Four years ago: “Salon (justifiably) brags that they’ve matured to the point where they could send a reporter to Yugoslavia. But the web was already there. People on the ground all over the world. Some of them are great writers and have passion for the truth and aren’t serving the same masters that the bigtimes at WSJ, NYT and CNN.
Recently someone (I unfortunately can’t remember who) put forward the idea of collectively putting together enough money to send a truly independent journalist to Iraq during the war. This post – that Dave made 4 years ago – points out that this is the wrong approach. Instead we should have been searching for a person in or near Iraq to be the journalist.
And we would have been getting the added bonus of having someone who’s ideas are not coloured by the Western view of the world (we would still need to find an independent and reliable journalist, but any journalist from the West is going to be endowed with a certain world view that is not always constructive).
This is where technology can help. It’s where the folks at WITNESS are at, to give voice to local communities, and help to amplify that voice to a greater audience.
Diego reports on AOL’s cries poor over the FCC rule that stops it from providing video over IM until it opens up it’s IM network to competitors.
From the NY Times article Diego points to:
As a condition of approving AOL’s acquisition of Time Warner, the Federal Communications Commission imposed a restriction making it harder for AOL to offer video connections to instant messaging users if it did not link its instant messaging networks with those of competitors. … AOL has not yet opened its system to those competitors, …
Does anyone else see the privacy implications of technology like this? Sure, at a conference, it’s a great piece of fun, what about when it crosses into the “real world”? BTW, not bagging the technology – just had that thought…
The FCC proposal remains officially secret to avoid public comment but was forced into the open by the two commission Democrats. It would end the ban in most cities of cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers, allowing such companies as The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune to gobble up ever more electronic outlets. It would permit Viacom, Disney and AOL Time Warner to control TV stations with nearly half the national audience. In the largest cities, it would allow owners of “only” two TV stations to buy a third.
Jeremy Zawodny: “… blogs were not designed to outsmart Google. They just happen to use the web and hyperlinks the way we should have been using them all along. Now they’re being penalized for that, it seems.” [via Scripting News]
Glenn Reynolds: “… here’s the deal: if you think that concentration in Old Media is okay because New Media will provide the discipline, then stand up for freeing the New Media from the shackles that the Old Media are trying to weld on.” [via Scripting News]