The Next Showdown in Google’s Arena?

Before this week and reading “Googled” by Ken Auletta, I thought of Google as a simple company that made it big because of their search engine and the vision of its founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. After reading this work and discussing it in class, I’ve realized that Google is a powerhouse and incredibly similar to the media conglomerates that it claims to be the opposite of. I would go so far as to say that Google has world domination potential! But what could cause problems to Google in the future? Here are a few potential issues for the company: Microsoft as a rival, spreading themselves too thin, and cyberwarfare.

It’s safe to say that Google has thus far trumped Microsoft, when for the longest time Microsoft was the company to beat. For the last few years Google has been a pioneer with all sorts of initiatives: Google Earth, Google Maps, owning YouTube, and creating various applications for use by the federal government and general public. Google is now even planning to build and test high-speed broadband networks around the United States that would make Internet connections 100 times faster than many systems available now. While Microsoft is not mimicking this initiative just yet, they are planning to compete with Google in the creation of a computing cloud for government use. Microsoft has already beaten Google to implementing the cloud, but which company will triumph remains to be seen.

Speaking of all these initiative Google has undertaken, it is arguable that Google may be doing too much. Haven’t we all been taught that quality is better than quantity in most things?  One of the problems with having a hand in so many things is that in-depth attention cannot be given to everything (as we’ve seen with Google Buzz).  People use Google’s applications time and time again because they know they work; they’re tried and true. If newer projects aren’t as finished or as thoroughly debugged as possible, Google (or any company for that matter) is going to lose users. Google needs to rein itself in and focus on making its well-established projects even better rather than constantly coming up with something new.

Finally, Google has cause to worry about cyberwarfare, as does the government if it stores its information in Google’s computing cloud. Simply because Google is such a huge company and has millions of users’ information, Google could become a target for terrorists and hostile governments. Yes, Google will be storing information on different servers, but I bet there would still be a ridiculous amount of important information leaked if just one server was hacked into.

These are all just thoughts of what battles Google could have in the future. No one knows what could happen though. Maybe there’s some little company that’s been sitting back watching Google for these last few years, waiting to launch themselves into the public arena to take on Google, just as Google did with Microsoft. Who knows?! Only time will tell.

Can Citizen Journalism Help Revive Our Democracy?

What is citizen journalism? It’s members of the community playing a role in collecting, contributing and disseminating news and information.

Robert McChesney’s beliefs include two things: 1. Democracy needs journalism/journalism needs democracy; 2. Democracy is following by the wayside because journalism isn’t doing it’s “duty”.

So in answer to my question, I’m going to go with an emphatic yes. McChesney would say the opposite due to the fact that he is very much in love with the idea of only professional journalism being able to inform and inspire citizens.

I think that citizen journalism inspires the public–possibly even more so than professional journalism. The fact that everyday people have a hand in creating the news means that they will more than likely be creating stories that interest them. These stories may also interest their peers, seeing as they are created by people in a similar position, and not some talking head only known from a television screen.

The problem that people raise with citizen journalism is that it should be left to the professionals, as they have gone to school and learned the standards of the industry. My response to that reasoning is the following: If this journalism isn’t working out how it is supposed to, maybe journalism schools need to change their approach. My other response is that maybe there should be journalism bootcamps set up across the country so that citizens are able to learn some professional standards.

Clearly something needs to change, otherwise everything is just going to continue down the same road. It’s time for a revolution…or a least a revamping!

Which is the Lesser of Two Evils?

This week in my contemporary media issues class we have been reading chapters in Robert McChesney’s book, The Political Economy of Media concerning the so-called problem of journalism (the commercialization of journalism and its implications) and how we should be thinking about journalism.

McChesney’s main argument is that “professional journalism” is supposed to inform citizens and inspire them. It is supposed to be objective and ask the hard questions that no one else will. In order for journalism to work, it needs democracy. And in order for democracy to work, it needs journalism.

With the commercialization of journalism, McChesney talks about how the tough questions are no longer being asked and how journalism isn’t functioning like it’s supposed to. He says that because journalism is now run by a select few, it is the interest of those few that are being pushed to the masses. Is democracy as we know in danger? Could we be heading toward a state headed by an oligopoly?

I sincerely doubt it. As much as McChesney wants to suggest that journalism is the end all, be all, it is not. I’m sure there are other factors that make a democracy work. What do you think makes a democracy work? Do you think our government and the way of life as we know it is in danger if journalism somehow disappears?

An alternative McChesney suggests to having journalism being owned by media conglomerates is for the government to provide public subsidies to fund journalism so that there can be many voices in the marketplace. But how would news be safeguarded against the interests of the government? And wouldn’t this be propelling us ever closer to a propaganda state? What are the other consequences of this option?

So I ask you, readers, which is the lesser of these two evils: having news media that is controlled by a few big corporations, or news media that is subsidized by the government but is polyvocal? And why?

New Semester, New Blog Category

This blog will now be a soundboard for my contemporary media issues class. Check back every Friday or Saturday!