Those interested in the citizen journalism are aware of the success of the site OhMyNews out of South Korea, that is widely credited with influencing the outcome of South Korean presidential elections in 2002.
Those interested in media and publishing, know that micro-publishing (publishing of information targeted at a very local, community audience) has been an elusive trend in the publishing industry, yet something that has been tried over and over again.
At Neaju, we are currently watching development of micro-publishing effort by a Texas town and the effect it is having on a local mayor race.
The town is Frisco, TX. Surprisingly (or not) it is a relatively active cyber town. With population of about 100,000, it has a local discussion forum, Frisco On-Line, which according to the site, receives about 200,000 visitors and 3,000,000 page views per month. So maybe it is not so surprising that as a whole, the community is starting to embrace the concept of citizen journalism.
The town is preparing for the election of two new City Council Members, but most importantly, Frisco's next mayor. The race seems to be between two candidates - Matt Lafata and Maher Maso. Lafata is a a current member of the Frisco City Council while Maso was term-limited out after serving many years as both City Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem. Both seem to enjoy wide support. Yet it is Maso's campaign that seems to be taking citizen journalism seriously and apparently reaping some early rewards.
The Unofficial Maher Maso Channel has been one of the first ones created on Neaju, and articles in support for Maso's candidacy have been appearing from the early days (altmost 2 months now ).
Yet over the last few weeks, the frequency of reports has been intensified, and some interesting information is starting to surface about the second candidate - Matt Lafata. Apparently, citizens are using the Freedom of Information act to obtain information about Matt, and uncover irregularities. A number of stories have been posted on Neaju relating to this issue, including one that questions Lafata's finances.
Whatever happens in this race, it is encouraging to see such a wide participation on a local level, albeit in support of a single candidate, and hey, maybe Neaju will be credited with influencing mayoral elections in Frisco, and maybe we'll get the first interview with the new Mayor, much like OhMyNews did. Regardless, what's happening in Frisco is further proof that citizen journalism is alive, well, and very powerful.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why I generally hate the traditional media
I really do generally hate the traditional media. The reason why I say "generally" because the definition of a traditional media is "generally" broad. Obviously the CNNs, and Foxes, and New York Times of the world are considered traditional, but then we get into National Enquirer, and National Review, and other national, regional or otherwise publications, with or without the online presence, and what do you call traditional anyway?
But that isn't what this post is about. It is about the much damage that media does to the public opinion in their race to save their failing business models and make a buck.
Few weeks ago, I was in Las Vegas for a tradeshow, and on the way back, I got an SMS from a friend who was watching CNN and the big headline was the terrorist scare in Las Vegas. As I am driving down the strip and reading the message, I am dumbfounded - what is that all about. So I ask my friend (the passenger) to look up what's going on. He naturally finds the ricin story, and even an indication on CNN online that authorities believe there is no connection between ricin and any terrorist activity. Yet, CNN felt compelled to headline their TV story with an obviously false, and provocative title. As liberal as they are perceived, CNN this time sided with the President Bush in provoking fear? Although I wanted to make a post on that, I was too busy the past few weeks and sort of let it drop. Until today.
I open up my browser, and the first thing I see is the headline from NY Times: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring". As I read the article, it obviously became clear that he solicited a prostitute. Further reading on the topic has uncovered similar stories about Gov. Spitzer's "involvement" with a prostitution ring.
Let me be perfectly clear on this - I applauded Mr. Spitzer for the work he did as an US attorney, I supported his bid for the governor, and I think he deserves absolutely everything that is coming to him because of what he did - all of the family troubles, political exile, public ridiculing, and eternal damnation.
But the post is not about the Governor, but the low-life tactics used by the New York Times, and others, to bring this story to life. Naturally, the editors and writers in these fine establishments will argue that "involved" has many different meanings. In theory, they will be correct, but practically speaking, they have suggested that Gov. Spitzer was somehow part of the ring - managed it, invested in it, covered it, whatever - but he was involved, which is how most of us read the headline anyway. Soliciting a prostitute is not the same as being involved in a prostitution ring. Heck, I'd even allow that someone may do so in a moment of weakness, but being involved in the operation is a long standing deliberate act that violates at least 2 dozen or so US and international laws.
