popular news twitter image
Rolyn- yn
I've heard words like Bebo, Facebook and Twitter discussed by people. I've gathered that they are a sort of MSN type communication...but what's the difference
Answer
They're all social networking sites, they are a bit like MSN but on Bebo and Facebook instead of having a private conversations (actually you can privately email people on them) all your friends that you add can see photos you upload, messages you leave on peoples page, you can become fans of bands, food or anything, on some you can use applications which can be quizzes (sometimes about friends, sometimes to find out 'which character from this tv show are you' type things) games etc. Twitter is different as you post 140 character mini blog messages to all your followers.
Bebo - most people are young tweens or teens and it can be a bit chavvy
Facebook - the most popular. Similar to myspace (another social networking site) but cleaner and simpler. Very good way of keeping in touch with people and easy to use. An annoying thing about it though is people compete to have the most friends, like 700-1000+ just because of the People You May Know tool. It's good when it actually finds people you know though. You can cyber 'poke' people on it but no one really does that much anymore. You can update your status e.g. '(Your name) is going to the cinema/ feels happy / has finally got facebook...' so it's kind of Twitter with a whole lot more. It's fun but can be a bit distracting.
Twitter - at the minute its mainly celebrities and their stalkers! But I can see how it would be very useful e.g. one man was arrested in another country when he shouldn't have been and he put 'arrested' on Twitter and a friend saw it and got him freed very quickly when normally that would have taken days. And in Iran people left 'tweets' (the Twitter 140 character messages) about the protesting so people could find out what was really going on when journalists weren't allowed there, it can give a very human feel to all those news stories when you see people's personal messages about what's going on. Then you get celebrities like 'just arriving on set' or something.
The best way to find out about them would be to set up an account on whichever you think sounds best! I have all 3 but I only go on facebook.com now. I had myspace for a while too.
Hope i helped :)
They're all social networking sites, they are a bit like MSN but on Bebo and Facebook instead of having a private conversations (actually you can privately email people on them) all your friends that you add can see photos you upload, messages you leave on peoples page, you can become fans of bands, food or anything, on some you can use applications which can be quizzes (sometimes about friends, sometimes to find out 'which character from this tv show are you' type things) games etc. Twitter is different as you post 140 character mini blog messages to all your followers.
Bebo - most people are young tweens or teens and it can be a bit chavvy
Facebook - the most popular. Similar to myspace (another social networking site) but cleaner and simpler. Very good way of keeping in touch with people and easy to use. An annoying thing about it though is people compete to have the most friends, like 700-1000+ just because of the People You May Know tool. It's good when it actually finds people you know though. You can cyber 'poke' people on it but no one really does that much anymore. You can update your status e.g. '(Your name) is going to the cinema/ feels happy / has finally got facebook...' so it's kind of Twitter with a whole lot more. It's fun but can be a bit distracting.
Twitter - at the minute its mainly celebrities and their stalkers! But I can see how it would be very useful e.g. one man was arrested in another country when he shouldn't have been and he put 'arrested' on Twitter and a friend saw it and got him freed very quickly when normally that would have taken days. And in Iran people left 'tweets' (the Twitter 140 character messages) about the protesting so people could find out what was really going on when journalists weren't allowed there, it can give a very human feel to all those news stories when you see people's personal messages about what's going on. Then you get celebrities like 'just arriving on set' or something.
The best way to find out about them would be to set up an account on whichever you think sounds best! I have all 3 but I only go on facebook.com now. I had myspace for a while too.
Hope i helped :)
How have the news channels changed since the 1990s?
bluie
Is it because now the news channels have immediate news?
Answer
The biggest single change is the predominance of the profit motive in 'news' coverage. Back when TV news was dominated by 'the Big Three', CBS, NBC and ABC, the News programming was more of a public service that the networks provided to justify their operation licenses. They mostly lost money and the networks expected them to. Now, with cable news, news shows are expected to turn a profit, and do.
Many of the modern ânewsâ shows are sacrificing objectivity--in an effort to boost their ratings and maximize profits--by appealing to the lowest common denominator. The high percentage of viewers that only watch one or the other of the popular, one-dimensional news ânetworksâ would seem to confirm this. It is an unfortunate fact that, in these days of declining newspaper readership, most Americans tend to get their news from TV.
The lowest common denominator, in this context, are the folks who believe everything on FOX, Al Jazeera, the Rush Limbaugh Show, or MSNBC's Ed Shultz Show, along other supporting programming. Are they just ditto-heads, or fellow-travelers, who are either unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, or is it merely intellectual laziness? Does watching shows that exclusively present only one, narrow view, effectively eliminate the need to utilize judgement and actually THINK about things?
Anyone out there who only gets their 'news' from one or two similar sources, answer this question: Does listening to the 'other side' of the picture make you upset and makes you want to turn it off and watch that which you already agree with? Be honest. If so, you are part of the problem.
To my mind, this phenomenon is comparable to the mindset one still sees in the Russian Federation. Large numbers of former Soviet citizens long for the 'good old days' when they were told what to think and weren't bombarded with a multitude of difficult choices. It is much easier and comforting to only be subjected to one opinion, especially when all the options appear, on the surface, to be equally unpalatable.
You've heard of the penitentiary prisoners who, after being released from a period of extended incarceration, commit another crime, not because they need to, but because they want to go back to prison? They do this because, in jail, they are told what to do each minute and therefore don't have to do any thinking.
The best, most unbiased televised news programming can be found on PBS, Public Television. This is because it is non-commercial, doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and takes a truly balanced approach to coverage. Hard-core Conservatives will protest that it has a 'Liberal Bias' but their protests are often similar to the woman who claims that she doesn't take a good picture.
