As much as YouTube videos featuring a man dancing manically around the world are entertaining, here is one YouTube star that warms the heart.
Susan Boyle, a 47 year old Scot who appeared last week on Britain’s Got Talent, has wowed audiences the world over with her rendition of ‘I Dreamed a Dream’ from Les Miserables, and has been viewed over 20 million times.
Boyle, the middle-aged unemployed church volunteer who lives with her cat Pebbles, looked like the typical terrible talent-show entrant – poorly dressed, old, with no experience and wanting to become a professional singer. But Boyle shocked everyone including the smarmy judges (Simon Cowell included) when she started singing with a voice of a seasoned performer.
Watch it and you’ll cry, it’s just that beautiful.
See Susan's performance on Britain's Got Talent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
You got censored...
What do a dentist, an owner of a dog kennel, a school cafeteria food provider and a US astrology site have in common? They all operate websites that have all fallen victim to Australia’s new Internet censorship laws.
Australia has joined the ranks of many countries that have decided to implement mandatory Internet censorship. The only problem is, their filtering system is far from perfect, and innocent people are having their businesses blocked under the new regulations.
The Australian government unveiled plans late last year to implement a two-tiered system of censorship aimed at protecting children from pornography and violent content online. The plan includes two blacklists, one of which will filter illegal content according to Internet content laws as well as other "unwanted" content, and the other will also filter content unsuitable for children. Internet users will be able to opt out of the secondary blacklist for children, but will not be able to opt-out of the primary filter, sparking free speech concerns. No statement has been made about what content will be considered "illegal", or what is considered "unwanted".
Furthermore, because the blacklists are secret, un-audited, and specifically exempted by legislation from the Freedom of Information application process, the Ofiice of Film and Literature Classification (which regulates
Media censorship in Australia) would never get a chance to check the accuracy of these classifications. Thus, innocent websites are able to slip through the cracks and become banned.
Cliff Foggarty, the owner of the dog kennel that got banned, didn’t even know that his website was blacklisted until he received calls from journalists that discovered his name on a list of banned websites that was leaked to the public last year. Foggarty’s business was still blacklisted as recently as March this year, despite complaining to the Australia Communications and Media Authority.
Assistant law professor Derek Bambauer, author of ‘Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray into Internet Censorship’ said Australia's move to impose mandatory internet censorship ''puts the country at the forefront of the spread of this practice from authoritarian regimes such as China and Iran to Western democratic nations''.
The fact that Australia, which most people consider a fairly democratic nation grounded in common law principles of responsible government, is following the lead of these countries is a worry to say the least. One can only hope that the Aussie Government gets its act together and has a look at these filters and how they operate, or else I’ll never be able to find someone to take care of my dog while I get my tarot read online by an American psychic ever again.
Australia has joined the ranks of many countries that have decided to implement mandatory Internet censorship. The only problem is, their filtering system is far from perfect, and innocent people are having their businesses blocked under the new regulations.
The Australian government unveiled plans late last year to implement a two-tiered system of censorship aimed at protecting children from pornography and violent content online. The plan includes two blacklists, one of which will filter illegal content according to Internet content laws as well as other "unwanted" content, and the other will also filter content unsuitable for children. Internet users will be able to opt out of the secondary blacklist for children, but will not be able to opt-out of the primary filter, sparking free speech concerns. No statement has been made about what content will be considered "illegal", or what is considered "unwanted".
Furthermore, because the blacklists are secret, un-audited, and specifically exempted by legislation from the Freedom of Information application process, the Ofiice of Film and Literature Classification (which regulates
Media censorship in Australia) would never get a chance to check the accuracy of these classifications. Thus, innocent websites are able to slip through the cracks and become banned.
Cliff Foggarty, the owner of the dog kennel that got banned, didn’t even know that his website was blacklisted until he received calls from journalists that discovered his name on a list of banned websites that was leaked to the public last year. Foggarty’s business was still blacklisted as recently as March this year, despite complaining to the Australia Communications and Media Authority.
