads.

Anything that would take business away from News Corp seems like a good idea to me, and it's unfortunate that Friendster has taken such a backseat when its content is forward-thinking and ad and spyware free. Too bad it won't catch on. Sadly, I still don't even have the determination to update my Friendster profile. Murdoch and MySpace have taken over the world, and I'm just a minion.

Reboot.

2006-09-25T14:57:00.000-04:00

Boston.com has recently created a new page - a collection of feature stories that had previously been posted on the front page. I think it's kind of a neat way to access interesting features. Plus, when you first open the page, the main image is a freshly-shorn Pat Badger, the former bassist for Leominster-based Extreme (you know, "More Than Words," the wedding song for several thousand late-eighties brides) tending to alpacas.

Forgive me for being so superficial.

2006-09-23T18:13:00.000-04:00

Fashion Week Spring 2007! Marc Jacobs video interview on NYTimes.com! Simple pleasures for a simple girl.

Also check out the MJ slideshow - I can't do a direct link, but look for it in the Multimedia column, about 3/4 of the way down the page.

My only complaint is that there aren't very many pictures, but thanks to the new features on the Times website and the immensely advanced search function on Style.com, I no longer have to pay $14 for overpriced import glossy mags to get my fashion fix.

Bible crazies and YouTube - my favorites!

2006-09-22T12:09:00.000-04:00

A few friends of mine recently went to go see Another Gay Movie (yet another instance of my lifestyle invading my blog) and were quite impacted by a trailer for a new documentary that, bluntly, explores a bible camp where children worship a cardboard cut-out of George Bush.

I then heard that ABC News did a piece covering Jesus Camp, but naturally I was indisposed, sleeping or having a life and thus missed the newscast on which it aired.

A small search of YouTube, however, and I got the goods - the ABC segment featured kids crying for salvation, speaking in tongues, and a pastoral leader who basically indicated herself as a complete weirdo. Check out the woman whom the reporter calls a "secular feminist liberal." I do hope that when I'm interviewed that's the description people come up with for me. I also saw the trailer, which I have to say is a little unnerving to watch, especially considering that 90% of the people going to see Another Gay Movie are most likely young, liberal gay men, and the other 10% are their hags.

I still think it's interesting that in the modern age we can hear about things and no longer be desperate for information - it's all at our fingertips. Particularly the juicy, moderately horrifying and scandalous. What can I say, I'm an American.

The documentary's website, which is Flash-based, wouldn't load since my computer at home was purchased before Bush took office. I did, however, get the audio - and the creepy factor went through the roof. I'm quite intrigued and want to see the film, but I'm afraid my brain will bleed in horror at the new brainwashed generation. I was born 20 years ago, thank... Jesus.

The internet and spread of non-truths.

2006-09-19T16:16:00.000-04:00

Recently there has a been a bit of controversy over a group on Facebook called The Truth About Homosexuality (log-in req), begun by Pepperdine student Joe Grable. The group makes claims about homosexuality that have caused such outrage that the group has been made inactive. Naturally, the "truth" Grable was spouting seemed outrageous, and the citation of sources seemed slightly suspicious. I spent over 2 1/2 hours today researching official websites and came up with a rebuttal which was so time-consuming, I thought my blog readers should view it.

My research follows his original "facts":

1. 75-85% of AIDS cases are homosexuals (this costs America approximately $10 billion and 11,000 lives per year)

FACT: According to the CDC, homosexuals account for only 54% of all AIDS cases. The remaining 46% are intravenous non-homosexual drug users, heterosexuals, and those who attained the disease through transfusions, etc. In 2004 alone, homosexuals accounted for only 46% of all new AIDS cases. There is absolutely no way to calculate "cost." In 2004, AIDS took well more than 11,000 lives - 15,798, in fact.

2. The average life expectancy of homosexuals, male and female, is 42, with only 9% living past age 65.

FACT: This is no truth to this statement. It was "substantiated" by researchers at the Family Research Institute who read obtituaries in gay newspapers/magazines and attempted to calculate an average, as described in an article on Slate. There is no real way to calculate a homosexual life expectancy.

3. The fidelity rate for homosexual couples is 4.5%, compared to 75 to 85% among heterosexual couples.

FACT: Data on this subject is almost impossible to find. I have read in several sources that lesbian couples have the highest fidelity rates of all couples. Do not be skewed by the presentation of the facts - the INFIDELITY rate among heterosexual couples still remains at about 25% percent. The best source of debate on this is a blog called "Dust in the Light."

4. 25-33% of homosexuals are alchoholics.

FACT: The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that in 1992, which is the latest that conclusive data for both genders and sexual preferences is available, 7.5% of lesbians and 13.2% of gay men reported frequent heavy use of alcohol. Comparatively, 2.5% of straight women and 11.52% of straight men reported frequent heavy use.

5. 78% of homosexuals are infected with STD's.

FACT: Only 17% of men who have ever had male-male sexual contact have been treated in the past year for a non-HIV sexually transmitted infection. I am aware that this figure does not include those who have not been tested, but this was the only relevant statistic I could conjure up from the National Center for Health Statistics. Interestingly enough, however, is that among males who have had sexual contact with other males, 91% used a condom during their last intercourse. Only 36% of males who have never had sex with men used a condom the last time they had sex.