The PBS News Hour deals with the stories of the day in-depth and presents both sides through interviews with respected journalists and experts of differing opinions. The other news shows do have opposing sides on debating the issues, but they usually choose the extremes from both camps because it makes for good TV. Moderate, centrist views are seldom heard because reasonable coverage does nothing for ratings.
While I enjoy many of the opinion shows on MSNBC and FOX, neither can be considered fair and balanced even though they claim to be. CNN tries its best to be fair and balanced, but their coverage is often simplistic and they depend far to much on "Your Opinion" as they are always quoting Facebook and Twitter. If I wanted the opinion of fatcat69 or cool4dudes I could just hit the BLOG's. Such nonsense is inappropriate for a supposed 'News' show.
But it is best to peruse all the various venues and supplement it with reading history to gain a wider view, It is also good to watch BBC once in a while to gain a perspective outside of the USA.
You are liable to get some folks saying things like "FOX is the only one that tells the truth" or "MSNBC is the only fair one" but these are opinions of partisans and similar to what you hear when you ask what sports team is the best. Conservatives like FOX, Liberals like MSNBC, but many of those on both sides are not objective enough to recognize that it is the same as people in Pittsburgh liking the Steelers and in Cleveland liking the Browns. In this context, watching PBS is like watching Sports Center as you are going to get a more balanced view of the respective teams.
The main point is to diversify sources and never rely on just one for your information. More is better in the area of information gathering, and those who get all their news from one source are just ditto-heads who only feel comfortable hearing what they already agree with and are not independent thinkers. Watch and read everything and think for yourself would be my advice.
PS: Another option would be to join discussion forums such as the one below to discuss with others those topics you find of interest. It is amazing how much one can gain from the give and take of conversation as opposed to the passive activity of merely watching the news.
.
The biggest single change is the predominance of the profit motive in 'news' coverage. Back when TV news was dominated by 'the Big Three', CBS, NBC and ABC, the News programming was more of a public service that the networks provided to justify their operation licenses. They mostly lost money and the networks expected them to. Now, with cable news, news shows are expected to turn a profit, and do.
Many of the modern ânewsâ shows are sacrificing objectivity--in an effort to boost their ratings and maximize profits--by appealing to the lowest common denominator. The high percentage of viewers that only watch one or the other of the popular, one-dimensional news ânetworksâ would seem to confirm this. It is an unfortunate fact that, in these days of declining newspaper readership, most Americans tend to get their news from TV.
The lowest common denominator, in this context, are the folks who believe everything on FOX, Al Jazeera, the Rush Limbaugh Show, or MSNBC's Ed Shultz Show, along other supporting programming. Are they just ditto-heads, or fellow-travelers, who are either unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, or is it merely intellectual laziness? Does watching shows that exclusively present only one, narrow view, effectively eliminate the need to utilize judgement and actually THINK about things?
Anyone out there who only gets their 'news' from one or two similar sources, answer this question: Does listening to the 'other side' of the picture make you upset and makes you want to turn it off and watch that which you already agree with? Be honest. If so, you are part of the problem.
To my mind, this phenomenon is comparable to the mindset one still sees in the Russian Federation. Large numbers of former Soviet citizens long for the 'good old days' when they were told what to think and weren't bombarded with a multitude of difficult choices. It is much easier and comforting to only be subjected to one opinion, especially when all the options appear, on the surface, to be equally unpalatable.
You've heard of the penitentiary prisoners who, after being released from a period of extended incarceration, commit another crime, not because they need to, but because they want to go back to prison? They do this because, in jail, they are told what to do each minute and therefore don't have to do any thinking.
The best, most unbiased televised news programming can be found on PBS, Public Television. This is because it is non-commercial, doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and takes a truly balanced approach to coverage. Hard-core Conservatives will protest that it has a 'Liberal Bias' but their protests are often similar to the woman who claims that she doesn't take a good picture.
The PBS News Hour deals with the stories of the day in-depth and presents both sides through interviews with respected journalists and experts of differing opinions. The other news shows do have opposing sides on debating the issues, but they usually choose the extremes from both camps because it makes for good TV. Moderate, centrist views are seldom heard because reasonable coverage does nothing for ratings.
While I enjoy many of the opinion shows on MSNBC and FOX, neither can be considered fair and balanced even though they claim to be. CNN tries its best to be fair and balanced, but their coverage is often simplistic and they depend far to much on "Your Opinion" as they are always quoting Facebook and Twitter. If I wanted the opinion of fatcat69 or cool4dudes I could just hit the BLOG's. Such nonsense is inappropriate for a supposed 'News' show.
But it is best to peruse all the various venues and supplement it with reading history to gain a wider view, It is also good to watch BBC once in a while to gain a perspective outside of the USA.
You are liable to get some folks saying things like "FOX is the only one that tells the truth" or "MSNBC is the only fair one" but these are opinions of partisans and similar to what you hear when you ask what sports team is the best. Conservatives like FOX, Liberals like MSNBC, but many of those on both sides are not objective enough to recognize that it is the same as people in Pittsburgh liking the Steelers and in Cleveland liking the Browns. In this context, watching PBS is like watching Sports Center as you are going to get a more balanced view of the respective teams.
The main point is to diversify sources and never rely on just one for your information. More is better in the area of information gathering, and those who get all their news from one source are just ditto-heads who only feel comfortable hearing what they already agree with and are not independent thinkers. Watch and read everything and think for yourself would be my advice.
PS: Another option would be to join discussion forums such as the one below to discuss with others those topics you find of interest. It is amazing how much one can gain from the give and take of conversation as opposed to the passive activity of merely watching the news.
.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment