When reflecting back, and then checking the websites again, I realized that almost all tried to harness new media technologies, but some did much better than others in their pursuits. Overall, the best media, in terms of quality, was found in the NY Times online which is probably the main reason that its one of the most read online newspapers. The failure of the six was the LA Weekly, which failed almost categorically in every measurement. Presentation matters considerably to me, and although the content on the NY Times was by far, some of the best on the web, the layout of the website simply made want to buy an actual paper than look at the screen. For that reason, I feel that NPR was the best of the six because of its clean, easy-to-read layout, it high quality content, and the adequate sharing options that it provides to its users. What follows are my criticisms, advice, and reflections on each of the six sites I visited.
The main reasons why the LA Weekly is a horrible site are that it has horrible content, a terrible layout, and did I mention horrible content. The most ridiculous part of the layout is that the headlines for each article somehow dominate the screen and their all written in caps-locks, which makes the headline even more difficult to read. I do like the top toolbar for navigation. Content is improved over time if its addressed but in the mean time, I would recommend that they change their headline format and add more white space to the site.
Probably the most interactively capable website I encountered was the Kansas City Star which provided tons of ways for their readers to share content with others. More than half of the sharing options I hadn’t even heard of until I came across this site. Another way that they harnessed new media technology was by presenting a video report on their homepage which is better than many other publications. The content was OK but the presentation was very generic. I would recommend changing the color scheme to make the online publication more personalized.
Besides what I mentioned at the beginning of my post about the NY Times, I would recommend them to open up their site much like the BBC did lately. It’s soooo condensed and uneasy on the eyes that made me feel like navigating away from the page as soon as I arrived their. The content is what keeps people coming but they could expand even further if they changed the layout of their page. Beside my complaints, they have amazing graphs, presentations, and video reports that are unmatched by any other site.
In terms of the best online adaptation of a newspaper, I would give the award to the Oregonian because of their high quality and readable content. The website is presented in a great manner that’s easy on the eye compared to the other online newspapers. The font and the green menu bars are easy on the eye and somehow, very Oregonian. Some of the new technologies that added to the site were the photo galleries, the great article-sharing capabilities, and the video reports. The “breaking news” banner at the top was also unique and useful.
The RedState.com was for me, just another boring blog to read. It harnessed the same technologies that other blogs used and had links to podcasts. I didn’t really like the site nor did I abhor it. Somehow it’s so “blogish” that I just can’t take it seriously.
And then there was NPR. Excellent layout, great podcasts and video galleries, and some of the best content on the web. A noteworthy aspect of NPR’s site is their very useful sidebar on the left of the screen which is easy to read and provides exactly what the site offers to it’s readers/listeners. I’m not sure what NPR got wrong because I enjoy the site every time I visit. I’m not a big fan of all the content it produces, but this site has definitely utilized the internet more than the other five sites I mentioned.
I think the desire for easy-to-read layouts on news websites is close to being a universally accepted requirement for news websites. The new technologies won’t even be viewed if the website atrocious to the point one leaves it. I’m sure that many of my classmates will feel the same way on this issue.
This is probably the most disturbing line I’ve read in a very long time:
Documentary filmmaker Pete Jones recently declared that, “TiVo has changed my life more than children. It’s the only thing in my life that I can count on week after week.”
I found both articles very interesting but the “Age of Egocasting” article provided me with insight into something that apparently many of my peers enjoy. My wife and I tossed out our television four years ago and have enjoyed all the free time since. To read how children are being raised with hours upon hours of television in their lives leads me to wonder the amount of mental health issues that will affect that generation. I grew watching television from time to time in my household and I found that my attention span is considerably shorter than those who I know had no contact with TV while they were growing up.
The following lines are also worrisome,
We can consciously avoid ideas, sounds, and images that we don’t agree with or don’t enjoy. As sociologists Walker and Bellamy have noted, “media audiences are seen as frequently selecting material that confirms their beliefs, values, and attitudes, while rejecting media content that conflicts with these cognitions.”
This is yet another way that people will choose to view only what they believe to be true instead of watching any type of programming that challenges their mindset. While many may simply filter what they watch out based solely out of what pleasures them to watch or not, this also poses a risk for mass group think (depending on what they’re watching of course), and a lack of sharing ideas amongst those whom they spend their lives living around.
The “Digilante Justice” article elaborated on a subject that I thought I knew about. Some of the sites seem to be a great way for stressed out individuals to release their anger but its also possible that these sites could simply become slander machines. Another issue that wasn’t raise concerned how the identities of undercover police were being posted online by those who had encounters with them as a heads up to all those who need to avoid cops.
What a strange new world.
