Improved Tools Turn Journalists Into A Quick Strike Force
from the more-communication,-less-information dept
There are plenty of articles on this subject showing up these days, so it’s difficult to pick one to use, but the NY Times seems like the most complete article describing all the new technologies being used by journalists covering the war. This includes things from mini-satellite dishes to blogs. Of course, while all this means that we’re probably “better” informed about the war, there are plenty of questions about whether or not it’s really that useful. People are feeling overwhelmed by all the war reporting, and are starting to tune it out completely. As the article says, we’re getting more communications, but not very much information. Update: Editor & Publisher has a slightly different take, pointing out that this war has different mediums depending on the time. While people are watching the war on TV while at home, during the work week, it’s a web war.
Comments on “Improved Tools Turn Journalists Into A Quick Strike Force”
Worse reception than before
The footage I’ve been seeing has an awful lot of digital artifacts, with the funny tiles and gradations all over the place. I don’t recall the images being of such poor quality during the first gulf war. I’ve been seeing the same effect with digital cable, which is supposed to be “better” — there are the tiles and frozen images that were not there before.
Re: Worse reception than before
I’ve only noticed the “digital artifacts” you describe when the reporters use the videophones.
todays journalists = pathetic
the ’91 gulf war has been recently described as the least documented conflict this century. the current “war” will also be short on historical data. marketing & politics have come to the forefront of the military. the tv coverage is pathetic. im suprised it isnt sponsored by nike or mcdonalds…