Media allows witness bring U.S police officer to justice?

Over the past number of years we've seen occurrences of police brutality across the world. In the media I'm guessing that 90% of the  cases that we see broadcasted on the news are from the United States as the vast majority of "shootings" or "murders" by police officers in the United States of America have been committed by white police officers against African American citizens. This of course has sparked controversy all over the globe and many are accusing the American police system to be corrupt and racist. Protests against police brutality and racism are continually rising across the states because of these recent happenings. When the officers have been interviewed or have released statements on the incidents they have pleaded innocence and claimed that they are "just doing their job" and often felt that they feared for their lives in the situations which called for them to use their weapons as a matter of reasoning. Often in these cases it's a matter of my word against yours between a witness and the police officer. Many claim that had the victim been white the police officer wouldn't have taken such a hard line in terms of resolving the situation. The power of the media has allowed for theses stories to be heard worldwide but in my opinion this can cause bias based on the way the story is told or portrayed by the news. However, just last week in the town of Charleston, South Carolina another incident involving a white police officer and an African American citizen took place. Like incidents before, the  African American man was shot dead by the police officer once again sparking rage around the United States and indeed the world . However this time the story is different, a witness caught the entire incident on video using his cell phone and posted it on the internet allowing people to see what happened. Before I had seen this video I wasn't hugely influenced by the aspect of police officers being racist against African Americans, after all there is some 40 million African Americans in the United States  so there would always be crime committed in towns and cities who are dominantly populated by African Americans. I've often thought if it had been a black police officer, would it be causing outrage in the media? I don't think so. Maybe it's because of the history of the country in terms of the oppression of black people. But having seen this video online I agree that police brutality does exist. I think for once the public can have their own view on the situation as they can watch this video and make their own opinion uninterrupted by the opinion of others in the media. From what I gathered from watching the video is that the reaction of the police officer was far too severe. You can see that the man in question attempts to run away from the officer and instead of the officer opting to run after the man he chooses to draw upon his gun and shoot a number of times, essentially killing the man. Like before the officer claimed that he feared for his life in the situation, but I see nothing life threatening here especially when the man in question chooses to flee the situation. What also happens in the video is the police officer drops an object near the wounded man. This appears to be a weapon but cannot be clearly identified in the video. Maybe the officer was unaware of there being a bystander recording the incident and attempted to plant a weapon beside the victim giving him a justification for shooting. There is tonnes of material out there written about this incident, headlines from the police officer having been too forceful in cases prior to this incident to the witness being too scared of what might happen him for posting the video online. Why I chose to write about this incident is because in the last couple of years before I have even had a chance to study the events between the officers and victims the media had already planted ideas in my mind. Before I'd read anything I had been hearing that the police officers were corrupt and racist and too severe. I don't believe this to be true in every instance as with gun laws in the United States the police officer can be hugely at risk, but I do believe this video has allowed people to form their own opinion on this particular situation as they are seeing the incident as a primary source of information.

The new Itunes for Journalism

Everybody is conscious about the fact that journalism is moving from the real printed newspapers toward the online network. Many people check out the news online instead of actually buying a newspaper. Probably everybody notices this shift, but have you ever heard of the website Blendle.com? It is a small start-up of redefining how people are paying for journalism. It is a new phenomenon that started in The Netherlands, where folks can read all their newspapers and magazines online and where they only pay for articles that the actually read. I will explain how it works, blendle.com offers all kind of different newspapers and magazines and instead of buying the whole paper, they made it possible to only buy a particularly article that you are interested in. In short, they present to you all different kinds of magazines and newspaper online where you can browse through the papers. If you see an article that you would love to read you just press on the article and there you go. So actually you only pay for the actual reading on the website where most articles are priced between  €0,10 and €0,89 and the payment is completed with one click on the button. If you did not liked the article you just paid for you can easily press on a bottom, which refund you payment. You only need to choose from a list of reasons why you did not like the article, and the money will be transformed back on your account. Blendle.com is doing a good job, the websites has already more than 220.000 users in The Netherlands and they are planning to launch soon in other countries as well. You can not only choose your own articles to read but there’s more, you can also follow your friends and famous stars to check out what they think is interesting. It’s a new way for the next generation to discover and read the greatest articles from all kinds of newspapers and magazines. Thus, read and share your preferred journalism on Blendle.com

Below, you can watch a short video of how the website works, unfortunately it is in Dutch.