Assistant law professor Derek Bambauer, author of ‘Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray into Internet Censorship’ said Australia's move to impose mandatory internet censorship ''puts the country at the forefront of the spread of this practice from authoritarian regimes such as China and Iran to Western democratic nations''.
The fact that Australia, which most people consider a fairly democratic nation grounded in common law principles of responsible government, is following the lead of these countries is a worry to say the least. One can only hope that the Aussie Government gets its act together and has a look at these filters and how they operate, or else I’ll never be able to find someone to take care of my dog while I get my tarot read online by an American psychic ever again.
Out in the streets they call it murder...
Censorship. It’s amazing how one word can simultaneously mean so much – the infringement of civil liberties, the denial of one’s human rights, the inability for information to be spread out into the world, the literary persecution of those who try.
Another word that these days means a lot: Google. According to a teacher of mine, if you’re name can’t be found on Google, you don’t exist. So imagine how alarming it would be to discover that you had effectively been murdered online.
That’s what happened to Matthew Lee, editor-in-chief of Inner City Press. Apparently, the United Nations had enough of Lee critiquing their actions, and effectively ordered Google to remove his articles from the Google News feeds. This killed not only a virtual highway of Internet traffic to his site, but also his online persona.
Google-murder is not confined to the United States. Former Chinese university professor Guo Quan, who critizised the Chinese Government, had his name removed from not only Google searches in China, but those on Yahoo! as well. Along with Tibetan and Taiwanese independence, Falun Gong and Tienanmen Square, Guo Quan cannot be found on these search engines.
An added issue with barring Guo Quan from being searchable is that the search engines also killed the online identities of every other Guo Quan in China.
In this day and age, having a presence online is incredibly important, and Google and Yahoo! effectively committed mass online murder. If they killed people in ‘real life’ they would be held firmly behind bars (most likely with a large inmate ironically named Bubba). We should not let search engines become the hitmen of our societies, constantly at the mercy of powerful corporate Mafia Dons. Knowledge is power, and the fact that these search engines make an effort to remove people to prevent them from sharing their opinions is only making society as a whole increasingly powerless.
We may not be able to stop these big online entities from trying to rub controversial people out. But at least those who get ‘rubbed out’ online can take comfort in the fact that if you’re dead on Google, in the ‘real world’, you must be doing something right.
Another word that these days means a lot: Google. According to a teacher of mine, if you’re name can’t be found on Google, you don’t exist. So imagine how alarming it would be to discover that you had effectively been murdered online.
That’s what happened to Matthew Lee, editor-in-chief of Inner City Press. Apparently, the United Nations had enough of Lee critiquing their actions, and effectively ordered Google to remove his articles from the Google News feeds. This killed not only a virtual highway of Internet traffic to his site, but also his online persona.
Google-murder is not confined to the United States. Former Chinese university professor Guo Quan, who critizised the Chinese Government, had his name removed from not only Google searches in China, but those on Yahoo! as well. Along with Tibetan and Taiwanese independence, Falun Gong and Tienanmen Square, Guo Quan cannot be found on these search engines.
An added issue with barring Guo Quan from being searchable is that the search engines also killed the online identities of every other Guo Quan in China.
In this day and age, having a presence online is incredibly important, and Google and Yahoo! effectively committed mass online murder. If they killed people in ‘real life’ they would be held firmly behind bars (most likely with a large inmate ironically named Bubba). We should not let search engines become the hitmen of our societies, constantly at the mercy of powerful corporate Mafia Dons. Knowledge is power, and the fact that these search engines make an effort to remove people to prevent them from sharing their opinions is only making society as a whole increasingly powerless.
We may not be able to stop these big online entities from trying to rub controversial people out. But at least those who get ‘rubbed out’ online can take comfort in the fact that if you’re dead on Google, in the ‘real world’, you must be doing something right.
