Last Reflection on News sites

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.

Access and the Digital Divide

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

Newspaper Reflection

Two down, two to go! It seems that if this had been posted with the readings or if all the assignments were posted on one schedule, I would have had this assignment done a long time ago. But either way, now it’s getting done. So far, it’s not too difficult to find what the Media Survey was asking for. I’m surprised with the poor quality of the newspaper websites design. The two I’ve completed so far felt very cluttered compared to the news websites that I usually frequent.

In terms of the media quality of the four websites, the NYTimes online is by far the most dynamic and provides the best media that I’ve come across. The videos download quickly and are sharp. The content is also far superior to the three other online newspapers that I viewed. I disliked the Kansas City Star in all fields and of the three websites visited they had the lowest quality multimedia. All the websites could do better if they simply uncluttered their page by skimming their front page out. All four were a strain on the eyes and I would never visit these sites again with the exception of watching some of the NYTimes video reports. The NYTimes was by far the best site in terms of quality, web layout, multimedia, and navigation.

Although the content of the NYTimes far exceeds it’s competition, layout like those found on NPR.org or RedState simply make it easier for the general websurfer to find interesting articles. They are simply less text heavy and easier on the eye.

Assignment 2 – Social Networks

Title: YouTube

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

The YouTube article is a brief overview of the foundation of the website, its history since then, the controversies surrounding it, and the impact that it has had on the world since its inception. The article itself was created at 6:18 p.m. on December 25, 2005 and has had well over five hundred changes made to it by numerous authors since then. I chose this topic because this is a form of digital media that I use on a daily basis, it has created more opportunities for individuals to broadcast their ideas or events they have witnessed, and it’s the first idea that comes to my mind when thinking of digital media.

After having read through the article I have found that it is definitely one of the better Wikipedia articles available. The article has eighty one total references and although I didn’t check every single reference, every time that I did check there source it always turned out to have a link that worked. This is a difference to many other Wikipedia articles that I’ve read before in which the links are usually not working. An interesting point about the YouTube article is that it’s Semi-Protected, which is defined by Wikipedia as:

Semi-protection

Policy shortcut: W:SEMI

Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from accounts that are not autoconfirmed.

Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

From reading the article I learned that YouTube is apparently banned in places like Turkey and Iran but after reading the “Discussion” page it appears that there might be a factual discrepancy for the policy in Iran at the moment. The article cited, Censorship fears rise as Iran blocks access to top websites from the Guardian online, was disputed by Lordfkiller, a Wikipedia user who apparently resides in Iran. He claimed that YouTube had indeed been blocked in 2006 but that is no longer the case. The response to this information was that although what Lordfkiller had written may be true, it needs to be verified with a reliable source.

The main controversy that surrounds YouTube has been the copyright infringement issues that it has faced due to users uploading their favorite television shows and other forms of media and to the website. This led to Viacom bringing them to court and then winning a case against them which allowed that company the possession of many of YouTube’s viewers and members’ IP addresses. The article touched very briefly on these points because like other sections in this article, there is enough information about it to have an entirely separate article, which it does. For the sake of brevity, I believe that the YouTube article on Wikipedia expounded on the issues enough for the average reader to understand what the controversy is without delving to greatly into the details.

The other article I harnessed for my essay was obtained from the International Journal of Cultural Studies and is entitled: YouTube as archive: Who will curate this digital Wunderkammer? by Robert Gehl. The main assertion by Gehl is that YouTube won’t present the views of the many but rather, the views of the technological middlemen who have the skills to harness the technology. From the onset the article is biased in that it’s proving a point rather than informing the public about what exactly YouTube is. His main thesis, although well researched, I don’t believe will hold weight given the history of open source media programs. What he fails to take into account is that many times if programming does become too complicated for users to participate with they will simply find or create a new program that is more suitable for their needs. The whole idea of technological middlemen to me, although well researched and certainly against the norm, in my humble opinion, won’t hold wait.

For those who simply would like an overview and short history of YouTube would find themselves surprisingly satisfied with what Wikipedia has to offer. If they want debate over the controversies surrounding it than they should consider searching academic journals.

References:

Gehl, R. (2009). YouTube as archive: Who will curate this digital Wunderkammer? [Electronic version] International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1). from EBSCO.

YouTube. (2009, February 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:03, February 13, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

Essay

Bullying and social hierarchies have been an integral part of various societies throughout human history and now, this aspect of life has entered the digital age. Because I largely missed out on the age of cyberbullying, I’m interested to know what those who are just a few years younger than I are going through in their lives because of the advancements in technology.

