News Sites Comparison

In comparing the news sites I think it’s best to give them grades in certain categories, categories such as format, ads saturation, ease of navigation, and content.  The grading will be on a scale of 1, being the lowest and 5, being the highest. 

 

FOX News:

 

Format:  4,  The format was good, could be better.  It had good organization and was broken up into sections that transitioned well.  The top of the home page list eye catching stories with entertainment news at the bottom of the page.

 

Ads Saturation:  3, It gets a three because in the main page the ads were in a small section, but more were found in the articles.

 

Ease of Navigation:  5,  The top header had all the categories listed which made it easy to find a story.

 

Content:  5,  The content had a mix of news and entertainment.

 

 

RedState:

 

Format:  2,   I was not a big fan of the format of this site.  It was boring and texty.

 

Ads Saturation; 5,  This site had one ad that I noticed, on the top of the page.  Other than that, no ads.

 

Ease of Navigation:  2,  Given that I was not familiar with the site the design made it hard to find a specific story on the site.

 

Content:  4, As a weblog, the content had wide array of stories.

 

 

The Arizona Republic:

 

Format:  4,  The categories were sectioned of nicely, I could tell where a new category started on the page.  The top page also listed all the categories.

 

Ads Saturation:  3,  There was a number of ads on the site, the good thing was that they were dispersed so that it wasn’t unbearable.

 

Ease of Navigation:  5,  I was able to find stories easily.

 

Content:  5,  The content had a mix of national and local news.

 

 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

 

Format:  3,  The home page was very busy with pictures that are flashy. 

 

Ads Saturation:  3,  The site had ads on the home page and articles. 

 

Ease of Navigation:  5, I navigated easily. 

 

Content:  3,  The content was dominated by local news. 

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

 

Format:  2,  I was not a fan of the format, the three column design was messy.

 

Ads Saturation:  3,  The ads were to the right of page but was still noticeable.

 

Ease of Navigation:  4,  The Inquirer is sub-page to Philly.com, so when I clicked on the home page it took me back to Philly.com, kind of confusing.

 

Content:  2,  Very Philly news heavy.

 

 

San Antonio Express-News:

 

Format:  2, Too many pictures.  It seems that they are trying to use pictures as fillers.

 

Ads Saturation:  2,  Too many ads.  There were ads to the left me, ads to the right of me.

 

Ease of Navigation:  4,  Good.

 

Content:  3,  Local news heavy.

 

One Laptop Per Child…Really?

      I decided to write my third essay on the OLPC project, which stands for One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization.  The OLPC works by selling cheap computers, which has a targeted price of $100 but has been sold for 199, to the government in developing countries and the government in turn, gives the laptops to schools to give out to students.  They only give laptops to those who are between the ages 6 and 16.        

       The OLPC project is a noble idea and filled with great intentions, but I think that the idea is also a naïve and expensive one.  There are better and cheaper options that accomplish the same as giving every child a laptop.  Although I think that giving every child a laptop would be a great investment, the idea is just not feasible in the current economy. 

         The OLPC currently is going through cuts in spending.  Cutting half of their staff and pay cuts for the remaining staff (olpcnews.com).  They are trimming the number of countries they are operating in, such as Ethiopia (africanews.com).  Even as a non-profit operation, the program is just not feasible.  With the OLPC’s current financial status and the world’s current financial status I ask, Is it really necessary to give every child a laptop?

         Closing the gap on the digital divide is an investment worth the money, but how much money? That is the trillion-dollar question. According to UN University Vice Rector Ramesh Thakur and UNICEF Japan Director Manzoor Ahmed, there are 2.2 billion people in the world that are under the age of 18(overpopulation.org).  If each laptop cost $100, supplying even half of the child population in the world would equal to an insane amount of money.  Giving them a personal machine that brings them the Internet may not be necessary. Why can’t they build a community center filled with computers in the small villages?  Using the community centers would create a haven for learning, create jobs around the community, and protect the investments.  I have been around children all my life and have noticed that they are not to good at keeping things in good condition.  Many can barely keep track of where their iPod is.  It may be different for children in different countries that are new to technology, but once children assimilate to privileges, it’s not long before they neglect these laptops.  Which also leads to my other question about these laptops, what about loss and theft of these laptops?  Are they going to replace them, and at what cost?

         I want to make clear that I believe that giving every child a laptop would be tremendous and have great benefits such as educating the children of our enemies, and teach children that are forced to have narrow viewpoints of the world to expand their horizon.  Giving children the tool that the Internet is, is something worthwhile, especially in developing countries where children, the future engineers and doctors may be able to access information that can lead their country beyond poverty and hunger.  But one of the things I thought about is that will the governments of certain countries allow children to have personal laptops?  Even if they were to expand the number of countries they operate in again, a country such as  North Korea for one I know will be difficult to engage with about this program.

         Along with the current cuts in their operation and staff, the OLPC also needs to cut their loses in this program.  Given the world’s current financial situation, the idea of giving each child a laptop just does not make any sense.  There are much more sensible options that accomplish access to the Internet for those in developing countries. 

 

           

 

1. http://www.overpopulation.org/children.html
2. http://www.olpcnews.com/gallery/olpc-is-refocusing-for-2009.html
3. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Our_market#Why_some_countries_and_not_others.3F
4. http://www.africanews.com/site/Ethiopia_Lack_of_funding_collapsing_OLPC/list_messages/23495
5. http://laptop.org/en/

Open to the Public?

           

            The relationship between cyberspace as a public space and accessibility standards is symbiotic.  I looked up the word “public” on my computer and it came up with some interesting definitions.  One was, “open to or shared by all people of an area or country”.  Another was, “of or provided by the government rather than independent, commercial company”.  With that, labeling cyberspace as a public space may not be appropriate.  For it to be public, it has to be accessible by all, and that is not the case.    

            The idea to make the Internet as a public space was cut short when a price tag was put on the Internet.  There is a fee for accessing the public space that the Internet is suppose to be.  If the money is not there, they cannot access the Internet.  Internet providers have priced the Internet so high, that to this day there are still people with dial-up because of the price tag that high-speed Internet has.  Even with the low-cost technology the Michael Best talks about in “Wireless Revolution and Universal Access”, the low-cost is not really seen by consumers.  Best also suggested ideas in wireless Internet options such as buying unlicensed frequencies to transmit signals.  One thing I worry about though is that anywhere money can be made, the government will exploit.  It won’t be long before those entrepreneurs are taxed, which will eventually raise prices.

            There are also the geography issues that limit accessibility to the Internet.  Here in the U.S., our rural areas have the biggest problem for access to the Internet.  The same goes for rural towns in other countries as well.  The same problem exists for cell phone companies.  Eliminating the problem can be expensive.  Either laying out copper throughout the rural areas or setting up towers to transmit signals has a hefty price tag that ultimately will be passed on to consumers.  As shown in Best’s article, some of the wireless options have drawbacks such as trees and hills that block signal.

            The price for Internet must be made affordable, to all citizens from, as the definitions states, “all people of an area or country”.  When geography and price is no longer an issue can the Internet truly be a public space.    

Questions:

What is the best option for rural communities?

As a “public space” how can the Internet be made accessible to all?

What is your personal opinion on making wireless internet being provided by the government, like social security and education?

New(s) Websites (Philadelphia Inquirer and San Antonio Express-News)

 

            In comparing the two newspaper sites it was clear right from the start that the Philadelphia Inquirer was a more user friendly site to me.  It was neatly laid out, with the right balance of text and pictures.  The two sites were the same in having multimedia use.  I don’t think that it is necessary, but the two sites did not have podcasting, which is almost a norm in all sites. 

            The two sites that I just researched in comparison to the first two seem to be smaller newspapers.  The overall theme that I am picking up on in terms of news websites and technology is that the web designers are still having trouble trying to get a good balance of news and multimedia.  A problem they would be wise to fix as soon as possible.

The Customer Is Always Right

            In today’s busy world the need to get things done fast has become a necessity.  Electronic commerce has given us the ability to take some time off our schedules. 

            I myself do almost all of my bill paying online.  I have my salary automatically deposited into my account, not having to wait for it in the mail and not having to go to the bank every month.  That alone saves me an hour and gas.  I don’t know about everyone else, but there so many things that I can do in an hour.    Which is one of the reasons why I have embraced electronic commerce. If given the chance I would do grocery shopping online. 