But what does NY Times care? Even though a headline of "Eliot Spitzer Solicited a Prostitute" would have been enough to draw attention and readership, and would have displayed at least some adherence to journalistic principles, they are after shock-and-awe affect, they are after blowing up an elephant out of a fly (as we used to say in Russia), and they are continuing their tradition of .. supporting lies in journalism.
So the CNN and NY Times others have made a mistake where I (or otherwise) could call them out on it. But what if it something that we cannot possibly confirm or deny. How are we to trust them on something exclusive, if they make such a blatant disregard of truth in their daily operations? Imagine if the hundreds of thousands were watching their TVs in Las Vegas instead of sleeping off their hangovers or playing the slots, and actually saw what CNN said about Las Vegas? Imagine the theories that will pop-up now as a result of Times calling Spitzer's act of solicitation an "involvement"?
Unbelievable, yet expected ....
But that isn't what this post is about. It is about the much damage that media does to the public opinion in their race to save their failing business models and make a buck.
Few weeks ago, I was in Las Vegas for a tradeshow, and on the way back, I got an SMS from a friend who was watching CNN and the big headline was the terrorist scare in Las Vegas. As I am driving down the strip and reading the message, I am dumbfounded - what is that all about. So I ask my friend (the passenger) to look up what's going on. He naturally finds the ricin story, and even an indication on CNN online that authorities believe there is no connection between ricin and any terrorist activity. Yet, CNN felt compelled to headline their TV story with an obviously false, and provocative title. As liberal as they are perceived, CNN this time sided with the President Bush in provoking fear? Although I wanted to make a post on that, I was too busy the past few weeks and sort of let it drop. Until today.
I open up my browser, and the first thing I see is the headline from NY Times: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring". As I read the article, it obviously became clear that he solicited a prostitute. Further reading on the topic has uncovered similar stories about Gov. Spitzer's "involvement" with a prostitution ring.
Let me be perfectly clear on this - I applauded Mr. Spitzer for the work he did as an US attorney, I supported his bid for the governor, and I think he deserves absolutely everything that is coming to him because of what he did - all of the family troubles, political exile, public ridiculing, and eternal damnation.
But the post is not about the Governor, but the low-life tactics used by the New York Times, and others, to bring this story to life. Naturally, the editors and writers in these fine establishments will argue that "involved" has many different meanings. In theory, they will be correct, but practically speaking, they have suggested that Gov. Spitzer was somehow part of the ring - managed it, invested in it, covered it, whatever - but he was involved, which is how most of us read the headline anyway. Soliciting a prostitute is not the same as being involved in a prostitution ring. Heck, I'd even allow that someone may do so in a moment of weakness, but being involved in the operation is a long standing deliberate act that violates at least 2 dozen or so US and international laws.
But what does NY Times care? Even though a headline of "Eliot Spitzer Solicited a Prostitute" would have been enough to draw attention and readership, and would have displayed at least some adherence to journalistic principles, they are after shock-and-awe affect, they are after blowing up an elephant out of a fly (as we used to say in Russia), and they are continuing their tradition of .. supporting lies in journalism.
So the CNN and NY Times others have made a mistake where I (or otherwise) could call them out on it. But what if it something that we cannot possibly confirm or deny. How are we to trust them on something exclusive, if they make such a blatant disregard of truth in their daily operations? Imagine if the hundreds of thousands were watching their TVs in Las Vegas instead of sleeping off their hangovers or playing the slots, and actually saw what CNN said about Las Vegas? Imagine the theories that will pop-up now as a result of Times calling Spitzer's act of solicitation an "involvement"?
Unbelievable, yet expected ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)