Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
23 Views
17:17:02 10/15/11
Occupy Austin Day 8 - Base Camp
[LESS INFO] 23 VIEWS | ADDED 17:17:02 10/15/11
For the first time since demonstrators began the occupation of City Hall eight days ago, some participants have now found themselves behind bars. Four people of the Occupy Austin movement were arrested early Thursday morning after refusing to leave the grounds of City Hall while workers power washed the area. However, it’s nothing but business in the executive boardroom of Occupy Austin. Co-Creators are busy developing an intranet system to reach other like-minded demonstrators across the country. "We kind of just come up here and draw out, 'Where do you think this should go? How can we unite this movement?'" Occupy Austin co-creator Cesar Fuentez said. Thursday’s early morning arrests prompt questions about the future of the movement: How can civil disobedience lead to real democratic change? "Instead of just riding along the side of a battle ship, throwing rocks on the side of the hull and asking the battle ship to change, we're going to build our own battle ship," co-creator Chris Nielson said The group is still working out the specifics and “drafting blue prints,” according to Nielson. "We're currently refining it and it’s taking a little while to do it. But at the end of the day we have to change our socio, political and economic system and that is going to encompass deep reforms," he said. Those deep changes include campaign reform, banking and corporate accountability and closing corporate tax loopholes. Until those goals are reached, creators of Occupy Austin say they won’t be budging an inch. Produced for Austin Indymedia by Jeff Zavala. A ZGraphix Production. http://zgraphix.org My TIP JAR
3 Views
15:52:35 12/27/10
Trashy Tabloid Analysis: Star Sources
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 15:52:35 12/27/10
Star Magazine is the "trashy tabloid" that was first analyzed. Life & Style and in Touch Weekly were purchased at the same time (by a very brave man named Dennis Rose) in order to assist in the Trashy Tabloid Analysis that was previously explained.
It is very hard to get through a single tabloid from cover to cover due to the amount of analysis that needs to be done. There are many things than can be focused on, but from pages 1-39 (out of the 84 pages) the biggest thing noticed within this specific tabloid (this may be true of the others, but the analysis is going to be of each single tabloid and then at the end there can be comparisons)is that there are no sources to the stories.
The pages that have been analyzed thoroughly and read are pages 1-39, so this analysis is only for Star Magazine December 27, 2010 issue pages 1-39 with a focus on credibility of sources.
The magazine claims to have so many "Exclusive Interviews," but the only interview that falls under that category is the interview with Kristen StephensonPino. She tells the magazine all about how Johnny Depp is into her and all sorts of things. Of course, the only other sources credited within that article (titled "Johnny Hits On Teen Model") are anonymous sources. Unfortunately, the magazine mentions that she is a "full natural C-cup" before informing readers that Kristen is 19-years-old. So, the fact that she is a full natural C-cup is clearly more important than how old this "teen model" is. Maybe pages 39-84 will be more impressive.
The other articles all had quotes from "insiders" or "pals." How about going out and finding someone who will go on record so that the article can be credible. That's not journalism - that's laziness. Why should anyone trust what is being said by someone who won't even reveal the name publicly. For all we know the "inside source" is some random person on the street that the "reporter" found.
Then there's the cover story about Ashton Kutcher being involved in a "MURDER SCANDAL."
All right - his ex-girlfriend from many years ago had been murdered, and he will apparently be making statements in court regarding what he knew about her and the alleged killer. Also, the magazine calls the alleged killer a "cold-blooded serial killer" without ever saying "allegedly" or anything that could save face.
The entire article has not even a single interview with Ashton Kutcher. So, it's an article about Ashton Kutcher "being involved in a murder scandal," but the only interviews are a Detective and a "friend."
At least attempt to get an interview from someone credible and then put "*CREDIBLE PERSON* was unable to be reached for comment" or "*CREDIBLE PERSON* refused to comment." Something that shows that the reporter isn't just a lazy person who sits around listening to gossip and interviewing random people on the street. Seriously, I feel bad that Dennis had to pay money for this publication. I am glad that the analysis will be thorough, but honestly. This isn't journalism.
The quote from the friend is: "Ashton's worried sick about taking the witness stand."
That is according to "a friend."
Really? Why don't you go ask Ashton himself.
Why doesn't the friend have a name?
This drove me crazy throughout the entire analysis process - which is why I stopped on page 39. I haven't even gotten to the big Tom Cruise - Katie Holmes cover story yet. Fingers are crossed that there is an actual interview done with Tom or Katie and included within the article. Seriously.
If the only "sources" that your publication has are "friends," "pals," "insiders" and "guests" then either your reporters are lazy or no one wants to go on record - if no one wants to go on record and have their name associated with a quote then GO FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL. Go find someone who is willing to have their name printed in the magazine in attribution to the quote. It's understandable to have maybe one anonymous source every so often, but if the ONLY source in your article is an ANONYMOUS source - then you don't have an article. The blogs on the internet have more research and credible sources than that publication which has a paid staff and has a nice readership.
It would be nice to see demographics and statistics of the readership of Star. There is also an article within the first 39 pages regarding one of the stars of MTV's Teen Mom - something to do with her being pregnant again and not knowing who the father is - that didn't have any sources either...
Nikky Raney reading Star Magazine That's all for pages 1-39.
This magazine was the most expensive of the three. This one was $3.99 and the other two were $2.99, but don't worry there's no sales tax in New Hampshire.
Is this publication trying to be a respected news source or is it content with being filled with gossip and unreliable information? It's sad that magazines like Newsweek are faced with tough times in publication - but magazines like Star are selling no problem. There's something wrong with this picture -- and the Future of Journalism needs to fix it.
Originally Posted at The Future of Journalism
44 Views
11:00:00 05/20/10
Chris Thorpe: Future of Newspapers
[LESS INFO] 44 VIEWS | ADDED 11:00:00 05/20/10
The Guardian UK's Chris Thorpe on garnering a new audience in the digital world.
24 Views
23:01:48 05/03/10
Final Project The Future Of Journalism And Its Coverage Rachel Lutz Jrnl10
[LESS INFO] 24 VIEWS | ADDED 23:01:48 05/03/10
Whether it is for better or for worse, the future of the journalism field is changing. Professionals in both the print and media aspects gave their thoughts to the coverage and outlook of the craft. They didn't necessarily agree, but both Sara Haines and Bill Canacci responded to the questions with valid points. (Video by Rachel Lutz)
2 Views
00:24:22 04/30/10
Final Project The Future Of Journalism Hofstra University Jrnl 10
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 00:24:22 04/30/10
Whether it is for better or for worse, the future of the journalism field is changing. Professionals in both the print and media aspects gave their thoughts to the coverage and outlook of the craft. They didn't necessarily agree, but both Sara Haines and Bill Canacci responded to the questions with valid points. (Video by Rachel Lutz)
4 Views
22:39:49 03/18/09
Not Quite the Future of Newspapers
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 22:39:49 03/18/09
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Although it was billed as "The Future of Newspapers," last week's panel discussion at Columbia University's Journalism School didn't exactly seem to fit that description. Attendee Marcie Young, a 2006 graduate of Columbia J school, grilled panelists about why she and so many other reporters were losing their jobs in newsroom downsizings. She was told to get used to the idea that young reporters like herself were not going to be able work in the profession that they trained for.
16 Views
15:39:49 03/18/09
Not Quite the Future of Newspapers
[LESS INFO] 16 VIEWS | ADDED 15:39:49 03/18/09
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Although it was billed as "The Future of Newspapers," last week's panel discussion at Columbia University's Journalism School didn't exactly seem to fit that description. Attendee Marcie Young, a 2006 graduate of Columbia J school, grilled panelists about why she and so many other reporters were losing their jobs in newsroom downsizings. She was told to get used to the idea that young reporters like herself were not going to be able work in the profession that they trained for.
2 Views
02:51:17 03/13/09
Hearst's Answer to Newspapers' Dilemma: Charge Readers More
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 02:51:17 03/13/09
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Newspaper readers have long paid less than it actually costs to deliver the product to their homes. And now, as newspaper companies struggle to survive, those readers should pay the real costs of that service. That was one of the suggestions made by Hearst Newspapers president Steven Swartz at this week's Future of Newspapers Panel. That event at Columbia University's Journalism School explored the dire straits in which print publishers like Swartz find themselves.
17 Views
19:51:17 03/12/09
Hearst's Answer to Newspapers' Dilemma: Charge Readers More
[LESS INFO] 17 VIEWS | ADDED 19:51:17 03/12/09
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Newspaper readers have long paid less than it actually costs to deliver the product to their homes. And now, as newspaper companies struggle to survive, those readers should pay the real costs of that service. That was one of the suggestions made by Hearst Newspapers president Steven Swartz at this week's Future of Newspapers Panel. That event at Columbia University's Journalism School explored the dire straits in which print publishers like Swartz find themselves.