            Which leads to drawbacks or limitations of electronic commerce, the ability to choose.  There are certain things that I still want to use my senses to buy.  I want to smell the apple I am buying, or see how clear the picture is on a television before I buy it.  The experience of going to a nice mall and seeing things in person is something that a website cannot replace.  The smells, the sounds, to me is an interaction with the world I would still like to have. 

            In the next ten years I think that we will make strides in perfecting the balance to electronic commerce versus traditional commerce.  We have done that with music.  iTunes gives me the chance to buy only the songs I want and not waste money on 15 other songs on an album that suck.  Amazon gives me the ability to buy books without standing in long lines next to the girl on the phone talking about her personal business that I don’t care to hear. 

            Ultimately, the more options I as a consumer have, the happier I will be.  In an economy where customers are the most important commodity, businesses would be smart to give customers what they want.

 

 

Questions:

 

1. What drawbacks have you experienced with electronic commerce?

 

1. How do you see commerce evolving in the future, more online, or more face-to-face commerce?

 

1. Why is it important to give customers what they want? 

News Websites Experience

            In scrolling through the websites I found that most websites have caught on to the technologies that keep them viable.

            I found that some of the information needed for the assignment was hard to find at times.  Sometimes RSS feeds are most of the time at the bottom of the page in small lettering.  Some of the websites are just too cluttered to be able to find the information fast.  Even though it was hard to find the information it was there. 

            It’s amazing how news organizations utilize each others work, using each other as a source.  In the past this would not been available to the media if not for the Internet.      

            Most news sites have multimedia that is popular among web surfers.  News sites are just supplying the demand for the technology.

Politics As Usual

           There is no doubt now that internet technology can play a big role in politics.  As this past elections has shown us, it can be used to draw a huge base of supporters and money. 

            I completely agree with the authors partly because we have witnessed what they are saying.  Layout plays a big a deal on how viewers surf a candidate’s site.  It can dictate how much a person can take away from the site.  A perfect example of this is the group project we are doing in class in where we view sites and look at how multimedia is being used.  I found that the ones that did not have good organization and flow did not keep my attention as good.  That can deter a swing voter from looking further into the site and learn about the candidate more and what they stand for, not that it really matters in politics. 

            Money makes the world go round.  It can also determine whether a candidate stays in a race or not.  In this year’s race we saw Hillary Clinton struggle to keep up with President Obama.  If President Obama were to not have the same amount of help early in the elections, he probably would not have made it this far.  The genius of his campaign was to go after the young and the internet, a combination the resulted in success.   

            It would not be a huge surprise if in the future candidates doubled their investments in their websites and interactions with voters through the internet.    

 

Questions:

 

1. How can candidates in the future utilize the internet better?, or is there even any other way of taking advantage of the technology?
2. In times of a rough economy, can the internet really help raise money the way it has for Obama or Dean?
3.  With the increase in popularity in online campaigns, will this urge candidates to go after younger voters? 

Got Privacy?

Criticism of Facebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Faceboo

 

           This article, written in August of 2007 lists the many criticisms Facebook.  It listed more than a thousand contributors to the article.

 

             I selected the article because my wife opened a Facebook account recently and was astonished as to how much information is out there. I never realized what, how much, and how information is given by Facebook, or other social networking sites for that matter.

            A criticism of anything has biased motives and this article is no different.  Its stance is clearly biased based on the fact that it had nothing good to say about Facebook.  It states that Facebook’s policy states,

“We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile.”

 

After researching Facebook I found that it has various versions of this statement.  The statement given was not exactly accurate.  It presented what the author thought would get the message across.  The policy statement that comes close to this states,

 

“We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile. Where such information is used, we generally allow you to specify in your privacy settings that you do not want this to be done or to take other actions that limit the connection of this information to your profile (e.g., removing photo tag links).”3

The highlighted portion is what comes closest to the statement listed on the article, but as you can see, there are some missing words from the statement, and the whole statement is much longer.     

 

            The article is controversial in many ways.  It points out how personal information of users are used in ways that users may not want it used for.  Recently my wife and I have been receiving magazines and brochures we previously have not received in the past.  The only thing that we have signed up for recently is Facebook.  This may not be the reason we are all of a sudden receiving new mailers, but it’s no secret that personal information have been sold in the past by businesses that have your information.  The following statement comes from Facebook’s privacy statement similar to the one above.