It all sounds as the solution for the chancing shift in journalism, making journalism still profitable and give the folks the opportunity to read what they would like to know. But then the question that arrives in my head is about the point that Cass Sustein (2001) made in his article, “The Daily we, Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?” about the risk of personalization and individual control, which can reduce the importance of the “public sphere”.  It is about the point that Sunstein made, “My only claim is that a common set of frameworks and experiences is valuable for a heterogeneous society and that a system with limitless options, making for diverse choices could compromise the underlying values (Sunstein, 2001).” (http://bostonreview.net/cass-sunstein-internet-democracy-daily-we)

Sunstein’s article in a nutshell, he sees the growing power of consumers filtering what they want to see as something that can be a danger for the public sphere. He is talking about personalization, limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing. If people only can choose what they would prefer to see, read, and listen to, groups who share the same point of view can get more extreme and could establish group polarization. Which concretely means that group discussions with like minded people and lack of alternative views breeds increasing extremism. Furthermore, Sunstein claims that it is important to have a “public sphere” where people will be confronted with different views and opinions so that people will understand each other better and relativize more instead of being more extreme. Does the new phenomenon Blendle.com creates a bigger individual control and reduces the public sphere? 

This is just a brief introduction for a discussion about a new way of journalism and if Internet is really a blessing for democracy?

Net neutrality and future of the internet?

World Wide Web has rather short but quite turbulent history. Throughout three decades of development it has changed rapidly and affected lifestyle of most us like none other media.

Firstly, there was a non-interactive webpage that users could only visit but there was no chance for them to actively participate on the content of the website. First breakthrough came with the web 2.0, where both the website and the user could communicate and interact to create new content. User based content also stands behind what we now call social media. That means Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and many, many more. Those media enabled users to communicate and interact with each other and thus create content. Those websites work as some sort of platform for the users who are main creators of content, not the website in question.

But internet changed not just the way we communicate with our friends and family, but also way we do shopping, watch movies or TV series and get information. But now, as some argues, we are facing an issue that could affect the very basis on which is the internet built. It concerns the principle of the net neutrality. Maybe you have already heard about this topic since it was popularized by comedian John Oliver (you can see his video below). Term Net Neutrality basically means that internet providers treat all the data on the internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently based on user, content and so on.

In recent months this topic become widely discussed in political circles both in Europe and United States due to a proposal to change some of aspects of neutrality principle. If this proposal would be accepted and implemented, it would be advantageous especially for Internet providers and also for big internet corporations. It would enable providers to charge extra money for faster internet broadband. For example Netflix could pay providers to have faster video streaming than they have now, so that they would get advantage over their competitor.

At first sight, it seems like this issue is not a real concern for future of the internet, just implementation of market logic to web environment. But experts argues that it would have some serious consequences because the amount transferred data will define future of internet services. Now Internet represents an equal playing field for all, but this proposal would give much more power to big companies. That means, Start-up companies would have it much more difficult to compete with big companies like Twitter, Facebook or Google that would be able to pay for better internet services (It is worth writing, that all of these companies openly support Net neutrality, but since the proposal is in their own interest their stance is not completely trustworthy). Let’s not forget that all the named companies started as small businesses and would have it much more difficult to succeed. Without Net neutrality there might not be Facebook, Twitter, Netflix or even Google.   

All in all, that there are basically two ideologies standing against each other. The first one can be called “Freedom of the Internet” and against it ideology of “Free Market”. Supporters of the first ideology says, that internet should put everyone (users, websites, providers and governments) on the same starting point, while supporters of the second one emphasize logic of trade market that should be implemented to the very core of the internet.

This issue was already discussed in Federal Communication Commission in the United States and in European Commission in European Union. They both made a statement concerning this issue. Bit surprisingly those statements were quite different from each other, FCC agreed that Net neutrality should be sustained, European Commission opened possibility for “two-speed” internet. Both of decisions were severely criticized and FCC is already taken to the court by lawyers of several companies.

Future of the internet is in doubt and as it seems it will not be decided online, but rather the old-fashioned way in courts.   

Zunzuneo: the American social network to overthrow the Cuban government

Times have changed. Wars and Imperialism are no longer a matter of tanks, guns and mined borders. New media and social networks have emerged and become the new banners of a revolutionized new world. Such media hasn’t just served to give a voice to the oppressed in movements like the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and the 15M in Spain. They have also become a key weapon in foreign policy for Western governments.

Pro-western propaganda is not only now spread through traditional media, but is also spread through social networks that help to rapidly circulate messages, whether true or not. As explained by the scholar Howard Rheingold, social networks have the power to create "smart mobs" able to self-organize and generate massive protest movements, and western governments have now implemented this technology as a means of influencing other societies. It is therefore no surprise that many accuse the U.S. of trying to overthrow hostile governments, or at least trying to influence political situations in countries like Egypt, Venezuela and Ukraine through social networks.

A few days ago, Associated Press revealed the tactics used by the U.S. government to influence hostile countries in this new interconnected world that we live in. ZunZuneo was a social network conceived, created and financed in secret by the U.S. in 2009 with the aim of modifying the political situation in Cuba. With the guise of being the Cuban alternative to Twitter, the real purpose was to destabilize the government through the publication of political messages targeted towards the younger citizens of Cuba.

ZunZuneo was forced to use SMS technology because of Cuba’s strict control over informative content (especially on the Internet). To do this, the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) unlawfully created a database of more than half a million Cuban phone numbers. At the beginning, to avoid suspicion, the network was filled with banal posts on topics such as sport, entertainment and weather forecasts. They used this content to generate a good base of users who relied on the network before sending ideologically loaded political messages with the aim of promoting the Cuban Spring, which consequently would make the government fall.

The Cuban government is aware that in order to maintain its hegemony and prevent riots, it must provide progress for its citizens. They promised to continue their programs of implementing Internet and landlines in Cuban homes, despite of the American initiative to destabilize Cuban government through ZunZuneo, and other technologies like Piramideo, Martí Noticias, Diario de Cuba and Cubasincensura. Despite the well-meant words of Cuban government, Internet on the island is restricted, although it is true that 500 public navigation facilities have been installed in Cuba.

At its peak ZunZuneo reached more than 40,000 users throughout Cuba. For them, this network became a sort of window to the world. It was really useful for them to receive free information daily on their mobile phones, in a country where access to the Internet is very limited and where the citizens were not allowed to have mobile phones until 2008. The citizens of Cuba, not knowing that the U.S. was behind this new social network, shared not only their opinions but also their private data. As a result, the U.S. government collected demographic information without consent. They then analyzed the collected data to uncover tastes, ideas and preferences that could be used to push young people to dissent.

Collecting such data without consent was not only illegal, but also created a potential risk to the Cuban users of this service. Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist from Princeton University who researches the social impact of technology, criticizes ZunZuneo because nobody foresaw that it could lead to the government taking reprisals against those that promote or share dissent actions across the network.

Since Associated Press made this information public, Washington has been quick to deny that this project was an undercover operation. However, following the revelations of AP, it is obvious that the USAID did everything possible to hide U.S. involvement in the project. Shell corporations were established in third countries such as Spain and Ireland, and all banking operations were conducted through accounts in the Cayman Islands.

U.S. involvement in this project is clear, as The State Department has now issued a statement defending the operation, arguing that it was not disguised and that its objectives were “to promote democracy in Cuba, guaranteeing freedom of information and strengthening civil society”. In my opinion, a social network based on forcing the audience to receive unsolicited messages is not exactly like building a free communication platform to promote democracy and exchange of information. Nevertheless, the tight control that the U.S. government has on the communications of its own citizens and the recurrent espionage scandals of world’s political leaders make these explanations sound hypocritical.

This big-hearted idea of promoting unfettered information through citizen communication platforms could hide much darker intentions behind. AP provides an internal document of the U.S. Armed Forces from which they explain that the first phase of an unconventional war is the “psychological preparation to unite the population against the government in power” and “prepare the population also issued to accept U.S. support”.

Finally in mid-2012, ZunZuneo disappeared after the several attempts to lock the network were made by the Cuban government. In June of that year, users stopped receiving messages on their phones. According to AP, the service ended not because it was censored by Cuban government, but because of the expiration of a grant that funded the program after having spent more than $1.5 million. For Cuban users, the network disappeared as mysteriously as it appeared.

This new Imperialism is of course cheaper, less noisy, more politically correct and less bloody. The tension between the United States and Cuba comes is long-standing, after many decades of violence and blockage. However, events like the one revealed by AP demonstrate how American methods have evolved to promote the desired regime change in Cuba. The U.S. knows that the ones to destabilize the regime are the younger ones. Even though we are not yet aware of this, our participation in the trivial matters of social networks makes us part of a group which links us to people that we do not know. Indirectly, this makes us able to mobilize ourselves in the future. If the revolution will be, it will be tweeted.

Twitter and politics : just a new medium ?

      Twitter entered the world of French politics mostly during the presidential and legislative elections of Spring 2012. When Valerie Trierweiler, Hollande's wife in those times, expressed her support to one socialist dissident via Twitter, French political world understood that it was entering suddenly a phase of accelerated twitterisation. If Twitter seems to be a fashionable, individualized and direct way of communication, it is far from being perfect. In my opinion, it is deteriorating politics and politicians even if they are more and more present on the social network.

Twitter, the new tool of political communication.

      In only a few months, Twitter imposed itself as an essential medium in the field of political communication. Twitter is no more only used to distribute press releases, links towards documents, or to support the institutional action of any elected representative. Twitter has now become a space for official announcements – the place where action is taking place, where talk is acting. With the twitterisation of politics, each actor is playing its own score, rôle, without any process of complex validation and with the feeling of a relative transparency. It is like every secrete meeting was happening in public, as if we were taking part in it directly. Hence, Twitter is seen as a promoter of direct democracy, connecting more and more people with politicians, and protecting citizens from secrete skulduggery. However, we should look at the other side of the coin.

The convergence culture of the « little sentence ».

      The micro-blogging social network, pushed politicians to favour this way of a very short, striking communication ; mixing in-depth thoughts (sometimes), sarcastic commentaries (often) and simple anecdotes. Twitter is not the only responsible for this. 24/7 news channels also furthered the use of the « little sentences », mostly because of the news' banners in the bottom of your screen. Instead of focusing on real political issues, the majority of media are now concentrating on every cutting remark. A majority of political observers, journalists and others, are bound with any little sentence they can find. It is almost for this that people are going on Twitter today. They are looking more for the good word than for ideas of general policy. Then, Twitter, as other instruments of social networking, would be a veritable accelerator of blunders and bum notes of ministers and others.

Twitter or the negation of politics.

        It is quite difficult to weigh the impact on public opinion of the permanent show given by Twitter and politicians. However, it is legitimate to ask, in those times of distrust towards politics, if the space given to those modes of expression short and superficial is not actually an exacerbating factor. People have the right to ask for a higher debate on complex societal questions. According to some scholars, the shortness (140 characters maximum) of the tweet is a form of « negation of politics ». If it is true, that the followers of political tweets are already politicized, but it certainly contributes to the desecretion of politicians supposed to be in a constant reflection. There is, because of this, a weakening of the political speech and quite a loosing of respect in general.

Moreover, Twitter is forcing politicians to be in instantaneousness and immediacy. This is provoking a « symbolical discredit ». Citizens want to be carried and enlightened by politics in a certain direction, focusing more on the future than on the present. We are now losing little by little our perspectives and projections. If Twitter is not the only responsible for French's loveless in politics, it is at least one of the accelerator of this trend.  

Life-sharing for $1 billion

Life-sharing for $1 billion

The signifacant event happened in the media world a week ago. Facebook bought a popular photo-sharing service Instagram for an enormous sum of money of $1 billion in cash and stock. How can free mobile add cost such an incredible sum and why Marc Zuckerberg has decided to buy this very simple service? Let us look into phenomenon of Instagram itself and define the resons of its growing popularity.

First of all, we need to admit that the base of Instagram is a pictire. The pictire which has won the text. Stanford University graduates Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger who launched a new iPhone application are supposed to be the first who meaningly and on purpose turn an amateur photography in the mean of social communication. The creators think Instagram is not about sharing photos but about the people who do it.