6 Views
04:52:31 02/19/06
Video: Government Bypasses Press
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 04:52:31 02/19/06
Video essay in response to Jay Rosen's "Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy" bog post -- featuring Chris Nolan, Mindy Finn, Hugh Hewitt, John H. Brown, Don Beck, Steve Rubel, Merrill Brown, Tom Rosenstiel, Congressman Rob Simmons, and a virtual Jay Rosen.
You can listen to the full entire audio for some of the interviews -- and read the full transcript for the others.
Subscribe to this feed for future videos .
Subscribe to this feed to download all audio interviews posted so far.
Music: On The Moon (Trip Hop mix) by disharmonic
Here's a Windows Media version.
Full Transcript and Further thoughts are down below...
>
KENT BYE: The fact that Dick Cheney decided to inform the local newspaper instead of going through the national press when he accidentally shot a man -- this indicates that there's a fundamental shift in the power dynamic between the press and the government.
Now NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen says that, "Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain."
This is a trend that Chris Nolan first observed during the 2004 election
CHRIS NOLAN (Spot-on.com): The idea that you can talk directly to voters past big media was a big, big part of the Republican campaign this past year. I think that that's a very little noticed and a very little appreciated fact. They treated the media as another constituent group like the tobacco lobby or whatever.
MINDY FINN (Republican National Committee, Deputy eCampaign Director): Where our opportunities are -- are through talk radio and through the Internet. And we found that was our best means for communicating our message -- to kind of cut through the mainstream media filter. And also, that there are so many cable channels now that those stations don't have the reach that they used to. And certainly the major networks don't have the reach that they used to.
CHRIS NOLAN (Spot-on.com): To a large extent, people bought it. And the people that were the most upset -- the people who complained the loudest were the big media people, and nobody really took up their cause. So I'd say that's a sign that something's changed in a big way.
KENT BYE: Something has changed -- The mainstream media is seen as less relevant, and politicians are more powerful.
HUGH HEWITT (Talk Radio Host & Blogger): What the blogosphere and the Internet have done to the Mainstream Media is just what Luther did to Rome, which was to -- not only to go around the gates, but to shatter them. There are no more gates. Now it's just a question of "What's true?" and "What's objective?" -- not what is an elite's understanding of the former.
KENT BYE: What's True and What's Objective is still a really big open question in our society. And I think it's going to come from some combination of traditional journalism, but also blogging -- and even collaborative media which is what I'm working on.
So let's take a look at this issue from the perspective of a politician.
CONGRESSMAN ROB SIMMONS (R-CT): If you look at the American media, and how it covers politics -- you basically interview a politician, take -- if it's TV -- take one or two sound bites, and build a story around that sound bite. If you look at radio, you allow that same political figure 15 or 20 minutes perhaps on a radio show -- a call-in to explain their position on a certain issue. If you look at the print media, depending on the nature of the interview, the journalist will take some quotes and build a story around it. But it's all based pretty much on what that one individual is saying, and then on how those words are interpreted by the journalist.
KENT BYE: So talk radio and new media provide politicians an opportunity to talk at length without having to be
filtered through the lens of an objective news story.
Well, that's great for them, but what about the public interest?
Who's going to be holding the politicians accountable when the only organizations they're going to be talking to are going to be those who are sympathetic to their message.
Steve Rubel talks about the dynamic between public relations and journalism.
STEVE RUBEL (MicroPersuasion.com): The public interest is important, but I think that that's more important to a journalist than it is to the PR professional. PR professional is less concerned with public interest, and more concerned with doing results that are going to get paid for. And where the journalists and the folks in this room where I stand here, they're definitely worrying about the public interest. And ultimately, they're going to decide what's best for the public, not us.
KENT BYE: But now that the politicians can completely bypass the journalists, they're free to focus on their own self-interest, which is mainly to preserve their political power. This has created a very polarized political culture, which is then amplified by the mainstream media.
DON BECK (National Values Center): The Mainstream Media is simple a reflection of the mainstream value structures in a society, particularly in our political class, which is obviously is the "Win at any costs" and be reelected, using often "Us versus Them" polarity -- "From the Left / From the Right," "Conservative/ Liberal" to divide people in like Blue States and Red States, and so forth. So when one looks at the problems in a society, obviously the dominant media will convey those codes, and when it looks like many of those behaviors tend to make things worse.