Who needs toothpaste anyway...
I like ‘The Nation’. If I wasn’t a destitute college student unable to afford toothpaste with access to the online version, I may even consider having it sent to our remote hamlet of Ithaca. The only problem is that publications like The Nation are constantly being put at risk of extinction, making me wary of parting with my money for a monthly subscription.
The plan by United States Postal Service to charge more for delivery of smaller magazines threatened to increase their costs and potentially push them out of the market. What makes the actions of this ‘necessary evil’ incredibly evil is that larger publications that fall under Time Warner ownership will not be threatened in the same way. One of the pitfalls of privatization of formerly government entities is that they become self-sustaining, and take on more of a corporate mentality that doesn’t look out for the public interest (or college students who want to enrich their minds but need to buy ramen to survive).
Similarly, the semi-hostile takeover of five indy weeklies by the Hartford Courant is a prime example of another threat to independents. When you’re a small publication with an equally small bank account, you can easily be swallowed up by the bigger journalistic fish. The fact that the Hartford Advocate is now owned by its former nemesis the Courant is an ironic twist in a sad takeover tale. And although those at the Advocate say they’ll still make fun of the Hartford ‘Not-So-Current’, someone has to be just a little bit scared that one wrong move (or overly obnoxious editorial) will incite the owners to pull the plug on their publication.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need independent media because the mainstream media would do their job properly. But if you’ve watched Fox News lately, you’ll know that’s not the case. So in this less perfect scenario, indys will just have to keep on trucking and hope that their loyal followers support them (and that college students would rather have cavities).
The plan by United States Postal Service to charge more for delivery of smaller magazines threatened to increase their costs and potentially push them out of the market. What makes the actions of this ‘necessary evil’ incredibly evil is that larger publications that fall under Time Warner ownership will not be threatened in the same way. One of the pitfalls of privatization of formerly government entities is that they become self-sustaining, and take on more of a corporate mentality that doesn’t look out for the public interest (or college students who want to enrich their minds but need to buy ramen to survive).
Similarly, the semi-hostile takeover of five indy weeklies by the Hartford Courant is a prime example of another threat to independents. When you’re a small publication with an equally small bank account, you can easily be swallowed up by the bigger journalistic fish. The fact that the Hartford Advocate is now owned by its former nemesis the Courant is an ironic twist in a sad takeover tale. And although those at the Advocate say they’ll still make fun of the Hartford ‘Not-So-Current’, someone has to be just a little bit scared that one wrong move (or overly obnoxious editorial) will incite the owners to pull the plug on their publication.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need independent media because the mainstream media would do their job properly. But if you’ve watched Fox News lately, you’ll know that’s not the case. So in this less perfect scenario, indys will just have to keep on trucking and hope that their loyal followers support them (and that college students would rather have cavities).
Free speech is cool, as long as you don't make anyone nervous...
The current economic downturn that has proverbially screwed most people in this country and abroad was pretty much ignored by most financial analysts (or at least downplayed). You would think that if someone saw it coming and spoke up about it, they would be considered an economic hero (or at the very least just a tiny bit psychic). That wasn’t the case for South Korean blogger Park Dae-sung, better known as Minerva online.
Minerva predicted the downfall of the economy on his immensely popular blog, even accurately foreseeing the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers. And what did he get for his public service? An indictment.
That’s right, apparently in South Korea taking about an economy going through a rough patch supposedly qualified as "spreading false information with the intent of harming the public interest" (You would think that a gigantic world-wide recession preventing people from putting kim-chi on the table would be slightly more damaging public moral, but clearly South Korea has different priorities).
This naturally caused widespread outcry from human rights groups, who said despite the fact that Minerva’s musings could possibly affect the money markets, his right to free speech was kinda more important. Luckily, once authorities tracked Minerva down a Seoul court found that there was no proof of malicious intent.
