It is a pitty to see more and more Americans being brainwashed and manipulated by their masters. You lost your country and you freedom when you trusted the Zionists. You better work hard to get back your country and your freedom.

This is what George Washington said about the masters.

"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

Read this very carefully.

http://www.realnews247.com/who_rules_america_updated_2004.htm

Palestinians will never get back their country and their freedom before Americans get theirs. Palestine is very tiny compared to America. We feel sorry for you...

I see one comment and no response yet,, can it be no one has the interest to respond this fascistic nonsense?. I am not a Jew but a mix of many European cultures planted in the land of the free. I know fascism is one of the lowest forms of human brain activity and since it is driven by the primitive brain stem, that we all have, we are all susceptible to its evil ways. But it is the weak or simple minded who seem to fall pray to it most.

It’s interesting how nature’s entropy also occurs in the human collective mind such that there can be a break down of higher evolved thinking falling back the guttural level of primitive thought.

But then again negative entropy brings us back up and it may always be two moves forward one back, thus still giving us positive evolution,, even as religious fundamentalism and fascism always steps backward. They will devolve no matter what they ultimately enforce. Yes indeed,, these absurd violent protests over comedy are sure to be ultimately ‘Karmical’.

Tsquare,

After lecturing us with your hate filled venomous philosophy , you say "Yes indeed,, these absurd violent protests over comedy are sure to be ultimately ‘Karmical’."

Well, The quote above is not mine. It was made by your first President. George Washington. The studies on the two sites are not mine too. They were made by patriotic Americans. I only led you to the truth.

Do you really want to know more? You should read this. This site is not mine as well. I would like you to educate yourselves more about your own before you insult the 1.5 Billion decent Muslims around the world with hate filled cartoons and articles and tell us it is a free speech and a joke.

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/indexen.htm

I challenge the Philadelphia Inquirer to write a single negative article about the holocaust. Look, the masters will not be happy about it. The writers may end up in jail. It is Antisemitic to even mention their name.

David Lang,

George Washing did not say that.
You could save yourself some embarrassment for getting caught perpetuating the spread of that garbage if you would research a bit before you pass it on.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/thejews.htm
Snopes is one good site for checking out a lot of that sort of trash of the hatemongers

Listen the Inquirer,

You are caught red handed. Why did you block my comments. This is supposed to be free speech. You failed the test. You should appologize at least for US based Muslims immediately.

It is surprising that the major newspapers within the United States are afraid to print the cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a negative light. I applaud the Philadelphia inquirer for her bravery in taking a contrary stand. If the major newspapers will fall prey to the fear tactics being demonstrated by the angry mobs demonstrating around the world, then we should forget about Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech should give everyone the opportunity to print or publish whatever he deems necessary.

I recently heard a radio poll asking what folks think about this issue; " what is more or less important,, respect for free speech or respect for religion?" Nearly 50% said "free speech", a very small number said "religion", but also near to but still less was the opinion that I like "both are equal".

I thought about this and agree on the equality. I want to apologize to Mr David Lang, who may or may not be related to a very nice Jewish family I once knew named Lang, say a distant cousin? Sadly we all know how some relatives dislike each other.

Anyway I would have answered that poll thusly, "IF one should respect everyone's religion, THEN they must also respect everyone's free speech. If one doesn't respect all manner of thought in speech & print, then likewise one should not have to respect all manor of thought kept inside one’s head as in a belief system like a religion.

Factual reality vs beliefs get all the respect that is possible. We MUST respect factual reality whether we want to or not, it doesn’t care. All we can do is speak and think as we hit or miss Reality.

Did someone say something about, "factual reality"? Read history. Respect it. That is "factual reality." WIthout it, and without pools of bloodshed on battlefields throughout this region and this country, I wouldn't be able to say squat, and neither would you! Happy Independence Day!