Secondly, Instagram could be considered as the last point of evolution(or dergradation - it depends from which point of view we will consider) of the social media, well and in detail described by Google veteran Elad Gil. Its main charesteristics:

1) information transmission by photos or pictures. We has entered into the "screen epoch" and it's no reason to write if we can share our information or emotions faster and brightly with picture. Several years ago society was confused (обеспокоено) with real communication being replaced by online one - people preferred to text massages and forgot how to speak. Nowadays young generation is too lazy even to text messages or to organize an event in facebook conversation. Instagram users communicate through photos. You don't need to tell your friends you are going out this evening - they will understand it by your new pictures and join you in a bar (you put a location near photo). People even started to write an announcements or invitations in the поле message, then make a screenshot and post it. 

2) photographical information could be interpreted as more honest, sincere and democratic one 3) photography wipes language and cultural barriers - not every person can explain himself with words, but everyone can show what he sees through camera lens 4) "button communication" - the way from an emotion to a post takes few seconds as a result of pushing of several buttons 5) "social content curation" - content isn't lost in a public newsfeed, but is being structured automatically and creates a visial portrait of user's life. What was aimed in the beginning to become popular with new so-called hipster culture and "visual generation" now is conquering older generations and other social groups. Recently launched Android add was updated by more a million people during first 24 hours. Moreover, success of new photo-social network Pinterest is connected with its popularity with american housewifes.

Thirdly, Instagram is a perfect mean for "popular", easy-understood creative work. Let us imagine a service for sharing other types of creation such as poetry. Poetical Instagram - user writes key words of his poem, choses style filter, pushes the button and his followers can read his piese of art automatically generated with Shekespeare, Biron or Bodler style. However, nowadays there is no service which could replace a real compostion work. Fortunately. While photography appeared as the best sphere to satisfy the mass demand of popular amateur creation. The phenomenon of mobilography has been already known and desribed, but a new option appeared now - filters. Scientists and phsycologists defined this as "technologisation of creation process". The simplest regular shot after passing through filters appears as independent piece of art, result of creative work. 

It causes a lot of dicussions and contraversions. On one hand, a photo-sharing add and its numerous copies are catastrophically increasing the quality standarts and are killing the market of professional photography. On the other hand, there people who are sure it made the photography more available and destroyed "sacral process" of taking photos.

Moreover, according to phsycologists instagram filters appeared to be popular because they can be used as means of efficient embellishment of reality. Photoservice hepls to satisfact a mass neccesity to present their life better that it is, to seem and not to be, to make people think what you want.

The last and very important point - the elitism of Instagram. However, it's in the past now. After appearing the add for Android started the angry discussions about marginalisation and future degradation of the service. After the transaction between fb and insta some users deleted their accounts - it was a riot of very early iphone add users who made this service mass and cult.

One of the main reasons of instagram popularity - the image of elitism, selection and mass unavailability of service which cultivated by marketers on purpose Obviously, the key role played a choice of the first platphorme - Apple with its closed ecosystem, expensive gatgets, very loyal and estetic audience. When the amount of users became more than 10 millioms they understand Instafram can easily go over every platphorme. This fact proved the later service development. To pack very simple and free product into glossy cover and to make it so professionally that it would determine the matter - very difficult deal.

According to one of the versions the formers of instagram had an opportunity to launch an add for android, but they delayed it on purpose and did only after an agreement with fb - being afraid that an image of selection would be lost within the pics of Android users.

BEING A POKÉMON MASTER EASIER THAN NEVER

On Monday 31^st of March a YouTube video was spread all over the world through Google Maps official account with the following message:

"Dozens of wild Pokémon have taken up residence on streets, amidst forest and top mountains throughout Google Maps. To catch 'em all, grab your Poké Ball and the newest version of Google Maps for iPhone or Android. Then tap the search bar, "press start" and begin your quest. And, follow Google Maps on Google+, Facebook or Twitter for hints and tips for the most dedicated trainers."

According to the video, anyone can use their smartphones to track down the entire world’s Pokémon using Google Maps app to find the Pokémon location and their camera to see them in different parts of the world through 3D reality.