6. The intimate partner violence rate is 15.4% among homosexual males, and .05% among heterosexual males.

FACT: The National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder estimates that 11% of women and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner. However, 20-30% of American women will be physically abused at least once in their lives, making the heterosexual rate provided virtually impossible.

Joe Grable used the following sources to provide all that misinformation:

marysremnant.org, a ministry out of Wells, Maine.

new-life.net, the New Life Community Church in Stafford, Virginia.

frc.org, the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative non-profit lobbyist organization formed by James Dobson in the early 1980's. The Council's current president, Tony Perkins, has been accused of racism and has been linked to Ku Klux Klan head David Duke.

exodus.to, Exodus International ministry "addressing homosexual issues," which encourages people to "leave" homosexuality and teaches adolescents how to suppress homosexual feelings.

precept.org, Precept Ministries International, based out of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Not a single source Grable used was official, academic, or non-partisan.

I'm still relatively amazed at the accuracy of information that can be attained with a bit of effort and the resources that are available to journalists, thanks to the world wide web. I'm also appalled at the endless incorrect information that comes up as soon as you enter a phrase and hit "Go" on Google.

Championing for real images.

2006-09-17T15:53:00.000-04:00

Poynter is reporting that the Society of News Design, a well-known visual journalism organization, has adopted a new ethics code in light of recent controversy over the integrity of photojournalism.

This move comes not long after L.A. Times staff photographer Brian Walski was fired for submitting a composite image on assignment in Iraq. At the end of August, Adnan Hajj was also dismissed from Reuters after they discovered he doctored an image to make Israeli attacks on Lebanon seem more severe.

Yet again, the ethics of journalism have been challenged by technology. Photoshop and endless other tools stand at the disposal of visual journalists to use at their discretion - either to display and distribute the actual news, or some altered version that the journalist finds more appealing. The rising number of altered images indicates the fall of the honest photograph. This is a huge issue concerning the internet news community - often just as quickly as images are sent to editors, they are put up on the web without being checked for credibility.

I applaud the development of new codes of ethics. In an endlessly changing multimedia world, the integrity of visual and textual news should be protected.

The British are coming.

2006-09-13T14:59:00.000-04:00

It appears that UK journalists are a little closer to the cutting edge than the old American fogies. The Telegraph recently unveiled a revamped newsroom, boasting virtually unending multimedia capabilities. The paper stands at the forefront of new media by offering RSS feeds, podcasting, Blackberry and mobile hourly updates, and an afternoon PDF. It is a self-proclaimed "online newspaper," yet its print edition has the highest circulation in the UK, according to their own press release.

Pieter Kok, publisher of the Telegraph, said:

"The multimedia approach is quite simple, if customers change their approach to news then we change with them."

Smart business, considering that the newest generations of news consumers aren't too keen on print.

But perhaps the most lucrative feature of the Telegraph's journalistic powerhouse is the e-paper. While the 50-year-olds I know have no idea what a "podcast" even is, I'm sure they would pay for the e-paper with pleasure, which is set up like a regular paper but with extra features. Equally so, those in my generation could find something of interest in the other services offered. Kok also said:

"If you ask a person of 15 years of age or a person of 50 about the news, at the end of the day they know the same amount. It is just that the 50-year-old gets it from newspapers and the 15-year-old grabs information from several places, from Messenger, mobile phones, the internet and TV."

Going for all demographics with varying online features? The British have us beat.

Effortless subject.

2006-09-12T13:50:00.000-04:00

As I scoured the web for my first subject to critique (or, as it tends to be in my case, utterly destroy), I was smacked in the face by an obvious point of contention when attempting to go to boston.com. Bombarding the reader immediately is an ad announcing the opening of a new L.L. Bean store in Burlington. After several minutes, the page failed to load past the ad and I gave up on my attempts to read the news. This brings a new issue to the table in the consideration of journalism of the web - what happened to our ability to see news before ads?

In this modern world of pop-ups and spyware, it seems that internet media, whose appeal is in its convenience, is becoming more and more of a hassle. We already have to accept that we can't walk across a college campus or ride a subway without being bombarded by ads. How much are we willing to put up with to get the news? How much more muddled is the news going to be by the advertising that surrounds it? The business of journalism is closely linked to advertising - always has been. But it seems that journalism, rather than being the dominant in the relationship, is taking a backseat in the online realm.

This also connects into an interesting e-tidbit about ad overload on Poynter, Online Advertising Extravaganza in Norway, highlighting the loss of journalism and how far the advertisers are willing to go. It disappoints me to even see sites like Myspace - which, of course, is no real journalistic enterprise - covered in ads for movies and television. The journalism of the web may be increasingly more accessible, but only if we're willing to sift through ads and thousands of subliminal messages to get to it.

Or, in my case, wait 5 minutes for the L.L. Bean ad to disappear.

2006-09-11T15:50:00.000-04:00

This is the first entry of what shall be many exploring the world of media as it has been transformed by the internet.