Web Video: Mideast Conflict Raw

Tigersoap

The Living Force
Web Video: Mideast Conflict Raw

Associated Press 08:25 AM Jul, 26, 2006

NEW YORK -- The rapid development of video-sharing sites such as YouTube.com is giving computer users the chance to see unfiltered images of how the fighting between Israel and Lebanon is affecting people caught in the middle.

The short, broadband videos include simple reporting and pointed political statements, and are usually posted without identifying who's behind them.

Videos available on YouTube.com on Tuesday, for example, included slide shows of people hurt by Israeli bombing attacks in Lebanon. They have graphic images that are not usually seen in TV news reports -- the mangled body of a child, a badly hurt baby in a hospital bed, a person on fire in a road during an attack.

One operator keeps his camera fixed on a horizon with smoke rising from a bombing, and the sound of airplanes overhead. "They're coming back," the narrator says.

On the other side, one video is shot from the roof of a home in Israel. Sirens wail in the background, followed by the boom of a missile hitting. Another video shows damage from a missile strike at a train station, while yet another features Israelis and American tourists passing the time in a bomb shelter by singing a song.

Filmed in his office study, a man identified as Reb Moshe describes how Israelis are coping. "We hear much more bombings than are listed on CNN," he said.

"They're getting an unfiltered experience," said J.D. Lasica, co-founder of the website Ourmedia.org. "We're used to the idea of neatly packaged presentations by traditional media and this is like the events are happening in your backyard."

But Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, said it's important to note the difference between some of what is posted by amateur videographers and the material gathered by professional journalists. "There's a big gap between the two and it has to do with credibility, verification and context," she said.

TV networks have tended to keep this material at arm's length. CNN, for example, will occasionally air snippets of videos posted online during specific segments on what people are talking about online.

Several videos posted on YouTube, for example, use parts of news reports or interviews to make a certain point.

And Lasica said it's likely within a year someone will caught fabricating a story.

"It's exciting," Cochran said, "but it certainly isn't what you would rely on to tell you what is happening."
From WIRED / http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71470-0.html?tw=wn_index_19

Is it me or she's basically saying that you shouldn't trust the alternative media made by the people living the conflict up-close, only the REAL journalists can deliver the REAL facts to your screen.
 
"It's exciting," Cochran said, "but it certainly isn't what you would rely on to tell you what is happening."
Thats funny because i have the same opinion of television and newsprint, except replace exciting with redundant and predictable.
 
Tigersoap said:
Is it me or she's basically saying that you shouldn't trust the alternative media made by the people living the conflict up-close, only the REAL journalists can deliver the REAL facts to your screen.
This must be very threatening to the MSM - so, no, it's not 'just you' - that is what she's saying. She's saying that you certainly shouldn't rely on real-time images and sounds to tell you what is happening, you should wait until those images and sounds have been edited and sculpted to support the story that you are allowed to hear. Simple.
 
"There's a big gap between the two and it has to do with credibility, verification and context,"
notice she didn't specificly say where MSM stood in this big gap between truth and lies. reminds me of lawyer-speak.
 
Tigersoap said:
Web Video: Mideast Conflict Raw

difference between some of what is posted by amateur videographers and the material gathered by professional journalists.
Just a slightly different way of perceiving the amateur/professionnal duality :

Etymologically, "amateur" comes from the latin word "amator", it means "the one who loves"

"professional" comes from another latin word "professio", it initally meant "the one who highly declares his religious faith"

From this perspective, who would you trust ?

The "one who loves" or the "one who highly declares his religious faith" ?
 
Axel_Dunor said:
Just a slightly different way of perceiving the amateur/professionnal duality :

Etymologically, "amateur" comes from the latin word "amator", it means "the one who loves"

"professional" comes from another latin word "professio", it initally meant "the one who highly declares his religious faith"

From this perspective, who would you trust ?

The "one who loves" or the "one who highly declares his religious faith" ?
I never trust the major medias anyway even though I sometimes lack the proper knowledge to know which way they are bending the truth or just plain lying.
I suppose we always have to be careful because even a home made video could be the product of the PTB imho.

Thanks for the Latin roots of the words.
 
Back
Top Bottom