Hide and Seek Champion Dethroned

It took about ten years, several military campaigns, thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars, but the United States finally completed the man hunt of Osama Bin Laden. Ten years ago when the 9/11 terror attacks happened, I saw it all being reported on television. That was how everyone found out about what was going on. Last Sunday though, it was different. My first hint that President Obama was going to be addressing the nation that night came from Twitter. People were tweeting big news to the public that normally wouldn't be known until television and other media outlets were covering it. By the time that the president came on TV to announce the death of Bin Laden, everyone already knew what was coming thanks to the fast-paced, well-connected world we live in today. I spent a good portion of time that night reading twitter feeds with all sorts of details coming out about the mission that located and killed arguably one of the most wanted men in our nation's history. It was like watching the news happen right in front of my very own eyes. There was one Twitter user from Abbottabad that accidentally ended up tweeting the entire assault on Bin Laden's compound. He started by complaining about helicopters flying over his house, but as he kept tweeting they became more and more like reporting and before he knew it he had tons of people following him with reporters from every news agency requesting interviews. This is just another example of how new media is overtaking traditional outlets for breaking news coverage.

However, traditional media adds depth that Twitter and other new medias cannot. This article from the The New York Times gives an in-depth look into the mission to hunt down Bin Laden through work done by CIA operatives on the ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. When I had first heard the news I thought to myself we will never know what happened until years down the line. Boy, was I wrong. The traditional news outlets have served the public everything they could possibly want to know aside from the names of the members of the top-secret SEAL Team on the assault mission and Bin Laden's body on a platter. Both of these details are understood to be best kept secret and away from the public eye though. The New York Times article is a perfect example of hard news reporting. All the facts are laid on the table, barely 24 hours after the incident happened. The article pieces together different bits and pieces of interrogation, surveillance, and espionage that all lead up the helicopter assault on Osama Bin Laden's compound that happened to be in plain site. I would say that both traditional and new media outlets served their purpose during this massive news event. the Internet gave immediate response, while traditional outlets took time to grasp the story and lay it all out for America to fully understand what happened.



P.S.
There was a picture floating around the Internet of a picture of an apparently dead Osama Bin Laden. It is a fake although many have been duped by it, including White House officials. Just another example of how the Internet and new media are not always correct and reliable.

News Flash: Libya is a Mess

CNN posted a great video today that gives an inside look to Misrata, Libya after five weeks of battle. The city looks completely torn apart, complete with bullet holes and abandoned vehicles everywhere. Watching the video reminded me of some type of level in a first-person-shooter video game. There was not anyone in the streets without a bullet-proof vest or at least a semi-automatic weapon. Footage is seen of several attacks, including one within about a 100 yards of the CNN crew. There is also footage of an rocket-propelled-grenade firing on tank from relatively close range at the 1:30 mark. CNN then visited a hospital in Misrata where many civilians were being treated. Some were being looked after with seemingly good care, but the Emergency Room was in a tent out front of the hospital and many patients are being cared for in the parking lot. Many of the civilians are victims of Colonel Qaddafi's attempt to smash the rebel uprising. Seeing so many civilians injured puts the question to mind: Is the US helping the right way? There is a large debate in Washington about our country's role in Libya. Ideally the United States and the rest of the world would like to have him out of power as soon as possible, but no one really knows how long it could actually take. One of the major problems on the table with helping free Libya is how long it would take and how much the United States would be leaned on for help for another decade or so. There are no foreign troops on the ground yet from western powers, however military officials are hinting that other countries are capable of handling the load.

Admiral Mullen replied, in an echo of Mr. Obama, that “we certainly are looking at options from not doing it to doing it,” and then added, “there are plenty of countries that have the abilities, the arms, the skill set, to be able to do this.”

Another country helping out in that region certainly wouldn't hurt the United States, as long as they are an ally or at least neutral to the us. However, if other countries are going to carry the load in Libya how much longer should the United States continue to drop money on them? After seeing the CNN video I'm thinking that the US would be better off dropping care packages and sending the Red Cross over there to help with civilian casualties rather than risking more innocent lives with air strikes. From a military standpoint, the US does not want to spread too thin. From a civilian standpoint, I would rather have the US help wounded civilians than risk creating more. Finish Qaddafi and be done with it. 

Digital Subscriptions

The New York Times announced this week that they will start digital subscriptions in the United States. The idea has already been implemented in Canada, and the news came to the rest of the world on Monday. According to a letter from the times, Canada was being used  as an experiment (does not say much for them) in order to fine-tune and fix any lingering issues before unleashing the new revenue generator on the globe. Subscribers to the newspaper will still have free access on the internet, as will select other folks with subscriptions to the International Herald Tribune. Non-subscribers will still be able to view the website as long as they stay under the 20 article views per month quota. If a reader exceeds this amount, they will be asked to subscribe. Prospective subscribers will have options for different packages they would like to receive in their daily news. For those who use search engines to find news, the New York Times has them covered as well. Articles will be free to view for them, however there will be a daily limit as to how much they can do that. I think they did an excellent job of pricing their services. The way the times set it up allows causal news readers to be in the know, but they also can generate revenue from their more faithful readers. The faithful readers probably won't have a problem subscribing to their favorite news organization either. This will surely point online news in the right direction in terms of generating revenue, but there is still work to be done.

