News flash: US troops are in Iraq!

A pressing, but not very new news topic is the American War in Iraq. This is a topic that has been covered in the news for the past four years, in both newspapers, journals, books, and online news and journal sites. Yesterday, the Senate voted on a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The vote was 50-48 in favor of pulling out of Iraq in September 2008. "This vote puts both the House and Senate on record opposing the president's war policy," says Kathy Kiely of USA Today. Kiely wrote an article in the USA Today, that is easy to read, besides the content but layout wise also. The article is not very long, taking up maybe a quarter of the page, and including a picture of Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel right in the middle of the article. The article is brief which makes it more appealing to read when skimming through the paper. Also covering this topic is The New York Times. The article, though named differently, covers the same topic in a similar view point. Unlike the layout of USA Today, the Times put this article on the first page (where I think it should be), instead of the fifth for USA Today. The article starts on the cover, which catches your attention and drags onto an other page. This article also has a picture of Ben Nelson, but at the bottom. Ben Nelson is a Senator from Nebraska, who along with Chuck Hagel had a swaying vote, and were both outspoken about the topic, Hagel said, "There will not be a military solution to Iraq, Iraq belongs to the 25 Million Iraqis who live there. It doesn't belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost" (Zeleny, A1). Both the newspapers cover the article from the perspective of the Senate, who voted on this decision.

Unlike the Newspapers, the online news journal JSOnline of Milwaukee covers the issue of the Senate's decision to pass a bill for the pulling out of Iraq from President Bush's perspective. This article covers his reaction, and by doing this explains the topic well. It covers less of the Senate's vote, but at the same time, the Newspapers covered a little less of Bush's reaction. Bush did not agree with the vote on Tuesday, and responded negatively, "Bush said Wednesday that the Democratic strategy move will not force him to negotiate. He said again that he would veto any funding legislation that includes a withdrawal timeline" (Flaherty). The Online news source had a different layout. With links and advertisements across the top, sides, and bottom of the web page, the eye starts to get distracted. Often these get in the way, and bump into the article. This article is significantly longer, and in my opinion does not fit on the screen very well.

I preferred reading the articles from the Newspapers. The is layout better, and provide no distractions in the form of advertisements. I also preferred to read the articles in the perspective of the Senate, and not President Bush. I find that because the topic at hand is something that the Senate did, it should be covered from that view. I understand that the online source is covering Bush's reaction, but that being the case, the writer Flaherty should have introduced the article with what the Senate did, and not how Bush reacted.

Online news sources are more abundant then Newspapers and magazines, and can be produced much easier and quicker. But I prefer to read an article from news print, rather then on the Internet while talking to my friends on instant messenger, because it is very distracting. An other thing that I do not like, as well as the academic world, is the lack of credibility of online news sources. Who knows who is writing the article and how credible it is. I surely do not trust Joe Shmo who is pushing his agenda by making an online news paper or web page. As Dan Gillmor says from his book We the Media,

"Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page. Anyone with a computer or a cell phone can post in online forums. Anyone with a moderate amount of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can distort reality. Special effects make even videos untrustworthy. We have a problem here" (Gillmor, 174).

And Gillmor is right, we do have a problem here. What my teachers have told me, is only trust websites with .edu. Or just make sure the site is not B.S. An other great alternative is using books from a library or magazines and Newspapers. So my vote, not only is to pull out of Iraq, but also is to use credible sources, and to make sure you are doing so by reading printed Newspapers over online news sources.





Citations:
1. Kiely, Kathy. (2007, March 28). Senate keeps timetable in Iraq spending bill. USA Today, p. 5A.
2. Zeleny, Jeff and Hulse, Carl. (2007, March 28). Senate Supports A Pullout Date In Iraq War Bill. The New York Times, pgs. A1 and A19.
3. Flaherty, Anne. (2007, March 28). Bush renews vow to veto Iraq timeline. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME
4. Gillmor, Dan. (2004). We the Media. United States of America. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Support Democracy, America, and Bloggers

The blog that I found online, discussing politics is called "Public Affairs: Thoughts, links, inside information and program previews from the host of Chicagoland's premier local-access political talk show." Here is its link The blogger's name is Jeff, and he is a citizen blogger. Jeff has been a blogger since 2/2004, but this blog was started in March 7, 2007. The blog's rank on technorati is 154,427.

In Jeff's most recent blog entry is entitled " Barack Obama’s appeal as the Democratic Presidential Nominee," in which he focuses on why Senator Obama would be a good candidate for the democratic party. Jeff says that he is very appealing because he is "rooted in the African American community, but he is not limited by it." He is a presidential candidate who just happens to be black. He is very charismatic, and has very distinct opinions on issues like the war is Iraq. Since 2002 when the war started, he has had the same opinion, which may be wrong and may be right, but at least he has a firm opinion and holds his ground. He said, "“I don’t oppose war in all circumstances… What I do oppose is a dumb War.” Just the way he talks is very laid-back and nonrestrictive. To his blog, nobody has responded and there does not appear to be a place for one to write back to him, even though he does leave his email address.

