Hamster on the Beat - The Journalist in the Digital Age
FCC Report on 'Information Needs of Communities"
"The Federal Communications Commission earned its keep this week by coming up with a term for this ever growing set of digital duties: the "hamsterization" of American journalism."
The FCC may have coined the term, but it's long overdue. One of the more egregious moments for me being the suit against a Florida Fox station. Whom, along with Monsanto attempted to coerce two hired investigative reporters to present knowingly false and deceptive information from Monsanto to negate controversy with Bovine Growth Hormone in the cattle and dairy industries (doesn't that beat all, when we do get good investigative reporters, they're censored by their own news agencies).
Sadly, after an initially sane judgment, we got the later nonsense from the appellate side that the journalists were not covered by whistleblowers laws/protection as the new agencies abiding by FCC legislation that isn't actual law.
Read through this some time for a good eye roll:
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
The stuff touched on in this article is really just a flash in the pan when you look at where investigative journalism and integrity are headed when there's profit to be had for petty "hamsterized" reporting or even outright lying. That's ignoring the increasing loss of real local reporting. When I say local reporting, I mean more than a blurb about stinky Bob taking a bath for the first time in 8 months. Worse is that the more spread out the community, the greater the effects of the loss of local programming and news within those communitie
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Has the Internet "hamsterized" journalism?
<>
The FCC's credentials to evaluate the quality of journalism are dubious at best. Anyone who imagines some fantasy of journalistic wonder in the past should go back and spend time reading the newspapers of the 1950's and early 1960's. Even in newspapers like the New York times, the typical content of reporting on subjects of minor importance like the emerging war in Vietnam mainly consisted of repeating the handouts from Pentagon briefings. I doubt that you would be able to find any science reporting that could challenge the quality Ars manages. There is certainly a large quantity of low quality information on the web. But, there is also a significant amount of high quality discussion. You certainly would not find the quality of economics discussion you can hear on CNBC anywhere in the 1960's media. With all of its imperfections the level of quality that Wikipedia manages compares very favorably with the typical standards of the academic world. Of course, there are no standards for the FCC. So there is no real surprise at this kind of self serving hot air.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Has the Internet "hamsterized" journalism?
<>
I've been observing the affects of these conditions for some time now. It shows in the lack of reflection and context in many news and other articles. There was a time when the Times wouldn't publish something until they had time to really check facts, reflect on the meaning of the story, and to place it in its proper context. Sadly, this is sometimes no longer the case.
Also, web-only news sources seem mostly to have taken there cues from populist newspapers and television rather than the quality press. One often sees this with sensationalist headlines, lack of context, poor fact checking, and an inability to properly moderate comments (which shouldn't be allowed in news stories unless they are properly monitored).
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Has the Internet "hamsterized" journalism?
<>
The "always on" nature of the Internet, means that news organisations now feel the need to provide news everywhere, all the time. This means that the desire to be first has now trumped the desire to be right. Once some inefficiencies are ironed out, the trade-off between speed and quality becomes unavailable.
As a result, it becomes a question of demand from us, the audience. I have started hearing with increasing frequency statements along the lines of "why would I want to read yesterday's news in the paper when I can get online accounts of events as they happen?" If that is your preference then it is your preference – you are not wrong, but do not be surprised at the shoddy quality of reporting. People need time to reflect in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is why media produced on a delayed basis weekly (e.g. The Economist) or monthly (e.g. Prospect Magazine) can be an incredibly powerful source of calm, reasoned analysis, and one which demonstrates that many of the stories that initially seemed so important were actually inconsequential.
To reiterate again, however, it is a tradeoff – wait too long to hear about something and you might miss the best time to respond to it. Although, how many of us actually have any desire, need, or capability to actually respond to the news? How were our lives enriched by Balloon Boy?
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Has the Internet "hamsterized" journalism?
<>
Read the article WIRED/Has the Internet ‘Hamsterized’ Journalism?
China Calls Google a "Political Tool"
Let us suppose that all that is suggested about Chinese hackers is true - whether they be rogues, enthusiasts or government agents. Could it be that the outrage known in the West then comes, not so much from the fact that the hacking has been done, but rather from the feeling that we're not quite up to responding tit for tat?
Were it to be true that western countries are not quite up to responding tit for tat, one might ask why it is true.
I have been involved with schools and universities in China for a long time - and before that I was involved with schools and universities in my home country for a long time. What I see is China turning out millions of intelligent (what's tomorrow's Gao Kao enrolment figure, 9,000,000 candidates?), hardworking (and I mean hard work of a quantity and calibre unknown in any western institution I've been associated with) students with superb Mathematical and scientific skills, skills far in advance of anything I see at equivalent levels at home.
Each year, I realize that hundreds of thousands of superb, top-notch students will graduate from China's best universities with fine Mathematical and Scientific skills. And what might the number of such students be annually in western countries?
I work at a level where I am constantly surrounded by China's future. Sadly, though I shout it from the rooftops when I am at home, I really don't think most westerners see, just can't understand, what's coming. It's a tsunami of talent and hard work.
Hence, in a sense, I hope that western countries really have the wind put up them by the Google hacking whether China Inc. is the culprit or not. If it leads western educational institutions to lift their game, if it leads to western students graduating in something more than ego enrichment and media studies or 'business studies', then what a fine thing it will be for everyone.
