Privacy? What privacy! Such a quaint 20th century notion…
Thanks much to the West Seattle Blog for bringing this gem to my attention via Twitter in the wee hours of the morning. And kudos to The Onion for such impressive info-graphics! My favorites are the van, barter, and data security fence graphics.
Science definitely needs more rap. Definitely.
Note: This video is part of the second American Chemical Society Nanotation NanoTube Video Contest. You better believe I’m gonna watch the other entries.
Yesterday it occurred to me — as I heard about yet another “multimedia workshop” for journalists — how dated and useless the term “multimedia” has become. It’s now normal for media content types to be mixed. It’s also normal for anyone working in media to be expected to create and integrate various types of content (text, audio, photos, video, mapping/locative) as well as delivery channels (print, Web, radio, TV, podcast, social media, e-mail, SMS, embeddable, mobile applications, widgets, e-readers, etc.).
Ditto for the terms “new media” and even “online media”, which imply that channels other than print and broadcast are somehow separate or niche.
The best take on why it’s important to update and integrate assumptions about the nature of media (and how that affects news) is shown in this hilarious skit from Landline.TV:
Here’s where media is at today: In the current integrated media ecosystem, every print and broadcast organization has an Internet and mobile presence — and most of these now go beyond bare “shovelware”. Also, more and more of these organizations are distributing their content online first, making print and broadcast secondary channels (if not secondary markets). In contrast, most media outlets and public discussion venues that began life on the Internet do not have a print or broadcast presence. These vastly outnumber print and broadcast media outlets.
Consequently, when you consider the number and diversity of media outlets, print and broadcast media have become the exception — not the rule…
From the East Bay Express. Now: Is their proposed solution one idea, or two? Hmmm…
Found this gem via Barbara Iverson on Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits:
Last week, Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society launched Media Cloud, an intriguing tool that could help researches and others understand how stories spread through mainstream media and blogs.
According to Nieman Lab, “Media Cloud is a massive data set of news — compiled from newspapers, other established news organizations, and blogs — and a set of tools for analyzing those data.
Here’s what Berkman’s Ethan Zuckerman had to say about Media Cloud:
Some of the kinds of questions Media Cloud could eventually help answer:
- How do specific stories evolve over time? What path do they take when they travel among blogs, newspapers, cable TV, or other sources?
- What specific story topics won’t you hear about in [News Source X], at least compared to its competitors?
- When [News Source Y] writes about Sarah Palin [or Pakistan, or school vouchers], what’s the context of their discussion? What are the words and phrases they surround that topic with?”
The obvious use of this project is to compare coverage by different types of media. But I think a deeper purpose may be served here: By tracking patterns of words used in news stories and blog posts, Media Cloud may illuminate how context and influence shape public understanding — in other words, how media and news affect people and communities.
This is important, because news and media do not exist for their own sake. It seems to me that the more we learn about how people are affected by — and affect — media, the better we’ll be able to craft effective media for the future.
(NOTE: I originally published this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)
From The Onion, of course… Hat tip to Tom Vilot.
Freelance National Anthem, by Bill Dyszel: