Friday, March 30, 2007

Journalism

The article that I chose was on the U.S. role in Iraq, which has been claimed to be unlawful by the King of Saudi Arabia. I looked over the article from two different sources, one of which was The New York Times (paper edition) and CNN’s report posted on CNN’s website. After reading the two of them thoroughly I noticed a significant difference in the way that they were written. In the paper edition of The New York Times I found that the author had gone into much more detail then the other version. In the CNN online version the information that was given seemed very brief. They gave you bits of the story and a quote to either open or close their statement. “Many news organizations based in other media also distribute news online, but the amount they use of the new medium varies. Some news organizations use the Web exclusively or as a secondary outlet for their content.” (Wikipedia) I would have to completely agree with this statement made by Wikipedia. Online news, not matter how in-depth, seems to be secondary to print news, the stories constructed for the Internet seem to be geared towards a preview more then the story. Though I feel this may change in the near future, I believe that there will always be some form of paper news and I am sure that newspaper companies would prefer that. Most online news from newspaper companies only provide an abstract online unless you subscribe and I think it is just more popular at this point to read a physical paper rather then electronically. Also there are different laws governing over what can be published over the Internet, where as in paper prints the author is protected under the 1st Amendment. As stated in Wikipedia, “unlike a newspaper, they are much more liable for such things as libel.” Although laws are changing and certain states and countries are making accommodations to protect what can be published, however under a certain pretext. The Internet has much taming that needs to be down however I feel that it is just a matter of time.

Fattah, Hassan M. "U.S. Iraq Role is Called Illegal by Saudi King." The New York Times 29 Mar. 2007, National ed., sec. A: 1+.

"Online Journalism." Wikipedia. 30 Mar. 2007 .

"Saudi's on U.S. in Iraq: 'Illegitimate Foreign Occupation'" CNN. 29 Mar. 2007. 29 Mar. 2007 .

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Politics

I found a blog discussing a political rally in downtown Buffalo. The blog entitled "How Not to Get Your Point Across," was found at Link. . The author whose real name was not displayed, went by the pseudonym Buffalopundit, and he is a citizen blogger. When i looked him up on Technorati i was able to find out that he has been blogging since 12/30/2004, and his rank is 35,353. This post was on 3/14/2007.

After reading the article several times I found that the author was not all to upset by the Governors attempts to tax goods such as cigarettes and gas to those who are not Native-American, but more so to a sign being held up by a 15 year old. The 15 year old was holding a sign of Elliot Spitzer portraying him as a modern day Hitler. The author states, " The Senecas certainly suffered a great deal in their history, and they have a right to enforce their legal sovereignty, such as it is, but does this Sagdiyevesque expression of dissent offend you as much as it did me? Doesn't equating the Holocaust with a sales tax dispute seem like a bit more than mere hyperbole?(Buffalopundit, How Not to Get Your Point Across)" The author simply states that the meaning behind the sign is a little over the top. However, I would have to disagree with the author, because he is looking at this from a different point of view then the Senecas. Most people do not realize what something like this means to them. They view it as our government taking control of their land and their ways.


Citations
Buffalopundit. How Not to Get Your Point Across. 14 Mar. 2007. 24 Mar. 2007 .

"Technorati: Search." 24 Mar. 2007 .