As for the curious views about the reality of China that seem to be put forth in these columns, I must say that they don't bear much resemblance to what I see around me. Where do people get these ideas from except from a constantly distorting western press. This newspaper has a correspondent in Beijing but I note that his forte seems to be 'what's wrong with China'. It's as if nothing good ever comes out of the country - yet ask anyone who has lived here for a sufficient time to understand the country and you'll hear a very different story indeed.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/China threatens Google over hacking claims
<>
Once again, let's go back to the beginning and look at facts, rather than opinions. The hacking of Google Gmail was first noticed and reported by a young woman in the US who runs a security firm and blog. She watched the activity taking place on the Gmail accounts for months before she wrote anything about it in her blog. Presumably, she thought the stiuation was none of her business. She wasn't being paid to stop it, and thus had no motivation to do so.
From what government officials and businessmen have said, no one takes this situation seriously. No national secrets were compromised, so much is obvious, and a mature, levelheaded tolerance of hacking is just part of life nowadays. Google executives are the only people getting all excited, and they appear driven more by embarrassment than any other rationale. The news media may sensationialize the event to sell more advertising, but the trepassing is not earth-shattering, even so.
I can easily imagine what would happen if Google went too far in its allegations, and gave the Chinese government enough rope to hang them with. The company apha males would find themselves standing in a US court facing a suit for libel so fast they wouldn't have time to drop their jaws. The Chinese government would win, since it's obvious Google has no hard evidence, let alone proof of their scurilous infamy.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/China threatens Google over hacking claims
<>
I run an ISP and consult for another. We get hammered by Chinese IP's daily.
The phishing attack isn't news to me. We have blocked huge east Asian subnets from our network due to this sort of thing.
Seriously, 90% of the attacks that hit both systems are from east Asia.
Rather than spread FUD, why doesn't the Chinese government work to stop the hackers, hmm? Are they completely clueless to what is going on, clueless as to how to stop them or are they just letting it happen?
Read the article DAILY TECH/China threatens Google for speaking out against cyber attacks
<>
This is like the capitulation of the 1930s all over again. In this case, western
businesses are complicit in allowing their technology and market share to be
essentially stolen in the misguided hope that China will allow companes a few
crumbs of business in China’s vast market.
China shares absolutely none of our
values of freedom and fairness; how can anyone or any organization possibly
believe we in the West can engage in fair and honest business or diplomatic
relations with this nation? The western corporations that have flocked to China
are replaying the Trojan Horse story with a new twist; our Trojan Horses
(businesses) in China are being pillaged.
As soon as all of our technology and
business strengths have been appropriated, these companies and western
governments will find themselves trampled underfoot.
Read the article REUTERS/China paper warns Google may pay price for hacking claims
<>
So far it is only an accusation, but there hasn’t been any proof. To avoid
the risk of being labelled as public smear campaign, it is advisable Google
comes clean with proof that such attacks do indeed come from China, and Chinese
government is behind them. Without doing this, even a child can see through a
potential plot by Google as it has the motivation to take revenge on the Chinese
government for its failure in China.
This is not the first time a Western company launched a public smear campaign
against China, as it is such an easy target because the Chinese government is
not responsive to any international public relations problems.
Remember the lead
paint story by Mattel a few years ago? The fact of the matter was the lead paint
related recalls of their toys only accounted for 10% of the total and 90% was
related to their micro magnet design that lead to children’s injuries. They knew
about the lead paint issue for a long time but didn’t disclose this until they
had recall for micro magnet issues. As a result, the whole country was outraged
by the lead paint issue and very few people paid any attention to the company’s
design problems which is the majority of the recall! This should be a textbook
case study of successful public relations campaign. It was so successful that
the Chairman of the company at that time felt so guilty to China that he
apologized to the whole country afterwards.
I honestly hope this is not the case with Google.
Read the article REUTERS/China paper warns Google may pay price for hacking claims
READ MORE COMMENTS: May 2011
<>
Ho, ho, ho! As a formerly "romanticized" old-school reporter, I beg to differ. Here's the main difference between the "old schoold" and the current reporting. In the old days it was up to the reporter to determine the veracity of information provided by sources. If a source tried to burn the reporter, the reward was a scathing outing of the lies on the front page (or in the front section) of the newspaper.
Nowadays journalism has devolved into He-said, She-said style of reporting. It doesn't matter who said what and whether it's true or not, if you have someone on the record saying something, it's fair game to be in the paper. Now sources lie routinely and get away with it as most of the general public are too overwhelmed or lazy to look it up (think Wikipedia—oh, you mean that isn't always accurate? Uh-oh!).
The other difference between old and new school reporting is that old-school reporters used to try and break convention by finding fresh angles on old stories. Now the object is to run whatever the other guy is running and not be left behind in the deadline cycle. A notable exception to that is the Christian Science Monitor, which provides more analytical coverage of current events.
Oh and press releases? Ha hah. We old schoolers loved press releases, because if the information in them wasn't correct, it was always fun to poke holes in them and expose the lies on the front page of the paper. You don't get that kind of stuff anymore. Now days they run them verbatim.
Old school journalism hasn't been romanticized, it has been extinguished. And we are all worse off as a result
Read the article WIRED/Has the Internet ‘Hamsterized’ Journalism?