Friday, April 27, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
Al Jazeera English
I believe the U.S. government should allow the Al Jazeera English channel to be broadcasted for three reasons. Firstly, since the channel reports news in the viewpoint of the Middle East, it allows Americans to understand more about them and maybe can correct their bias towards Middle East people.
Secondly, if not letting the channel to be broadcasted, the government will violate the First Amendment freedom of speech. Middle East people also have the right to speak if they are operating the channel legally.
Thirdly, as a non-American who lives in America, I think banning the channel just because its name contains an "Al" and relates it to terrorism will be too superficial and is an extremely racial discrimination action. There are numerous Chinese, Japanese and Spanish channels in America, so why not a Middle East one?
However, I think launching the channel through Internet may not be enough to reach the U.S. audience. People may certainly notice the existence of the channel if their promotion is big enough in the Internet, but whether people will pay to watch it is another matter. I am not an American, so I do not have negative feeling towards Middle East people, but I know many Americans do.
After I have gone through the website of Al Jazeera English website, I found its news can adhere to its Ethic of Codes, especially the sixth one, "Recognise diversity in human societies with all their races, cultures and beliefs and their values and intrinsic individualities in order to present unbiased and faithful reflection of them."
The diversity of the news coverage really surprise me. Besides its coverage on Middle East events, it is able to cover other international news fairly. They even can cover those very local news of other countries, such as a news about illegal blood sellling in China.
Moreover, I believe they succeed in reporting news about the intrinsic values about human being, which I like this point very much. In the site, there is a news about an French anti-immigrant campaign leader visited a multiracial Paris suburb. In this article, the journalist, rather than focus on what the leader do, focus on the reaction of the public. Sometimes I believe when we look at the major newspaper, the journalists focus too much on what the politics do but ignore how the public think. The Al Jazeera succeeds in looking the intrinsic of the society - common people.
Secondly, if not letting the channel to be broadcasted, the government will violate the First Amendment freedom of speech. Middle East people also have the right to speak if they are operating the channel legally.
Thirdly, as a non-American who lives in America, I think banning the channel just because its name contains an "Al" and relates it to terrorism will be too superficial and is an extremely racial discrimination action. There are numerous Chinese, Japanese and Spanish channels in America, so why not a Middle East one?
However, I think launching the channel through Internet may not be enough to reach the U.S. audience. People may certainly notice the existence of the channel if their promotion is big enough in the Internet, but whether people will pay to watch it is another matter. I am not an American, so I do not have negative feeling towards Middle East people, but I know many Americans do.
After I have gone through the website of Al Jazeera English website, I found its news can adhere to its Ethic of Codes, especially the sixth one, "Recognise diversity in human societies with all their races, cultures and beliefs and their values and intrinsic individualities in order to present unbiased and faithful reflection of them."
The diversity of the news coverage really surprise me. Besides its coverage on Middle East events, it is able to cover other international news fairly. They even can cover those very local news of other countries, such as a news about illegal blood sellling in China.
Moreover, I believe they succeed in reporting news about the intrinsic values about human being, which I like this point very much. In the site, there is a news about an French anti-immigrant campaign leader visited a multiracial Paris suburb. In this article, the journalist, rather than focus on what the leader do, focus on the reaction of the public. Sometimes I believe when we look at the major newspaper, the journalists focus too much on what the politics do but ignore how the public think. The Al Jazeera succeeds in looking the intrinsic of the society - common people.
Frontline Assignment
The biggest impression I have after watching the FRONTLINE video is how Internet is gradually replacing the traditional news platform. According to a study shown in the video by New York University, a majority of Americans under age 25 get their news online or from programs like Comedy Central's The Daily Show.
In addition, Jeff Fager, the executive producer of 60 Minutes, when talking about CBS's partnership with Yahoo! News said,"I mean, you don't see anybody between 20 and 30 getting their news from the evening news; you see them getting it online."
I agree in the future, there may be less and less people relay on traditional daily newspaper or broadcast news network to obtain news. However, I think this does not mean news is going to die; in fact, I believe news is not changing, only the channel used to deliver news changes.
