The internet is a wonderful thing, it connects people to the world around them, and around others as well. The benefits are incredible, but there still are issues surrounding how we and others use this great invention.

One of the biggest issues we face is news, and reporting. Journalism has finally come full circle, and most news is spread via the web, even by well known journalists. Newsprint and the 6 o’clock news have turned into online news and twitter feeds.

The updates are faster, more easily accessible, free, but with these advantages comes one big disadvantage: credibility.

If we get our news from these sources, who’s to say the journalists reporting back to us aren’t using the same tools we are? And who’s to say that that source is credible?

Comments on internet articles make it immensely easier for those in the know to correct information, or indulge on information given to remove bias, or to set the record straight.

But those in the know can’t be every where, correcting all the biased or incorrect articles. We need another system.

We need a system, not dissimilar to that used by teachers and professors to check that an essay hasn’t been copied from another source. Something that checks where the information came from, and the relevance and credibility of said source.

A study conducted by a university, or committee will, and should, hold more sway than a publicly edited wiki article, for example.

This will force journalists to check and re-check their sources, and present a better product and better information.

Another facet could be to check the amount and locations of the sources.

An article which pulls heavily from one committee’s findings, yet ignores another reports findings, likely for sake of bias, is not a credible news source, and should not deserve to be considered as such.

With the wide world of the internet, and all that it gives us, one thing we need is credible journalism, but certain measures have to be put in place to force journalistic integrity, and to push for unbiased and correct information in articles.

We need a system, and we need it now.

Any ideas on how to implement this system? Or how we can push for more journalistic integrity?

Popularity: 2% [?]

Technorati Tags: Education, information, integrity, Journalism, Society

Education, information, integrity, Journalism, Society Hide

Now I’m generalizing a bit with my title, but consider it for a moment.

Let’s take the music industry for example. People want a shift in the way they purchase and consume their music.

People have shown an extreme shift towards downloads and streaming, and they want it free.

Now, before I go any more in depth, this IS possible, this can sustain an industry, and it’ll probably improve it in the long run. Ads, etc.

Why don’t they give it to the people? Because it’s change, and it means they won’t make as much money, and because they can fight to keep their ways.

Or at least that’s what they think.

The people have spoken, however, and that ain’t gonna fly.

People are pirating music, and moving from CDs to streaming from YouTube, or other free streaming sites, there’s no stopping them. Yet, the music industry still tries to by suing them, and taking their videos off Youtube, or shortening them.

Is this a way to run a business? To not give the customers what they want, and when they find it somewhere else, and thrive on it, cut it off for them. All because you want to keep your precious CDs around, because they USED to make you too much money, the which you took from the artists who made the music you sold.

Let’s see:

1. Rape your employees (artists) – Check
2. Piss off your customers – Check
3. Cut off customers alternative venues – Check
4. Be way too conservative for a product targeted at young people – Check

What’s that? Your business is down? You’re losing money? Your laying off lots of people, because your absolutely retarded conservative business model isn’t sustainable?

YOU DON’T SAY?!

It doesn’t stop at the music industry, the movie industry is suffering from piracy.

Let’s look into that!

Going to the movies costs roughly about $12 a head.

That means a movie date costs about $30, after concessions [which most people sneak in now, because they're ridiculously expensive.]

Minimum wage where I’m from is about $9.50 an hour, which means someone would have to work for 3 hours to take someone to an hour and a half movie.

That’s value if I’ve ever heard it.

They say that its due to people not going to the movies any more, which they blame on piracy.

I blame it on shitty targeted movies, that aren’t worth watching in the first place, taking over the market. This is due to the fact that movie execs are willing to take the risk on an artsy film, or a film that doesn’t target a specific demographic, no matter how good the script is.

The literature industry seems to have saved the movie industry. Some of the biggest recent movies were based on literature, for example the latest Harry Potter was the biggest budget film of the summer [at $250,000,000], yet the only reason someone invested that money is because the books, and subsequent movies, were a remarkable success.

Bottom line: People aren’t going to pay a huge premium to watch the same movie they’ve seen a thousand times.

Popularity on movie recommendation sites tends to favour movies which were groundbreaking in their time. Movies that moved people, and that left you without any words. There’s not too many of these anymore. These are the movies people are downloading.

There’s plenty of businesses who are being way to conservative for the changing of times, and they’re failing, yet the bigwigs at the top can’t figure out why.

I just hope they go out of business to make way for people who actually know what the customer wants.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Technorati Tags: Common Sense, Idiots, Movie Industry, Music Industry, Success, Trends, What?

Common Sense, Idiots, Movie Industry, Music Industry, Success, Trends, What? Hide