Google had incorporated its map app with one of the biggest franchise in entertainment: Pokémon; making possible for everybody to earn the title and become a Pokémon Master only by using a smartphone or tablet with Android or iOS device.

The reason? April Fool’s Day had already arrived in Japan. Google, Nintendo and Pokémon developed Pokémon Challenge as an online joke.

To play it, you only need to launch the Google Maps app ant tap the “Search” option, and it will appear a new “Press Start” option with a blue Pokéball icon. Once you start, you will be bounced to the Pokemón Lab, located in Switzerland. To catch the Pokémon, you should swipe around the map and you will see some creatures appear; once you have found one, you can catch and add it to your Pokédex for safekeeping. Also, you will be able to see a list of all the 150 Pokémon, and the characteristics and abilities of the ones you caught.

Only a few hours after the launched of the video a lot of online articles and news about the Pokémon Challenge appeared in different websites all over the world, encouraging people to download or update Google Maps app and start playing. As the time passed, online communities created blogs and forums to share the location of all the 150 Pokémon; some of them even talked about the 151 Pokémon- Mew- who only appear when you catch the other 150 first.

The process of sharing information that only few people have in order to fill the empty spaces of a bigger puzzle of information is known as collective intelligence. This process is characteristic of the participatory culture that exists nowadays, where the role of producer and consumer of media content is no longer passive and specific. The audiences are interacting together sharing different kind of content through all the media platforms, collaborating between each other and extending the available information.

As a result of this process, the ones who could not found the 150 Pokémon by their own were able to find them using the information that others shared on internet before; making easy for them to become a Pokémon Master.

Pokémon: the beginning

Pokémon started as a video game developed by the Japanese company Game Freak and distributed by Nintendo. The word Pokémon is the result of the combination of ‘Pocket’ and ‘Monster’, and it is used in all the products of the company.

After its great success it became one of the biggest gaming companies in the world, and got into new entertainment industries such as television, film, board games, toys, clothes and others. One of the most famous products is the television cartoon named “Pokémon: Gotta Catch’em All!”; where only existed 151 Pokémon, nowadays there are more than 700 Pokémon.

Pokémon Challenge and popular culture

As a result of its success Pokémon characters have become international icons. They appear like puppets in parades and shows in other countries besides Japan, also they are used as decorative furniture items which are sold in special stores, and there are two amusement parks of Pokémon. Additionally, different Pokémon characters have been mentioned in other television shows such as The Simpsons, South Park and others.

Even a lot of years after its creation, Pokémon Company is still rising in the market and creating more and new Pokémon for the television cartoon and the video game; wining more fans of different ages all over the world which each one of its entertainment products.

The launched and great success of the Pokémon Challenge is an example of the continuing popularity of Pokémon. Even when the game was only available for a few days, it was played for millions of people of different ages, including the older generation who plays the video games and the new generation who watches the television cartoon. The only requisite was having Google Maps app in their smartphones and following the official social networks of the companies in order to get clues about the location of the Pokémon.

Instead of replacing old media platforms for the new ones, Pokémon, Nintendo and Google Maps absorbed each other strengths to finally create a unique entertainment product: Pokémon Challenge, and make the game available for lots of people through a new tool.

This is an example of the media convergence that characterized our society nowadays. The new technologies create the possibility to share and extent media content through different media platforms without eliminating the old ones. Instead the content is converging in specific platforms, which are selected because it represents an advantage to share the content property.

Extension to other entertainment industries and the possibility to create new franchises in other places apart the location of the company’s headquarter are pushing media companies to embrace convergence if they want to rise in the market and get to more people.

Pokémon Challenge is an example of how the new media brings popular innovation.

Bibliography

NINTENDO LIFE. Whitehead, Thomas. Google Maps Laucnhes a Pokémon Challenge. (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/03/google_maps_launches_a_pokemon_challenge)

TNW. Google Maps now lets you find and catch wild Pokémon. (http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/03/31/can-now-find-catch-wild-pokemon-inside-google-maps/)

BECOME A POKEMON MASTER WITH GOOGLE MAPS (http://google-latlong.blogspot.cz/2014/03/become-pokemon-master-with-google-maps.html)