While Minerva’s victory has been seen as a victory for freedom of speech, his blog’s popularity has only increased. Not bad for an unemployed 31 year old who picked up his financial know-how from the Web and mail-order textbooks.
Check the original BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8007942.stm
Minerva predicted the downfall of the economy on his immensely popular blog, even accurately foreseeing the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers. And what did he get for his public service? An indictment.
That’s right, apparently in South Korea taking about an economy going through a rough patch supposedly qualified as "spreading false information with the intent of harming the public interest" (You would think that a gigantic world-wide recession preventing people from putting kim-chi on the table would be slightly more damaging public moral, but clearly South Korea has different priorities).
This naturally caused widespread outcry from human rights groups, who said despite the fact that Minerva’s musings could possibly affect the money markets, his right to free speech was kinda more important. Luckily, once authorities tracked Minerva down a Seoul court found that there was no proof of malicious intent.
While Minerva’s victory has been seen as a victory for freedom of speech, his blog’s popularity has only increased. Not bad for an unemployed 31 year old who picked up his financial know-how from the Web and mail-order textbooks.
Check the original BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8007942.stm
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Politics, Pussycats and Perez Hilton...The All-You-Can-Eat world of Internet Blogging
The Internet is like an all-you-can eat buffet restaurant – it’s a place where everyone can find something to suit their individual tastes, can try out different things and (perhaps against their better judgment) can keep going back for more.
It is this eternal and expansive appeal of the world wide web that allows almost anyone, anywhere, to find a niche and even get money for it. Eric Nakagawa’s blog “I Can Has Cheezburger” is overwhelmingly popular, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it only features pictures of cats with humorous captions. The amount of money Nakagawa has made from ad revenue on his site has enabled him to quit his day job and embrace life as a blogger (albeit one that has an unhealthy obsession with all things cat).
Perez Hilton’s blog is, according to The LA Times, "like US Weekly, the Star, the Enquierer and Life & Style all rolled into one sweet yet snarky, sagacious yet salacious gay man." Hilton is irreverent, and often downright bitchy about the celebrities he blogs about, and his readers love it. Hilton’s blog is a full time job, and has made him a celebrity in his own right.
On the less ridiculous end of the spectrum, conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein has managed to make a name (and an income) for himself with his blog on Newsbusters.org, even though he is a conservative blogger living in notoriously liberal Ithaca.
There are also blogs and the like that, although they may not allow their creators to quit their day jobs, provide a unique outlet for their authors.
FMyLife.com is an independent outlet for those less fortunate to lambaste their tales of misfortune on a world stage. It is immensely popular, even though the only thing people gain from contributing it is a form of social therapy when other people click a button to agree that their life is well and truly f8%$ed up.
The internet has well and truly down the boundaries of traditional media – it allows anyone, anywhere, to create content about anything they want, and lets everyone else access it. So whatever your poison, from politics to pussycats, there is someone out there writing about it. And for wannabe bloggers, there is always someone there waiting, ready to read your stuff. And maybe, just maybe, the object of your interest (or neurosis) will make you enough money to ditch your horrible day job. Like the metaphorical buffet that it is, the Internet always lets you try everything at least once. And if it fails, you can always write about it on FMyLife.com.
It is this eternal and expansive appeal of the world wide web that allows almost anyone, anywhere, to find a niche and even get money for it. Eric Nakagawa’s blog “I Can Has Cheezburger” is overwhelmingly popular, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it only features pictures of cats with humorous captions. The amount of money Nakagawa has made from ad revenue on his site has enabled him to quit his day job and embrace life as a blogger (albeit one that has an unhealthy obsession with all things cat).
Perez Hilton’s blog is, according to The LA Times, "like US Weekly, the Star, the Enquierer and Life & Style all rolled into one sweet yet snarky, sagacious yet salacious gay man." Hilton is irreverent, and often downright bitchy about the celebrities he blogs about, and his readers love it. Hilton’s blog is a full time job, and has made him a celebrity in his own right.