The public still needs journalists to report news for them. But just because Internet is a more convenient channel for them, they give up newspaper and broadcast news network. In fact, I think media also needs to adopot and improve with the technology advance. If people believe Internet is a better channel, why don't the news corporations change themselves for the people?
There is no point to insist only traditional newspapers and broadcast news network are the so-called "formal" news if nobody watches them. Journalists and news still remain important to people, what is changing is only the channel.
Therefore, I agree very much with Google CEO Eric Schmidt when he said Internet news provider in fact rely on traditional news agent very much. "We're in fact critically dependent upon the success of these newspapers. We don't write the content. We're not in the content business. So anything that screws up their economics, that causes them to get rid of reporters, is a really bad thing."
In addition, Jeff Fager, the executive producer of 60 Minutes, when talking about CBS's partnership with Yahoo! News said,"I mean, you don't see anybody between 20 and 30 getting their news from the evening news; you see them getting it online."
I agree in the future, there may be less and less people relay on traditional daily newspaper or broadcast news network to obtain news. However, I think this does not mean news is going to die; in fact, I believe news is not changing, only the channel used to deliver news changes.
The public still needs journalists to report news for them. But just because Internet is a more convenient channel for them, they give up newspaper and broadcast news network. In fact, I think media also needs to adopot and improve with the technology advance. If people believe Internet is a better channel, why don't the news corporations change themselves for the people?
There is no point to insist only traditional newspapers and broadcast news network are the so-called "formal" news if nobody watches them. Journalists and news still remain important to people, what is changing is only the channel.
Therefore, I agree very much with Google CEO Eric Schmidt when he said Internet news provider in fact rely on traditional news agent very much. "We're in fact critically dependent upon the success of these newspapers. We don't write the content. We're not in the content business. So anything that screws up their economics, that causes them to get rid of reporters, is a really bad thing."
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Second Life assignment
Second Life is a 3-D internet-based virtual world which was launched at 2003 by Linden Lab and recently catches media’s attentions. This program basically enables its users, which is called “Resident,” to create their own identities by making a new last name and first name . This corresponds with the name of this program, which means giving a second life to its users. Residents in this program can build their own communities while explore others. They can also interact, socialize, and even hold conference with other residents.
This program attracts much attentions recently because some major corporations of different fields in the world establish their communities in it. Examples are Reuters, Harvard Law School, Adidas Reebok, Dell, GAP and Toyota. Reuters sets up a news bureau which reports news in the visual universe. Dell opens a shop to sell its computers through the Second Life. Harvard Law School offers a course called “CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion” in 2006 within the Second Life. Even John Edwards establishes his official campaign in this program to promote himself.
Although Second Life gains much popularity because many major corporations are employing Second Life to extent their business, this program still receives some critics. Firstly, because this program requires high quality internet connection and new computer program to meet its settings, not many normal people can afford to use it. And users often experience crash if their computers are not up-to-date or if many users log in the program. Secondly, there are some moral controversies about the content of Second Life because it contains communities about sex and gambling. Although only these contents only exist in PG and Mature regions, people under 18 still can enter because it is difficult to know the real age of the user through internet.
This program attracts much attentions recently because some major corporations of different fields in the world establish their communities in it. Examples are Reuters, Harvard Law School, Adidas Reebok, Dell, GAP and Toyota. Reuters sets up a news bureau which reports news in the visual universe. Dell opens a shop to sell its computers through the Second Life. Harvard Law School offers a course called “CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion” in 2006 within the Second Life. Even John Edwards establishes his official campaign in this program to promote himself.
Although Second Life gains much popularity because many major corporations are employing Second Life to extent their business, this program still receives some critics. Firstly, because this program requires high quality internet connection and new computer program to meet its settings, not many normal people can afford to use it. And users often experience crash if their computers are not up-to-date or if many users log in the program. Secondly, there are some moral controversies about the content of Second Life because it contains communities about sex and gambling. Although only these contents only exist in PG and Mature regions, people under 18 still can enter because it is difficult to know the real age of the user through internet.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
The Website of USA Today
I have never been to the USA Today website before the re-conceptualized site come out. I read some people’s comments about the renovation of the site and found most of them are negative. I disagree with most of them. Having read through the site, I think in general, it looks informative and easy to use. However, I think the layout is not appealing and it does not look like a traditional newspaper’s site.