 

“When you use Facebook, certain information you post or share with third parties (e.g., a friend or someone in your network), such as personal information, comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other information, may be shared with other users in accordance with the privacy settings you select. All such sharing of information is done at your own risk. Please keep in mind that if you disclose personal information in your profile or when posting comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other items, this information may become publicly available.”3 

 

           As a child I perfected the art of loopholes.  I turned a statement by my parents to my advantage with ease.  This statement has many loopholes.  A casual IM conversation on Facebook could be laced with information that you think is only between you and a friend, bus as the statement clearly states, posting comments too can become publicly available. 

            The second article relating to the topic is titled, Facebook fiasco may lead to closer look at online privacy issues, is from Computerworld.  The article also talks about the security issues with Facebook.  It focuses on the program that it uses to detect user’s habits online called Beacon.  Essentially it reads the cookies from a user’s computer and saves the information.  It is then able to put you in a box, for example if you go online and buy shoes from Prada, Facebook can list you as a Prada fan without you knowing, and connects you to other users that are also fans of Prada.  In contrast to one another, the article from Computerworld is more credible to me.  The fact that Wikipedia is edited by the public, and main contributions come from the public bothers me.  The editing portion is mainly my concern.  The article from Wikipedia also has so many contributions and revisions/editing that it jeopardizes accuracy. The idea that unpaid people, with no higher authority checking their work leaves me with accuracy questions about Wikipedia.   

         

Citations:

 

1)    Criticism of Facebook. (2009, February 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:04, February 13, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Facebook&oldid=270156595

 

2)    Facebook fiasco may lead to closer look at online privacy issues.(PRIVACY). Heather Havenstein, Jaikumar Vijayan and Juan Carlos Perez. (2007,December 10).  In Computerworld, Magazine/Journal.  Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://find.galegroup.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28KE%2CNone%2C21%29criticism+of+facebook%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=wash_main&docId=A172910066&docType=IAC&finalAuth=true

 

3)    Facebook.com

 

---

 

 

Out With Old, In With The New

 

            The effects of blogging technology are starting to take its toll on established media.  Here in Seattle we are witnessing our newspapers struggling to stay afloat.  A scenario that is common around the country with the future looking dim. 

 

            It reminds me of sports, where established older veterans are up against rookies or younger players that seem to be bigger, faster, and stronger than they are.  Even the wisdom and guile of the veterans isn’t enough to keep up with the younger players.  Eventually time catches up with the older players and replaced by the younger players.

            As a sports fan I listen to sports radio often, and I hate having to wait a half hour to get the information I want to hear.  Podcasting gives me the ability to listen and extract information when I want to.  The only time I listen radio is when I’m driving and don’t have my Ipod or don’t have cds in the car.  Established medias have to change with the times and adapt in order to stay competitive or their demise will be slow and expensive. 

            Large media also has the opportunity to take advantage of the popularity of blogging technology.  They have the chance to cater to more of their customers, and more of what their customers want.  Follow the same formula that smaller media is using. 

            Blogging technology will unarguably play a role in the future of media.  If used properly, established media outlets have the chance to stay in business.  If not, smaller media outlets have the chance to take a foothold in the industry. 

           

 

 

 

 

Questions

 

• Isn’t one of the allure of podcasts having the luxury of not listening to ads and commercials, with that, how will ads change to keep podcasting feasible?
• How will the role of large media change in the future?
• What will be the role of blogging in our economy in the future?

           

           

            

Discussion Experience

            The experience with being the discussion leader has been a mix of emotions.  My relationship with the machines/computer definitely went through it’s ups and downs the past week. 

            The gathering of information was pretty easy since the topic of Social Networks is everywhere.  The only part that was close to being difficult was picking the right source, and there was a lot to choose from.  Where it got pretty heated between the computer and I was when I was trying to upload, post, then link.  My laptop took a good beating from me after each mishap.   

            The presentation part was the easy part for me.  My first group of audience was pretty receptive and relaxed.  Which was good and bad because, although it made the first presentation go smoothly, I tried doing the same thing for the second group.  With any type of performance, knowing your audience is key.  A set of questions may not work for every group, so my advice for the next set of presenters is to have a varied set of questions.  Also, the time flies and it is best to have laid out the meat of your article’s connections to the topic then start your discussion questions.  After each group you get a better sense of how to manage time.

            Overall it was a fun experience and is good change of pace from whole class discussions to small group discussions.