My research began with my search for an academic article on this subject. The concept of social networks and hierarchies was expounded upon in article entitled, Facework on Facebook: The presentation of self in virtual life and its role in the US elections, found in Anthropology Today by Steffen Dalsgaard, a PhD student at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. In his article, Dalsgaard illustrates to the audience that social networking websites, specifically facebook in the case of this article, have their users promote themselves through social networking as opposed to just being individually talented at something and that this leads to an online hierarchy. The more people a user knows the more higher up that user is in the online hierarchy. If the talented user doesn’t have an audience than there is no real reason for that user to present his or her work via online posting. Other programs found on social networking websites allow hierarchies to be built and can even lead to online friends feeling marginalized. An example given by Dalsgaard was the Top 8 program on Myspace which allowed it’s users to choose who they considered their top friends.

The next article, written by Connie Goddard and published by Educational Digest focuses more on how new technologies are being used by the youth to bully each other. The article delves into a brief history of bullying as a whole and the differences between male and female bullies. In the digital age that we live in today, Goddard suggests that bullying engaged in by females has reached a new. Cell phones spread condescending messages quickly and online social networks such as Facebook and Myspace are places that many are preyed upon by online bullies. It’s related to the audience that social networks like Myspace have made efforts to monitor younger users’ activities but more needs to be done. Goddard closes by discussing what is being done by educators to quell bullying as a whole.

Both articles were insightful and provided me a new perspective about just what the youth in my midst are experiencing on a daily basis. The articles were both similar in that they touched on online hierarchies but the articles contrasted more in that they focused on different topics. In terms of writing style, both were written for a general audience but the article provided by Dalsgaard had many visual illustrations about the subject matter he was addressing. While Goddard’s article was a brief overview on the topic of bullying and how it applies to the online world, Dalsgaard’s short article was very specific which allowed him to analyze online social networks more. I felt that the strength of Gaddard’s article is that it gave an overview for those unfamiliar with the topic and then was able to create interest in the reader on the subject of online bullying. It’s weakness was that it didn’t enter into, what I feel, are the basics of online bullying, the sites in which they occur and the programming that is used by today’s youth. Dalsgaard’s weakness was that I felt he overused his visual examples and his strengths were his specifics and the presentation of his findings.

Overall, I had some knowledge that online hierarchies existed but I had no idea how much they impact the youth who are spending an increasing amount of their lives online. The increased bullying amongst female students was also insightful.

References

Dalsgaard, S. (2008). Facework on Facebook: The presentation of self in virtual life and its role in the US elections [Electronic version]. Anthropology Today, 24(6), 8-12. from Academic Search Complete.

Search Query: Searched for Facebook in EBSCO limiting my search to Academic Journals

Goddard, C. (2008). Cyber World Bullying. Education Digest, 7, 4-9. pp. 4-9Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Academic Search Complete.

Search Query: Searched for Facebook in EBSCO limiting my search to Magazines

My RSS experience

Well I’ve seen that little orange button on many of the sites I’ve visited but I never took the time to click and find out about what it actually was. So, as assigned, I searched some of the websites that I frequent the most for their RSS button. My first stop was Haaretz and to my surprise it was a bit difficult to find. Once I found it this came up,

Section		XML Feed
Flash news http://www.haaretz.com/feed/eshowTickerRss.xml News http://www.haaretz.com/feed/enewsRss.xml Business http://www.haaretz.com/feed/ebusinessRss.xml

as it did with the website we had an example of in class.

I went ahead and subscribed to this with Googlereader but judging from what I’ve seen so far, I’m not impressed.

Digital Media – How I use it from day to day

My first post. As required by my instructor, I’m writing today to explain how exactly I use digital media in my daily life. My main media outlet is digital media. I threw out my t.v. three years ago to free up time in my life and it worked well. Now, I mainly use the web to check news, emails, and keep in contact with friends. For the sake of making this a three hundred word post it appears that more detail is necessary. Computer usage flashes in and out of my life throughout the day. I’m not someone who continuously surfs the web – instead I wake up, eat my cereal and browse through my email inbox for my UW account. From there I check my facebook to see what’s going on with friends and if there are any events coming up and then that’s it for a while. Throughout the rest of the day I use the internet to soley to procrastinate from my studies. I seriously check the news to get an update on the world after dinner and I check my email before sleep just incase one of my instructors sent an email about homework, which happens from time to time. Overall, digital media in my life serves the roll of a mail box and newspaper.