On the less ridiculous end of the spectrum, conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein has managed to make a name (and an income) for himself with his blog on Newsbusters.org, even though he is a conservative blogger living in notoriously liberal Ithaca.
There are also blogs and the like that, although they may not allow their creators to quit their day jobs, provide a unique outlet for their authors.
FMyLife.com is an independent outlet for those less fortunate to lambaste their tales of misfortune on a world stage. It is immensely popular, even though the only thing people gain from contributing it is a form of social therapy when other people click a button to agree that their life is well and truly f8%$ed up.
The internet has well and truly down the boundaries of traditional media – it allows anyone, anywhere, to create content about anything they want, and lets everyone else access it. So whatever your poison, from politics to pussycats, there is someone out there writing about it. And for wannabe bloggers, there is always someone there waiting, ready to read your stuff. And maybe, just maybe, the object of your interest (or neurosis) will make you enough money to ditch your horrible day job. Like the metaphorical buffet that it is, the Internet always lets you try everything at least once. And if it fails, you can always write about it on FMyLife.com.
It's a 'Beautiful Day' for independent media
He has millions of fans that throw money at him and adore his work. He is immensely influential in his field and his efforts have impacted American government and society. No, we’re not talking about Bono (or any other socially conscious musician turned activist). We’re talking about Josh Marshall, the Polk-Award winning journalist whose efforts as an independent journalist have not only gained a large fan base, but incited the dismissal of a US Attorney General.
Independent journalists are fast becoming the rock stars of the media world – they are the ones with the all-access passes, the ones with millions of fans, the one with a support base so strong they are willing to pay them personally to produce their works. Josh Marshall is leading the pack of indy media moguls who embrace their fan base to produce socially significant work that is making an incredible impact. Marshall’s collaboration with his readers allows him to get to the bottom of stories by utilizing the most valuable resource a journalist has – their sources. He is able to produce high quality, in depth reporting in a way that the mainstream journalists can’t (or in many cases, simply won’t.) In fact, his in depth reporting on Talking Points Memo’s Muckracker website has put many a mainstream journalist to shame.
Like Bono would not insult his fans with a rap album or all of a sudden embrace country music, Marshall gives his audience what they want. Unlike many mainstream outlets, Marshall caters to his fans, his readership – he doesn’t try to be all things to all people. In exchange for catering to their needs and addressing the issues they find important, Marshall’s fans are willing to finance his work. It is this community involvement that enables independent media outlets to address the “creative destruction” of traditional media.
Like many rock stars, Josh Marshall’s work may gradually decline in popularity. But for now, this award-winning journalist is leading the way for indy media moguls everywhere, and is truly a journalistic Bono in a sea of Journey coverbands.
Independent journalists are fast becoming the rock stars of the media world – they are the ones with the all-access passes, the ones with millions of fans, the one with a support base so strong they are willing to pay them personally to produce their works. Josh Marshall is leading the pack of indy media moguls who embrace their fan base to produce socially significant work that is making an incredible impact. Marshall’s collaboration with his readers allows him to get to the bottom of stories by utilizing the most valuable resource a journalist has – their sources. He is able to produce high quality, in depth reporting in a way that the mainstream journalists can’t (or in many cases, simply won’t.) In fact, his in depth reporting on Talking Points Memo’s Muckracker website has put many a mainstream journalist to shame.
Like Bono would not insult his fans with a rap album or all of a sudden embrace country music, Marshall gives his audience what they want. Unlike many mainstream outlets, Marshall caters to his fans, his readership – he doesn’t try to be all things to all people. In exchange for catering to their needs and addressing the issues they find important, Marshall’s fans are willing to finance his work. It is this community involvement that enables independent media outlets to address the “creative destruction” of traditional media.
Like many rock stars, Josh Marshall’s work may gradually decline in popularity. But for now, this award-winning journalist is leading the way for indy media moguls everywhere, and is truly a journalistic Bono in a sea of Journey coverbands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)