Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"The world is a fine place
and worth fighting for."
--Ernest Hemingway
Welcome to "The Noisy Lion", blog-auxiliary of The Berkeley Beacon, Emerson College's school newspaper. A regularly updated source for wide-ranging cultural and political commentary, it serves to augment print content and foster discussion of relevant topics. Both original articles and abbreviated observation will be featured here.
Interested in contributing?
beaconopinionblog-AT-gmail.com
Philip Primeau ('10), Editor
Douglas P. Case ('11), Asst. Editor
and worth fighting for."
--Ernest Hemingway
Welcome to "The Noisy Lion", blog-auxiliary of The Berkeley Beacon, Emerson College's school newspaper. A regularly updated source for wide-ranging cultural and political commentary, it serves to augment print content and foster discussion of relevant topics. Both original articles and abbreviated observation will be featured here.
Interested in contributing?
beaconopinionblog-AT-gmail.com
Philip Primeau ('10), Editor
Douglas P. Case ('11), Asst. Editor
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(74)
-
▼
February
(18)
- Academy Award predictions
- An amended position on Chris Dodd
- Amnesty in Afghanistan: Reconciliation or Concession?
- The unspoken prejudices
- Nobody ***** With Da Jesus!
- An inconvenient truth for Al Gore
- The revolution will not be televised
- Surprise, surprise
- One year later
- Hillary and the War
- Wat is happenin 2 0ur langu@g3?
- Andrew Sullivan gets it wrong on Rudy
- Okay, NOW he's running
- Plagarism at Slate
- The YouTube Effect
- Who would want to pay to attend school in Oklahoma...
- The latest Bush-ism.
- Exit with dignity
-
▼
February
(18)
Required Reading
- American Prospect
- Andrew Sullivan
- Atlantic Monthly
- Berkeley Beacon
- Boston Globe Op-Ed
- Campus Pundit
- Christian Science Monitor
- Chronicles Magazine
- Daniel Larison
- Drudge Report
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- National Review
- New York Times Op-Ed
- Rod Dreher
- Salon
- Slate
- The 1880
- The Nation
- The New Yorker
- The Onion
- The Progressive
- Vanity Fair
- Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
- Weekly Standard
3 comments:
Great catch Pat.
There will be plenty of vicious (and entertaning) attack ads on everybody. And many of them will be made by people without the resources to normally buy ads.
Ah, now that we've just rested after the 2006 elections we're warming up for 2008! One must remember that a video like this could probably be edited and published about any of the candidates. This will probably hurt McCain's reputation as a moderate Republican among younger voters. YouTube, for better or worse, affects our generation of voters in public opinion. It's a great medium but I wouldn't hail it as the new democracy. The internet is a powerful tool, but also a powerful diversion. Any corporation or political group could put videos on YouTube under the guise of "Average Joe or Jane."
This is a nice way to convey a message, but anything on the internet should be trusted no more than a Wikipedia entry.
Absolutely Chris. This could in fact be very bad. There can be plenty of swiftboating and uses of patently false information on these videos.
But, I think its more of a plus than a negative. People, even those without much money, can respond to vicious attacks, dispell myths, and counter distortions. Yes they can create them, but it is far more democratic than having only those with enough money to buy ads (or media outlets), have a voice in the debate.
Also, I have to say that I take issue with your last paragraph on several levels.
" ...anything on the internet should be trusted no more than a wikipedia entry."
i take it you mean to be skeptical, which I of course agree with. But simply being "on the internet" does not make somethign less credible then somethign that is not.
The Swiftboat campaign was on TV. And read The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page a few times a week.
All things should be viewed skeptically, not things "on the internet."
And lastly, I am really tired of this trendy wikipedia bashing.
According to THE BBC (no, not according to Wikipedia):
"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature."
But still everyone -- be it professors, students, editors of newspapers/magazines -- insists on bashing it.
Its getting old. Clearly one would not cite wikipedia in an article, if only because it will change when a reader goes to check on it (although the history is still there, so it would't be terrible.
But wikipedia is a godsend. Arguably the website that I benifit from most, in terns of a starting point for information.
Moreover, as a wonderful New Yorker (7/31/06)article pointed out it has more than a million articles -- almost ten times as much as Encyclopedia Britiannica.
From the article:
Apparently, no traditional encyclopedia has ever suspected that someone might wonder about Sudoku or about prostitution in China. Or, for that matter, about Capgras delusion (the unnerving sensation that an impostor is sitting in for a close relative), the Boston molasses disaster, the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, Bill Gates’s house, the forty-five-minute Anglo-Zanzibar War, or Islam in Iceland
That's it, I am going to write about this. You have inspired me. But damnit, this I am just about at my limit of hearing ilogical wikipedia bashing.
(oh and by the way, one of my fellow interns and I have done an experiment. We have slightly changed an entry to a well-known, but noncontroversial author, to see how long the information will stick -- I will let you know how long it takes for someone to fix it)
Post a Comment