The essay "Does the Internet Create Democracy" discusses the role and importance of blogs in democracy. To me, it seems pretty obvious that blogs could help democracy because of its convenience. People call post their opinions about a politician or an argument very easily on a blog page, and use a pseudonym if s/he feels uncomfortable having their name attached. In the introduction to the essay, Rheingold says, “if properly understood and defended by enough citizens, does have democratising potential in the way that alphabets and printing presses had democratising potential” (Thorton, pg. 3). This is in reference to blogging in politics, and says that if understood and used correctly, it has the potential to change the face of democracy. Blogs can also be used by the politicians to more easily outline their agendas and thoughts and campaigns. It is possible that the blog will have a great effect on politics and democracy. This is hypothesized because democracy is very weak and lagging in America today. The places where democracy used to exist, the workplace or everyday discussion and conversation, have died. Some blame this on the new forms of media, like television, because they isolate people:

Many of the old centres of the public sphere still exist, but are no longer places for political criticism or rational debate. Many theorists have commented that television and other electronic communications isolate people from one another and “substitute themselves for older spaces of politics.” (Thorton, 12)

So I believe that blogging and the internet will help out our political system by making it operate more smoothly. People have even spoken about voting online... now how easy would that be? If it could be monitored safely. But regardless, just like how the internet and modern technology has made many things more convenient and easier, the same is the case with democracy and policy.

In fact, politicians in the United States even support the use of the internet for politics. Top officials, such as President Bush support the use of the internet, believing that it will help countries like China become more democratic. Colin Powell said that, "the rise of democracy and the power of the information revolution combine to leverage each other," in support of the internet(Kalathil, 1). Also, members of the Clinton administration believe that the internet playing a substantial force in democracy is inevitable.



Citations:
1. Thornton, Alinta. Does Internet Create Democracy. October 2002
2.Kalathil, Shanthi and Boas, Taylor C. The Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba, and the Counterrevolution. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/kalathil/index.html

Photo Credits:
1. www.defenselink.mil
2. http://www.nndb.com/people/649/000022583/colin-powell.jpg
3. http://park.org/UnitedStates/bill-portrait.gif

I actually know the friends in my group, thanks to yahoo

In Jan Fernback's article "Virtual Communities," Jan describes communities as something that all humans want to belong to. The one problem with communities is organization or the difficulty to organize. But groups or communities can get help with the internet(Fernback, Virtual Communities). The "backbone" of a group is its organization and communication, and the development of the internet has relieved this problem substantially. Some critics say that the internet will lead people away from in-person contact, and this will take away from the experience. An other theory is that people will get so involved with their online communities that they will get distracted from real life. Internet mediated communities will deteriorate society by taking away use for personal contact. (Wellman, Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone)

But I am part of a group, that I feel disproves this argument. I feel as if the group I am in helps communication but does not take away from personal communication, it actually helps it. This online group that I am talking about is a Yahoo Group.I am in a yahoo group from the fraternity that I am in at school. The Yahoo Group's primary job is creating a emailing list, from which one can contact the whole group at once by emailing the whole group. From this group I get emails multiple times a week, informing me of the latest changes in schedule and other information. Admittance to this internet group requires a screen name and password, as well as approval from the group. The group provides an open blog, where group members can converse. Group members can share files from their computer or pictures. There is a calender which allows members to know what is coming up in the near future. There is also a way to see information about all the members of the group.

In my opinion, this group is very helpful. This group allows for more communication between its members at times like a break from school, when communication is harder. But at the same time, when interpersonal communication is available, it is the preferred form of communication. The yahoo group definitely does not limit communication, but expands it greatly. I speak to the members of the group in person, but when it is necessary, the group is available to use for communication. In order to send out emails, an administrative status is required, but people who do not have this power can speak to the group through the blog or forums. This gives all members of the group an equal opportunity to communicate to its other members.

A yahoo group maybe different from other internet mediated groups. Because this specific group, for the fraternity I am in, the type of communication is different. There are plenty of internet groups, where the members do not communicate outside of the internet group, and do not even know each other outside of the group. But in the case of the group I am in, the yahoo group only helps in communicating between its members. Besides using email and the group page for communication, group members also use AIM to communicate. AOL Instant Messenger allows members to communicate from their personal computer to others on their computer. But again, even though email, AIM, and the yahoo group are options as forms of communication, interpersonal communication is still preferred. As a member of the fraternity and yahoo group, I can say that it extends communication and definitely does not limit it.

It may be possible for internet groups to make people experience less interpersonal communication, but I do not think that it will make people more distant from the real world. As a member of the yahoo group on the internet, my experiences have resulted in more communication, and just as much, if not more, interpersonal communication.



Citations:
1. Fernback, Jan and Thompson, Brad. "Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?" Computer-Mediated Communication and the American Collectivity: The Dimensions of Community Within Cyberspace. Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 1995. http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html
2. Wellman, Barry and Gulia, Milena. NET SURFERS DON'T RIDE ALONE:
VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES AS COMMUNITIES. University at Toronto. April 1996. http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html