MERRILL BROWN (Media Consultant): What this country needs, from my point of view, in addition to a skeptical, hard-working news media, is a political system in which members of party in power feel free and have the political courage to stand up and speak up when things aren't going well in their parties. And this applies to both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats who were unwilling to speak up about the failures of the Clintons -- the Clintons in particular, and the administration more generally. Same thing is true now. There's a lot of Republican -- members of the Republican leadership who realize how inept this administration has handled some number of issues, and yet the political dissent and the dialogue from those people in places of power in the Republican party doesn't happen.
KENT BYE: Without this internal dissent, our political system has turned into an all-out cultural war where short-term political gains for either the Democrats or the Republicans is more important than anything else.
JOHN H. BROWN (State Department Employee who Resigned to Protest Iraq War): These are people who think in narrow, political, day-to-day terms -- who are absolutely parochial in their thinking. What’s important is "Winning The Game", and the game is American Politics.
KENT BYE: We have a political culture where winning trumps compromise, where debate trumps dialogue, where polarization trumps consensus.
STEVE RUBEL (Micropersusasion.com) The political environment for PR is much more about spin & influence, and the message of the day, and "How do you get it out?" It's very reactive. It's trying to take what's already coming at you -- and issues -- and then making sure that you shape your position on it.
ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE: On the Federal Level, the war between government and press is one of unequal firepower. The government spends nearly half a billion dollars a year, and employs thousands of people in Public Relations, Public Information, Public Image Making, and Public Obfuscation. In the Executive Branch, all of them -- all of those people, all of that torrent of information, all of those Xerox machines -- can be controlled by the White House. A President's personal power to dominate the news is beyond measure.
TOM ROSENSTIEL (Committee for Concerned Journalists): They understand our tendencies better than we understand them ourselves. They understand our weaknesses better than we understand them ourselves.
KENT BYE: So the media is being manipulated by politicians who understand how the media work better than they do themselves.
Jay Rosen agrees by saying that the White House "correctly guessed that if it changed the game on you, you wouldn’t develop a new game of your own, or be able to react... They sensed that the old press system was weakened." And that essentially, "they knew you wouldn’t react because to do so would look 'too political.”"
So politicians currently have an upper hand over the media as far as setting the terms of the discourse for the country.
So where do we go from here?
I think collaborative media actually has a lot of potential in this area, and that's what I'm working on here at The Echo Chamber Project.
But the question is, "Can new media put the power back into the hands of citizens?"
MERRILL BROWN : So I don't think there's going to be fundamental political change any time soon. But I do think -- as in all things -- we go through cycles. And we're in a cycle today where the political discourse is of a certain kind. And I think we're moving -- and will move very quickly between now and the next Presidential election to have a much broader discussion about our national sensibility, our national priorities, the nature of political discourse, dissent and dialogue. And I think media, the blogosphere, and the democratization of thought in this country has a lot to offer in that regard.
THEORY OF THE COLLABORATIVE MEDIA SOLUTION
I believe that collaborative media that is able to mediate the relative truths and falsehoods within the many different perspectives has the potential to overcome the anomalies within the existing journalistic paradigm.
What I've done is to interview as broad and diverse range of experts talking about a particular issue (i.e. pre-war performance of the media), and then my intention is to have an even broader and more diverse range of participants participate in adding context and meaning to this gathered knowledge
Facts and information do not become knowledge for individual citizens until they have put within a personalized context. The intention behind the use of the information will determine how it is processed and applied, and there have been many innovations over the last couple of years that are able to make these contexts more explicit on an individual level while also yielding significant network effects of social behavior.
This is specifically achieved through mechanisms of folksonomy tags, comment threads, allowing users to dynamically remix audio and video into playlists, allowing people to listen to the entire interviews as podcasts, as well as allowing the reuse of the material through liberal Creative Commons-licensing.
So the three practical steps for journalism would be: >
* Collect interviews from experts on issues that are of importance
* Parse the information into granular sound bites.
* Publish these sound bites online in a way that they can be easily sequenced and recontextualized into larger meanings.
This is what I've been building with this collaborative filmmaking infrastructure , and all of the puzzle pieces now exist -- but they still need to be put together.
So I've gathered 86 interviews up to this point , and I have quite a body of sound bites from knowledgeable experts -- You can download the 40+ interviews that I've posted already with this feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/EchoChamberProjectInterviewAudio
I hope that this video comment can demonstrate the capacity for creating a system that allows other people to easily juxtapose streams of facts and sound bites together to achieve a larger meaning.
