Oh, Forgetfulness...

The article used for this blog can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/business/media/25coverage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

After the tragic earthquake in Haiti, journalists and news companies rushed to the scene as perhaps billions of people around the world were glued to the coverage. There was constant exposure to the devastation; what seemed like around-the-clock reports of pictures, stories, and updates. The New York Times article mentioned above reports a new conflict that is emerging: the high cost of the coverage, combined with decreasing interest in the stories, is causing the TV networks to take their journalists and crews out of Haiti. The article begins by acknowledging the great amount of attention that has been given to the earthquake, as well as making the comment that “the attention has come in large part because of the news media’s reportorial muscle, the kind that is harder to flex in a challenging economic climate.” It continues with the explanation that many TV networks, at the outset of this crisis, proceeded without worry about the cost, but are now starting to feel the ramifications of that decision. The article estimated that each news company would spend about $1.5 million on their reports of the earthquake. In addition to the expenses, the article talks about the “24-hour news cycle,” in which watchers are beginning to become less interested in the stories that are being told. Anderson Cooper is quoted as having lamented, “People are just going to lose interest in this as a story. They’re going to stop watching.” The article also briefly discusses the struggle of journalists to balance helping people with reporting, as well as reports that some organizations were critical of news companies using their aiding efforts as “self-promotion.”

One of the things that caught my attention in this article is how it relates to the bigger question of the degree to which media impact our lives. Taking all the variables into account (i.e. expenses of coverage and people’s loss of interest), we have to ask the question, are we losing interest and not watching the stories, thus causing the networks to change their stories, or are the networks lack of reporting (possibly due to the expense) causing us to become disinterested? This question is discussed in the theory of normalization. Part of the philosophy of normalization is that “ideas and attitudes that are routinely included in media become part of the legitimate public debate about issues. Ideas that are excluded from the popular media or appear in the media only to be ridiculed have little legitimacy.” (Croteau and Hoynes, pg. 163). The New York Times article itself seems to recognize this phenomenon of media effecting people’s responses, whether positively or negatively: “Some say the media’s ability to arrive so swiftly and show the widespread suffering in a place like Port-au-Prince influences the public’s reactions.” Although this comment was made in relation to government reactions, it has telling implications for the general public’s reactions as well.

Aside from these “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” type questions, I am also caught in a more personal question: will I forget? Will you forget? In the coming months, as the economy fluctuates and new stories pervade our senses, will we leave Haiti behind? I would like to think the answer is no, and to an extent past experiences with catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina tell me that we will not forget completely. However, with the idea of normalization in play, and the news companies having to (perhaps understandably?) withdraw their stories, it is important that we still remember, and, that we do not stop there, but remember enough to continue to do something.

iPad Vs Kindle

Many, many blogs over the last two days have focused on Apple's introduction of their brand new product, the iPad. Aside from the continuous onslaught of criticism against Apple's poor and comical choice in a product name there has been in depth discussion on how this new product will effect media. The most interesting article I could find was a discussion on how iPad is a challenge to Amazon's e-book reader, The Kindle.

The article can be found at nytimes.com or:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/three-reasons-why-the-ipad-will-kill-amazons-kindle/?ref=technology


This article examines three reasons why the iPad will be more successful than Amazon's Kindle. The three reasons are that, "Content is changing, but the Kindle is not. The Kindle's technology isn't evolving fast enough. The Kindle is too expensive for a single-purpose device." All of these arguments are based on the versatility of each items ability to be used as an e-reader for electronic books. Not only is the name-tag of Apple enough to overshadow the Kindle, its multifunctional use will give customers "more for their money". What consumer would ever choose less for their money?

In relation to media at large, the competition between these two products may just open the public's mind to a whole new medium of information. That medium is that of an e-reader. As opposed to purchasing a book or textbook e-readers are making information more portable and more affordable. While e-readers already exist, the addition of Apple's new product to the market will be promoting a whole new mindset for the public to examine when considering who they consume literature.

As a college student, this may be the best option for ridding our backs and our bank accounts of the pesky worries that textbooks arise. Just consider the idea of reducing the price of all of your textbooks to a cheap download. Just like an MP3 player, you would have complete access to the knowledge in pages at your fingertips in a cold metal piece of hardware. The inclusion of the iPad's various features will of course increase the pleasure that a student will gain from a normal e-reader. It is yet to be proven, but I am in full support of the move to e-readers and possibly the purchase of an iPad.

Matt

Haiti, Radios, Communication, and What You Can Do to Help.

Article talked about in blog found at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/20/haiti.amateur.radio/index.html

WHAT?

With the recent earthquake hitting the small nation of Haiti just two weeks ago, many stories have sprung up all over the news about it. CNN posted a recent article by John D. Sutter about the use of low-tech radios in Haiti and the vital part they have played in this natural disaster. With cell phone towers in Haiti collapsed and the internet down, these amateur radios, often called ham radios, have become very important in linking Haiti with the rest of the globe. A technology often forgotten in today’s advancing world is said to be at often times the only way to communicate after a disaster, such as the recent earthquake in Haiti. The article goes on to tell miracle stories of Haitians contacting family members in the United States through the use of these radios and their “low-tech hum” radio frequency. Text messaging, twitter, facebook and other communication methods have proven to be helpful in Haiti during this devastating time, but as manager of disaster services technology at the American Red Cross, Keith Robertory, said, “Amateur radio is a very powerful tool..” and are “extremely valuable.”

WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Overall this article offers some valuable information that many Americans would not have thought about if it was not presented to them in this format. The article tells us that only one third of Haitians even own cell phones and upon further research on MSNBC, out of the 9.5 million people living in Haiti, only about 12,000 have access to the internet. That leaves millions without any necessary means to communicate with the outside world. Many people forget that those living in third world countries, like Haiti, do not have the communicational capabilities that we do. This article is important because it focuses on the significance of a simple tool, like the radio, that is often forgotten in today’s world. Your life, and my life may be technological advanced but it is important to remember that over 1 billion people in today’s world live on less than one dollar a day and more than 2 billion live on less than two dollars a day. That leaves only 3.7 billion people who live on more than 2 dollars a day. Most people do not live like we do and the recent earthquake in Haiti should remind us of that. We are blessed with the communication we have at our fingertips 24/7 and remember those who do not.

WHAT YOU CAN DO…
You may not be able to equip a Haitian family with a cell phone or internet access but there is plenty of other things you can do to help this nation that is in desperate need at this time. Become educated about what is occurring in Haiti, and in other third world countries around the world. Pray and think about how you can help and make an impact in someone else’s life. Be creative. Think big. Make a difference. If you still need ideas with how you can help with the recent disaster in Haiti check out the following websites:

http://www.redcross.org/
www.myspace.com/operationnet
http://www.compassion.com/
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/

What do you think?

--Kali

Welcome

Welcome,

We are a group of six college students embracing life and asking questions along the way. Thank you for joining us in this voyage to discuss stories in media and how they are affecting us and the people around us.

In Media Res in Latin means "in the midst of" or "in the middle of" Just as Beowulf's story is told; many news stories start In Media Res and we found this to be an appropriate name for our blog.

Enjoy.