Interactive Journalism

One of the better things that has come out of the Internet is the interactive factors that come into play for the consumer. These interactive features can be used as tools, entertainment, and file sharing. Certain online news outlets have done a great job of harnessing the capabilities of the web. Many news sources use slide shows, amateur video, charts, time lines, among other things that take on an interactive feature of their own. When the 2010 US Census became public, news outlets needed a clear and efficient way to let readers see where our population is currently. Thanks to the Internet, the New York Times was able to use this interactive chart to tell the story. The best part about this feature is that it lets you see population growth in every county of the United States. Before the internet, newspapers had to pick and choose what information to put into the article or map, deeming what was important and what was not. Now, there is infinite space for the same outlets. Readers can deem which information is important for themselves. There are several different maps to look at. They range from racial breakdown to housing vacancy. Whatever information anyone would want to know in regards to the census is available in a couple of clicks and zooms.

As I was messing around on one of the maps, I realized that someone had to put all of this information into the map. Every county has different numbers. That sounds like an insane amount of man hours to me. I would like to give credit to Matthew Bloch, Shan Carter, and Alan McLean for their hard work in putting this great tool together for the rest of the world to better understand the US population.

Prepare for Harshness

Courtesy of FBI

One of the things we have talked about in class is how new media, in particular the Internet, has brought down the quality of reporting as a whole. The speed at which news moves on the web has a direct effect on the quality of writing that consumers read every day. On Yahoo today, Brett Dykes wrote about a FBI press release asking the public for help in decoding encrypted letters. These letters are clues in an unsolved murder case that happened back in June of 1999. The FBI is looking for a fresh set of eyes (public) to take a look at the notes and are encouraged to see what they can come up with. Dykes does a good job making this clear in his writing. However, Dykes fails to leave out an important piece of information that would perhaps hinder the public's ability to help with the case. In the FBI release, it is clear that the encrypted notes were written by the victim, suspected to be written several days before his death. In Dykes article, he fails to clarify that fact to mine and others' frustration. This is the type of article that could have some interesting comments attached to it. Reading the comments it was clear that many of the readers thought the encryptions were written by the murderer, not the victim. This steers many people in the wrong direction and actually hinders the FBI's attempt to get help from the public. When I first read the article I was under the same impression until reading the FBI press release. This is a great example of the fact checking that is available to us, but it is shows that there is lazy/careless mistakes that come with the vast sources of news outlets there are today. I commented twice warning of this error, but they both have since been deleted. Interested to see who controls reader commenting...

Today the New York Times reported that Colonel Qaddafi is continuing to fight back against rebel fighters in Libya. This is being done by way of a counter-offensive while rebels have sat back while diplomats met in London. Qaddafi is now attacking from the Mediterranean Sea, which brings the battle to the water for the first time during the 10 day campaign. According to the report, one of Libya's vessels was forced to beach and another was sunk. Col. Qaddafi has ignored the United Nations resolution for a cease-fire issued 12 days ago. This isn't going to bode well for him in the long run. In all likelihood, western forces are going to continue to help the rebels by air-raiding Libya until Qaddafi has nothing left to throw into the battle. Rebels have pledged that they will hold democratic elections should Qaddafi be foiled in his attempts to shut down any opposition facing him. This still points to more guidance by the western world. France and Britain are the ones forcing the issue for the most part. It seems as though the United States is there to just blow things up at this point.

Police Cracking Down on Students this Spring

According to an article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette the local police are planning on stepping up enforcement for the inevitably wild springing that happens every spring. Scott Merzbach tells his readers that the Amherst Police Department usually puts more officers on duty for weekends in the spring time, but this year they are starting their extra spring shifts earlier. The money for the extra shifts to police officers come from state grants that will be distributed to the Amherst and UMass police department's respectively. There a re plenty of statistics to digest in the article, but I feel as though only one side of the story is conveyed to the reader. What about the students? What do they have to say about extra police forces on the weekends? I for one question whether the state's money should be going towards the prevention of underage drinking when everyone knows it is going to happen regardless of how many officers are patrolling. I understand that UMass is trying to change the culture here in regards to drinking and partying, but attempting to throw money at the problem isn't going to fix much. Drinking at college is a national, cultural idea. Should there be alcohol education? Absolutely. Should underage kids get fined? Sure. I think the better idea that comes into play with this article is the drinking age. If the drinking age is lowered, there are not nearly as many fines (revenue) coming into police departments. Not sure how big of a role the money actually has in this debate, but it is certainly something to ponder.