Little is Better than None
Personally, I believe that the use of new technologies such as cellphone cameras that can be used to document anything, be it something controversial such as the execution of Saddam Hussein or the UC Berkeley taser incident, is of greater benefit to society than something such as the evening news. The benefits of such technology are of benefit for the same reason in which they are controversial: they can uncover things that a regular news team is unable to uncover. Much of what is shown on the news is either shot after the fact, or videos sent in by someone who did happen to see something. In the case of the UC Berkley taser incident, it would have been impossible for footage to have been captured if it hadn’t been caught on a camera. Sure, the students who were there would still probably get quoted in a newspaper or two, or perhaps even be interviewed on the television news, but the impact that it has on the readers and viewers is not the same as being able to actually witness the events that took place. Karl Roves quote that “Not all the events Tuesday night can be heard or viewed on YouTube,” (Thacker) is really misleading, as without YouTube and the videos shot from a cellphone, none of the events would be able to be heard or viewed.
Comments
I definatlely agree that the advancement in technology has actually been a good thing, in terms of documentation. People have been able to document and capture many situations and incidences that normally wouldn't have been able to or even reconstructed, for that matter. News reporters usually only get the aftermath, of most breaking stories... whereas eye-witnesses with these advanced technological devices can capture the moment when it happens! Take for example, the Virginia Tech shooting this past Monday. An individual was able to capture footage, of the gunman's gunshots!
Most of the time it may not be beneficial material captured, but I think that in nature humans are very curious, and we like to know as much detail as possible about certain situations. I personally get a lot more out of seeing something than reading about it.
Posted by: Erin M. | April 20, 2007 09:54 PM
I agree with you that it's a good thing for the average joe to have a camera phone that they can capture moments like the UCLA incident. I also agree with you that there's a difference between watching a news clip and watching a clip from YouTube that was captured by a bystander. As in the case of the UCLA incident, without camera phones, it would've been inpossible for people to capture it on film because no camera crew could have gotten there in such a quick amount of time. I think that cameras and camera phones help to capture and spread more news. I think that it's a benefit to all of society.
Posted by: Natalya Goncharova | April 22, 2007 06:24 PM
I agree with your comment that while the story of the Taser incident would have still gone out to the public, it would not have been nearly as effective as people actually being able to see the video. I definitely think things are changing for the better.
Posted by: Scott Szesterniak | April 23, 2007 03:31 PM
As all of you, I agree to say that these technologies uncover things that traditionnal media would not. However, I don't think that they will replace the traditionnal media. They are complementary. It means something to be a journalist, and some footages like that may not be self explanatory all the time.
It's also very easy to lie with these technologies, or to manipulate (see the video blog example).
If the taser incident is a great example of how these technologies can be benefic, I just don't want them to be everywhere.
Posted by: Pierre | April 24, 2007 08:20 PM