I found the site easy to navigate. Basically, I can see a summary of the whole site on the front page and am able to go everywhere I want from there. When I move my mouse on some photos, I am able to read their stories, and this function is convenient for me. And links to different sections of the paper are in obvious location of the front page, which makes you almost impossible to get lose. However, one thing I do not like is I think the headlines on the right hand side of the front page are not presented in a clear way. I think USA Today should locate headlines according to the sections they belong, but not the time they come out. It confuses me when I want to search a particular kind of news articles.
Though I believe the site is easy to navigate, I dislike its layout. I think it is unwise to use black-and-white color as its main tone. That will bore its readers and make them want to close the site. In addition, the site should consider enlarging the size of the words and changing the fonts because the size-eight black Arial is boring. I look at the New York Times and Washington Post websites, and both of them are using Times New Roman, which are easier to read. Moreover, I believe the multiple advertisements located on the front page randomly are awkward. Readers will feel being disturbed while they are going through the site. Advertisement can be placed on the side of the page, but should never locate in the middle of the text.
Moreover, I think traditional reporting no more dominant the USA Today website. The website contains videos, photo galleries and blogs, which all aim to assist its readers to better understand the news. In addition, in contrast to traditional reporting, in which information flow is usually one-way, which is from the news corporation to the readers, now the website allows its readers and the editors to interact with each other? Readers can leave comments on the site to reflect what they are thinking. Multi-media journalism has replaced traditional reporting now.
After reading through the website, I in general disagree with the negative points mentioned by other readers. I think it is informative, updated, and easy to navigate. Though the layout still has some problems, it can be easily fixed. And though now the website diverges from traditional journalism, we should gladly accept this change because multi-media can really help readers to get their news more effectively.
I found the site easy to navigate. Basically, I can see a summary of the whole site on the front page and am able to go everywhere I want from there. When I move my mouse on some photos, I am able to read their stories, and this function is convenient for me. And links to different sections of the paper are in obvious location of the front page, which makes you almost impossible to get lose. However, one thing I do not like is I think the headlines on the right hand side of the front page are not presented in a clear way. I think USA Today should locate headlines according to the sections they belong, but not the time they come out. It confuses me when I want to search a particular kind of news articles.
Though I believe the site is easy to navigate, I dislike its layout. I think it is unwise to use black-and-white color as its main tone. That will bore its readers and make them want to close the site. In addition, the site should consider enlarging the size of the words and changing the fonts because the size-eight black Arial is boring. I look at the New York Times and Washington Post websites, and both of them are using Times New Roman, which are easier to read. Moreover, I believe the multiple advertisements located on the front page randomly are awkward. Readers will feel being disturbed while they are going through the site. Advertisement can be placed on the side of the page, but should never locate in the middle of the text.
Moreover, I think traditional reporting no more dominant the USA Today website. The website contains videos, photo galleries and blogs, which all aim to assist its readers to better understand the news. In addition, in contrast to traditional reporting, in which information flow is usually one-way, which is from the news corporation to the readers, now the website allows its readers and the editors to interact with each other? Readers can leave comments on the site to reflect what they are thinking. Multi-media journalism has replaced traditional reporting now.
After reading through the website, I in general disagree with the negative points mentioned by other readers. I think it is informative, updated, and easy to navigate. Though the layout still has some problems, it can be easily fixed. And though now the website diverges from traditional journalism, we should gladly accept this change because multi-media can really help readers to get their news more effectively.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Journalism Convergence
Ownership convergence, which is one type of journalism convergence, started gaining its popularity in recent 10 years. It generally means one big corporation owns several means of media at the same time, such as television stations, radio stations, newspapers, websites, and other media channels. One of the main reasons ownership convergence appears is the merit of economies of scale, and News Corporation and the Hearst Corporation are examples of such convergence.
