Iran and the Internet
Jun. 16th, 2009 10:39 pmInteresting article:
Full article here
IDEA IN THE NEWS / June 16, 2009 -- Over the weekend, Iran hurtled into political upheaval, and America's 24-hour cable news networks hardly noticed. Mark Ambinder explains the role Twitter played in Iran. {...}
What I want to suggest is that events like this portend an interesting, largely unremarked upon change in American political discourse. Consider the two groups of friends I saw in Washington DC this weekend. Group 1 is largely composed of young DC journalists, most of them bloggers. These folks were well aware of events in Iran by Saturday afternoon, getting their updates from blog coverage via Google Reader, or Twitter, or both. {...} Group 2 is more diverse--really just a collection of friends and acquaintances--among them federal employees {...} This latter group knew almost nothing about the Iranian election, even Sunday night. One said she heard that Ahmadinejad won, but didn't yet realize the results were contested.
Yeah, it was the weekend. Who keeps up with the news outside the office? If CNN didn't bother to jump on the story, why would various white collar professionals who work outside journalism bother? And the folks I know who write or follow blogs have been ahead of the curve on news for some time now.
But I've never seen an information asymmetry quite like this...
Full article here
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 11:53 am (UTC)It astounds me. Perfectly reasonable adults know everything about John and Kate +8 and have no idea of the event which actually will impact their lives for decades to come.
I think it takes more work not to know...
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 02:42 pm (UTC)On the other hand, one of the best, most explanatory pieces I have seen on the election was on last week's 60 Minutes that interviewed regular Iranian voters prior to the election. It's not like all television has completely ignored the situation.
I do think that, however, if someone depends exclusively on cable news networks for information, a lot of nuance is lost. That's not really what cable news is set up for.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 12:55 am (UTC)The biggest difference was that ABC has to pack all their information in a 28 minute evening broadcast. CNN had to fill 18 hours daily. So CNN spends all day repeating the glaringly obvious the cheapest way possible (like anchors reading Ruters wires). Still, when it comes to breaking news, CNN usually can get there first with accurate information. When I started at CNN Ted Turner said "the news is king" but now the cult of the anchor rules.
I still trend towards ABC and like Charlie Gibson - he's been around for a long time and I think he's a good managing editor. Still, ABC thinks 2 & 1/2 minutes is a 'long' piece. I really depend on newspapers for analysis.
I tend towards broadcast news pm, newspapers am and the CNN website when I am checking my email. If I hear NPR in the car then I guess I've gotten all my news sources for the day. I'm not to into internet news.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 02:48 pm (UTC)The three cable news nets these days seem more about screaming pundits than objective news.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 02:45 pm (UTC)Although they are the only cable news network whose morning while-I-get-dressed-for-work programming I can watch without feeling all stabby.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:02 am (UTC)I used to have "Headline News" on practically all the time, until they put on nothing but idiots who made me feel stabby...
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:06 am (UTC)