The digital divide would be much less if it was measured based on terms of population instead of nation-state.
After having read “Measuring the global digital divide at the level of individuals” by Jeffrey James, I’ve found new insight into how the digital divide was measured before and that why, when measured at an individual level, the digital divide appears to be closing despite the facts that lead many to believe otherwise.
The current digital divide has been defined and measured by assigning the same weight for each country no matter what their population size is. This form of measurement clearly has it’s pitfalls in that it allows various countries that could in way compare because of their sheer population size, compare, and in doing so the digital gap appears vast and ever growing.
It’s sensible to measure the divide based off of the weight of the individuals within countries because, as James argues, much of the policy is directed at individuals instead of countries and that the bulk of welfare economics places the individual, the consumer as the unit of analysis.
The major challenge is finding ways in order to weigh the population but if estimates are made, than the evidence supports that in reality, global equality maybe shrinking from where it was ten years ago. How on earth could this be possible? Many ask that after reading that line but what has failed to be considered by many who analyze this difficult situation is the rise of China. James notes,
The reason for the decline in global economic inequality after 1978 is that the most populated country in the world, China, experienced substantial growth rates. Hence, the incomes of a big fraction of the world’s population (approximately 20%) started converging towards the rich economies after 1978.
What also reinforced the advancements of the developing world and the closing of the digital divide has been the progress of India, who makes up twenty percent of the world’s population. The current method of measurement simply doesn’t provide these facts in statistics that favor my argument. When comparing in terms of nations we find that China and India are simply viewed as two data points that only give them the same importance with countries such as Luxembourg, who has a population of five hundred thousand, and Lesotho, a Southern African country of only two million.
Other statics are affected drastically if the current methods of measurement are switched to a per-person measurement system. For instance if we used the current method to measure the digital divide in terms of mobile phone use when comparing the developed and developing world, we find the ration of usage to non to be 8 to 1. And here is where measuring by terms of population becomes important, because when we weigh the total populations, we find the ration to be 1.8 to 1.
Greater equality will never be fully achieved we fail to measure it correctly from the start. The evidence is clear that if we changed the way in which we measured the divide, a much different image would be drawn, allowing us to address the digital divide problem more pragmatically.
Jeffrey, J. (2009). Measuring the global digital divide at the level of individuals. Current Science, 96(2), 194-197. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://offcampus.lib.washington.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36315249&site=ehost-live
Of all the readings assigned thus far, I admit that the technological terminology used throughout most of the article “CHAPTER 7: The Wireless Revolution and Universal Access” from Michael L. Best’s book Trends in Telecommunications Reform 2003 was very difficult for me to comprehend at times and required various rereads in order to gain confidence in the meaning of what was read.
Overall, the concept of having wireless internet spread to rural and underdeveloped communities around the world is ambitious and worth working on in order to help improve the living standards of those communities. The only problem is that many of the communities in question lack all other basic infrastructures that would allow them to function in what we in the developed world consider to be adequate living conditions. For me, the premise of the entire article is flawed. More should be done to feed the millions that are starving and suffering other various afflictions. The whole wireless internet for the developing world should be put on hold until the things that matter are actually taken into account. In my opinion, Kofi Annan should have had a different set of priorities, perhaps looking into his son’s handling of the oil-for food program?
The other ideas in the article such as the village area network are still very interesting to read about. Although the internet would provide unmatched influences on peoples lives and probably change many of their outlooks on life, items such as food and running water would also have a similar impact. The costs of funding this technology and the internet should be spent on necessities.
Q1. What would modify from the reading to create what you believe to be the best way to spread wireless internet to rural and underdevoloped communities?
Q2. What criticisms do you have of Michael Best’s outline?
Q3. What was the most important piece of information you obtained from today’s reading?
I researched the demise of eBay (China) and the rise of it’s one-time rival TaoBao for my presentation on E-commerce. Overall, I felt that my presentation went well. I had originally thought that the presentations were only supposed to be five minutes long with a few minutes of discussion time afterwards and I tailored my presentation accordingly. Because more time was allotted to the groups in class I found that my presentation was short but the discussion questions I asked were adequate to fill the time and drew the interest of the majority of students I presented to. Besides the actual research and creation of the powerpoint, the project as a whole wasn’t too difficult but it still raised awareness in the same manner as a research paper. The only frustrating moment of the whole assignment was having to recreate a login for slideshare.com because I had forgotten mine and it’s just annoying sometimes to re-register. Overall, I enjoyed the experience.
Lecture delivered by Brianna Keller of the University of Washington Career Center February 23, 2009. This lecture’s content may appear on the upcoming exam.
Lecture:
Q & A:
Recent Comments