Ownership convergence enjoys economies of scales because it helps big corporations to minimize their expenses while enables them to gain larger share of audience. For example, the Hearst Corporation spreads itself in different means of media. It owns newspapers such as Seattle Post-Intelligence and San Francsico Chronicle, magazines such as Marie Claire and Good Housekeeping, and cable networks like A&E Television Networks and Cosmopolitan TV.
The situation is similar in News Corporation's case. This corporation owns television channels like FOX Broadcasting Company and STAR, cable networks like FOX Movie Channel and FOX Reality, newspaper like New York Post, book publishers like the HarperCollins Publishers and magazines like the Weekly Standard and the TV Guide.
Both the News Corporation and The Hearst Corporation spread their branches into different means of media, and by doing so, they can practice the economies of scale effectively. For example, they can share resources, such as offices, reporters and accountants, among members of their branches and able to gain customers in different fields. In addition, corporations can save much money by advertising their products in the channels or magazines of their own branches in a cheaper price.
However, despite the economies of scale provided by ownership convergence to the corporations, this kind of management leads to many controversies, and one of these is the fear of a few individuals or corporations control most of the media. Many are afraid these media owners will try to preserve their satisfied status quos or to make more profits by filtering out unfavorable news and presenting only the good sides of the corporations to the public.
Another critic to ownership convergence is big corporations will make the small media companies difficult to survive, and thus the public can hear fewer voices. Economies of scale enable big corporations to earn more, but at the same time, small companies who cannot enjoy this benefit find it more and more difficult to compete with the big ones. These small companies will either close or, and purchased by the big ones, and finally, the public can only hear the big corporations' voices, which results in getting less information and choices.
Ownership convergence is an unavoidable condition in the future; big corporations want to make more money through it and in most time success. They will even make more especially after internet gains its popularity internatioanlly because in this way, they will not be limited to the United States and are able to reach almost everyone around the world through their media channels. However, the problem of such convergence is it is easy for the big corporations to cover the unwanted information, leading the public having less and less choices.
Ownership convergence enjoys economies of scales because it helps big corporations to minimize their expenses while enables them to gain larger share of audience. For example, the Hearst Corporation spreads itself in different means of media. It owns newspapers such as Seattle Post-Intelligence and San Francsico Chronicle, magazines such as Marie Claire and Good Housekeeping, and cable networks like A&E Television Networks and Cosmopolitan TV.
The situation is similar in News Corporation's case. This corporation owns television channels like FOX Broadcasting Company and STAR, cable networks like FOX Movie Channel and FOX Reality, newspaper like New York Post, book publishers like the HarperCollins Publishers and magazines like the Weekly Standard and the TV Guide.
Both the News Corporation and The Hearst Corporation spread their branches into different means of media, and by doing so, they can practice the economies of scale effectively. For example, they can share resources, such as offices, reporters and accountants, among members of their branches and able to gain customers in different fields. In addition, corporations can save much money by advertising their products in the channels or magazines of their own branches in a cheaper price.
However, despite the economies of scale provided by ownership convergence to the corporations, this kind of management leads to many controversies, and one of these is the fear of a few individuals or corporations control most of the media. Many are afraid these media owners will try to preserve their satisfied status quos or to make more profits by filtering out unfavorable news and presenting only the good sides of the corporations to the public.
Another critic to ownership convergence is big corporations will make the small media companies difficult to survive, and thus the public can hear fewer voices. Economies of scale enable big corporations to earn more, but at the same time, small companies who cannot enjoy this benefit find it more and more difficult to compete with the big ones. These small companies will either close or, and purchased by the big ones, and finally, the public can only hear the big corporations' voices, which results in getting less information and choices.
Ownership convergence is an unavoidable condition in the future; big corporations want to make more money through it and in most time success. They will even make more especially after internet gains its popularity internatioanlly because in this way, they will not be limited to the United States and are able to reach almost everyone around the world through their media channels. However, the problem of such convergence is it is easy for the big corporations to cover the unwanted information, leading the public having less and less choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)