Technology redefines journalism's role

In Sunday's San Jose Merc: Protesters relying on wireless, Web tools. Excerpt:

Over the past three days, activists created pirate radio broadcasts that streamed live on the Web and were rebroadcast at numerous sites across the world. They uploaded live video of marches to the Internet and sent hundreds of digital images of clashes with police to the Web. And they communicated on those cell phones to keep close track of one another's whereabouts.

In Monday's NY Times: Improved Tools Turn Journalists Into a Quick Strike Force. Excerpt:

Reporters covering the war in Iraq are at one with their technology as never before. Television reporters are toting hand-held video cameras and print journalists have traded the 70-pound satellite phones of the 1991 Gulf War for svelte models that can be held up to their ear. High-speed Internet lines in the desert and more satellites in the sky mean journalists can make a connection almost anywhere. As the conflict unfolds, they are tapping into the global communications grid regularly.

Michael Moore's Oscar moves

For those of us who grew up during the Vietnam War, tonight's brief appearance by Michael Moore on stage during the Academy Awards telecast probably brought back memories of the divisiveness of that war. That war was incredibly painful on many levels, and still reopens wounds 30 years later.

During an Oscars devoid of any semblance of spontaneity (anyone else notice that Jack Valenti and Mickey Mouse both made appearances?), Moore took too didactic an approach, even if he was speaking the truth about the fictious grounds for our going into Iraq. He should have called for bringing our troops home. No doubt he'll be roundly condemned in tomorrow's press coverage for breaking the Hollywood taboo of not addressing political issues during an acceptance speech. (He won for "Bowling for Columbine," a documentary film that dared to speak the truth about the gun lobby's hold over the political elites.)

Contrast that with the heartfelt speech by best-actor winner Adrien Brody, who got a standing ovation for praying for a "peaceful and swift resolution" to the war.

Later: Well, the Arizona Republic liked Moore's shtick.

The war and media coverage

Kuro5hin has some good commentary about the war, media coverage, and whether the US news media are biased.

Embeds, unilateralists and Pentagon flackery

Doc Searls makes the point I tried to make in passing in Thursday's OJR column (but which was deleted in the editing process): That journalists have no business parroting the Pentagon flack term "embedded" as a description for journalists stationed with U.S. forces in Iraq.

It goes further than that. I've heard TV correspondents pick up on the Pentagon term and call reporters "embeds." How impersonal can we get?

Want to know what the Pentagon calls journalists who are not assigned to a particular unit? "Unilateralists."

Somewhere, George Orwell is shaking his head.

I've been watching CNN, MSNBC and listening to NPR all day, and I must have heard the term "embedded" a hundred times. What is it about trendy jargon that's appeals to broadcast journalists like red meat?

I'm hoping that a major news organization, like the New York Times or Associated Press, puts a stop to this nonsense and bans use of the word except in unfortunate direct quotes.

Sacbee in Doonesbury

My former employer of 11 years, The Sacramento Bee, is a key part of today's Doonesbury strip.

Should video of the POWs be shown?

I'm watching the Central Command press conference, held in Doha, Qatar, on CNN where U.S. officials confirmed that 12 Army troops have been taken prisoners of war and fewer than 10 were killed in a fake surrender by Iraqi forces.

At the press conference, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid said that putting captured soldiers on television is a "clear violation of the Geneva Convention." Does that make sense, given that the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1950, at the very birth of television, and makes no mention of television?

I'm going to guess that, at least at this point, U.S. media outlets won't television the video of the captured troops taped by Iraqi forces and airing on al-Jazeera, if for no other reason than it's uncertain if the soldiers' relatives have been informed yet and because of the propaganda value to Saddam's regime.

The question is, has anyone captured the footage from al-Jazeera and posted it on the Web yet? And a second question: When it is posted, would it be ethical for online news organizations to point to it if the network news outlets won't air it?

Michael Wolff, the New York magazine columnist is there, and the general just told him he finds it "disgusting" that any media outlet would air video of the captured servicemen. Gotta say Michael looked a little out of place, since he was writing about NBC celebs just a few days ago.

Later: I've now seen a half dozen broadcast journalists saying they've seen the Iraqi state TV footage of the captured servicemen. We've seen televised video of captured Americans in Iran, in Lebanon and in other countries over the years. The video footage here will undoubtedly be shown everywhere in the world -- except the United State. I suspect that the general's comments were designed with that end in mind.

Do I think that the news media act appropriately by not showing us video footage of captured servicemen under duress? Absolutely. They should be making those judgments about what to broadcast -- that's their job.

Should we collectively decide not to provide links to the video on the Web? That's a different matter. A few sites have posted the footage -- and been overwhelmed by the hits on their servers. Beamz, for example, writes:

I need to pull the POW video shortly because of bandwidth consumption. I may put it back up at a later date.

Here are some mirrors:

http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~spiritu/pow2.rm
http://www.jomiha.com/blog/archives/000072.html
http://turtopia.org/pow2.ram

None of these have worked for me so far in Windows Media Player 9. I'm in no hurry to see this in any event. Perhaps the viewing will be in a happier context, if they're soon released.

Still later: OK, I've now seen the video, less than 2 minutes long, after downloading the Real One Player (one of the apps I hadn't re-downloaded after my hard drive problems last month). I don't see any obvious evidence that the POWs have been mistreated. And no one is being forced to make anti-American statements against their will -- they're being asked who they are and why they're fighting in Iraq.

What's disturbing are the awful circumstances these servicemen and one servicewoman find themselves in.

We'll see what other journalists say, but I see no reason why news organizations and indie news sites shouldn't link to these newsworthy video snippets as long as the proper warnings and context are provided to users. Expect lots more commentary on the subject in the blogosphere in the coming days.