I am a more center left independent but I’m also a gun-loving smoker. In the recent elections a proposition went on the ballot that would have raised the price of a pack of smokes to about seven dollars. Killing yourself slowly should not be this expensive. Also one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, is also a huge advocate of gun control. However the biggest supporters of my right to smoke and shoot are on the Republican side.
I know that in the political realm money walks and as I get older I would like to donate some money to a political cause I believe in. So if I don’t want pay more for a Camel and still be able shoot my 40. caliber Springfield XD I must donate money to sympathetic candidate. But who is the white knight that will champion this cause fro cancer sucking gun nuts like myself. As far as I can tell, my hero lies on the Republican side of the aisle.
Over the past 16 years the tobacco industry has donated more than $43 million to members of the Republican Party versus the $14.3 million donated to democrats. Gun rights groups and activists have donated about $15 million to republicans and $2.7 million to democrats over the past 16 years.
This is quite a dilemma because I’m not ready to hand over my money to the republicans anymore than I am ready to give up smoking or let the democrats “pry the gun from my cold dead fingers”. My fence sitting will continue until a Republican candidate presents himself as a social liberal or a Democrat features his collection of assault rifles in his political ads.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Thoughts on new journalism
Camera phones, the internet and other modern technology has helped put more eyes on the ground during news worthy events. Any person, not just journalists, have the power to capture history. This power has been used effectively in the Iraq war.
I compared network broadcast coverage of Iraq to internet coverage. I watched a CBS report on a terrorist attack. The link for the story I watched is
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2365090n
The story was full of heavily edited footage, lasted only a few seconds, and only gave the most pertinent information. The segment was informative but dry.
On the internet I watched homemade video on YouTube. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxx1Lo8fZwQ
This video was shot by truck drivers in a convoy in Iraq. At one point a roadside bomb explodes, followed by an eruption of rifle fire. Watching the film was very intense since everything on the screen was happening in real life. The panicked shouts from the driver added to emotional intensity of the video. The video lacked the context of a news report, but it helped bring the experience of the violence in Iraq to the viewer.
Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone also provides videos shot in Iraq. Some of footage I saw followed soldiers on patrol. Like the video on you tube, the action was very intense because it was real. The soldiers actually cursed (like real soldiers do) and Kevin Sites interviewed some of the soldiers who talked about their impressions of the war. What is good about YouTube and Kevin Sites is that the camera usually just keeps rolling during the action, whereas on network news the action is edited, depriving the viewer of the full drama unfolding on the television.
The last site I checked out was Interactive Narrative. There were links on the Web site that stood out.
One of the links was http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html
The site tracked the death of every service member in Iraq, including those of allied forces. The site points out on a map of Iraq the region where everyone was killed and on what day it happened. On the edge of the screen is a list of all countries that have sent troops to Iraq. By clicking on the country the person can see how many people from that country were killed and where.
Another interesting site was
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/world/G1227-2005Mar25.html
The site featured a collection of Washington Post photo galleries called eye on Iraq. The gallery features slide shows put together by several different war photographers. Each the pictures told a story and the photographers would narrate the story.
What gives all these pieces of internet journalism an edge of over network journalism. The internet tells small but important stories and tells them in a more narrative style. Because they are presented as a narrative rather than a chain of facts, the stories appeal to people on an emotional level because they are given a chance to know, understand and care for the people involved in the story.
The other edge that the internet has is that it can present facts and footage in ways that network journalism can’t, such as the map that tracks the number deaths and the interactive photo galleries. Internet journalism allows you to explore items that the viewer finds interesting. Network news just tells the viewer what is interesting. But network news is good for getting straight facts. In a perfect world people would watch network news to get a basic idea of important events happening in the world. Then they log onto the internet to watch how the effect real people.
I compared network broadcast coverage of Iraq to internet coverage. I watched a CBS report on a terrorist attack. The link for the story I watched is
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2365090n
The story was full of heavily edited footage, lasted only a few seconds, and only gave the most pertinent information. The segment was informative but dry.
On the internet I watched homemade video on YouTube. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxx1Lo8fZwQ
This video was shot by truck drivers in a convoy in Iraq. At one point a roadside bomb explodes, followed by an eruption of rifle fire. Watching the film was very intense since everything on the screen was happening in real life. The panicked shouts from the driver added to emotional intensity of the video. The video lacked the context of a news report, but it helped bring the experience of the violence in Iraq to the viewer.
Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone also provides videos shot in Iraq. Some of footage I saw followed soldiers on patrol. Like the video on you tube, the action was very intense because it was real. The soldiers actually cursed (like real soldiers do) and Kevin Sites interviewed some of the soldiers who talked about their impressions of the war. What is good about YouTube and Kevin Sites is that the camera usually just keeps rolling during the action, whereas on network news the action is edited, depriving the viewer of the full drama unfolding on the television.
The last site I checked out was Interactive Narrative. There were links on the Web site that stood out.
One of the links was http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html
The site tracked the death of every service member in Iraq, including those of allied forces. The site points out on a map of Iraq the region where everyone was killed and on what day it happened. On the edge of the screen is a list of all countries that have sent troops to Iraq. By clicking on the country the person can see how many people from that country were killed and where.
Another interesting site was
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/world/G1227-2005Mar25.html
The site featured a collection of Washington Post photo galleries called eye on Iraq. The gallery features slide shows put together by several different war photographers. Each the pictures told a story and the photographers would narrate the story.
What gives all these pieces of internet journalism an edge of over network journalism. The internet tells small but important stories and tells them in a more narrative style. Because they are presented as a narrative rather than a chain of facts, the stories appeal to people on an emotional level because they are given a chance to know, understand and care for the people involved in the story.
The other edge that the internet has is that it can present facts and footage in ways that network journalism can’t, such as the map that tracks the number deaths and the interactive photo galleries. Internet journalism allows you to explore items that the viewer finds interesting. Network news just tells the viewer what is interesting. But network news is good for getting straight facts. In a perfect world people would watch network news to get a basic idea of important events happening in the world. Then they log onto the internet to watch how the effect real people.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)