"These students grew up in a period of transition. Almost all of them have grown up with the Net. The oddity is that they’re all seeking ‘old media’ jobs, because these are perceived as being more stable, although this traditional media structure is all in the period of breakdown. I don’t think they’re yet convinced of that though – they’re not taking this fragmentation seriously."

Absolutely spot on. Our course here at Lincoln is certainly geared with that frame of mind. The phrase "It's only for online" crops up time and time again... I think I'm guilty of using it myself sometimes.

I think most online courses, where journalism is concerned, have the wrong final goal. I've yapped on and on about how our course for online is a glorified Dreamweaver tutorial. What use is that? None. First, find me a news organisation where the journalists are designing the websites. If you manage that, find me one that uses Dreamweaver 4 to do it. Not a chance -- yet that's what we're taught here. I almost expected to told about a new design idea called 'frames'. Fortunately it wasn't that drastic -- but almost.

At Lincoln, we're taking it on ourselves. I've arranged for The Linc -- the student newspaper I edit -- to cover the Students' Union elections online with a live coverage project. We've got a blog, a load of digital cameras, a flickr mobile account, some TV cameras.. and, of course, a team of excellent young journalists. I hope we can pull it off.

Answer me this: As a trainee journalist, what learning experience is more important to our careers? The one we've had to INVENT ourselves, or the one I pay an awful lot of money for?

Pretty frightening.

UCLan seem to have got it right, it has to be said.

On a brighter note: Thanks, Roy, for the compliment. It is very much appreciated.

I am one of those journalists who cringe when I hear "the new media" being promoted in universities. I can't image any journalist going to a breaking news event with his/her video camera, digital still camera, laptop and any other device to broadcast a podcast or type in a blog to a network of on-line sites where only the faithful can locate because they like the effect of preaching to the choir. Yes, there are billions of news sources out there -- each one spewing personal opinions about events that they read about in the "old" media and then upchuck on the "new" media.

When I hear about the advantages of the new media, I have several questions for which I have yet to see documented answers.

First -- what are the things that people who embrace the "new" media searching? The most downloaded or e-mailed stories found even in the New York Times are overwhelmingly pop-culture based stories. At a time of possible political misdeeds involving the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and at a time of incredible significance of what could be one of the most important presidential elections in the history of this country -- I can't understand why the "new" media is focused on sports and pop-culture?

Secondly -- With the billions of "news" sources on the Internet, what percentage of the clutter is primary-source material that has been carefully vetted for accuracy? Our radio waves are over run with talk-shows that masquerade as "news and information" when they are just the opinions of the host matched against the opinions of the listener. The blog and the podcast is often the same -- opinions of people with no first-hand knowledge of the subject. That does not strike me as very productive use of shiny new toys.

Third -- There have been quite a few studies (e.g. State of the Media) about why people are leaving the "old" media. None of these point to a desire to spend more time on the Internet sifting through the chaff of public opinion. The public has been very clear about why they are disgusted with the state of the media. And yet, I have yet to see ONE news organization embrace the constructive criticism and make changes within their news organization.

So, are journalism schools "getting it"? Hell no. It's more fun to teach people about shiny new toys and technological bells-and-whistles. Teaching the need for QUALITY journalism is too "old school."

Alan Kania
ajkania@comcast.net

I think Jarvis, Greenslade, etc are to be applauded for their rational and responsible view of all this. The very fact these shiny toys exist poses a deep problem for journalism because the shiny toys automatically confers legitimacy on the producer by a large number of users. "No shiny toys tells me you're not in the real-time world I live in."

As a writer, an editorial guy, a heavy reader it may be humbling to learn to play with the new toys but it is extemely doable and necessary. Journalists are just one of a number of professions that need to master these new tools on behalf of the integrity and future of their profession!

What teachers need to do is separate out the resourcefulness of the toys from the demands and responsibilities of the profession and not mash them together.

I think the transition will pass in ten or fifteen years, maybe earlier. It is a fascinating story in itself.

Alan,
---Yes, there are billions of news sources out there -- each one spewing personal opinions about events that they read about in the "old" media and then upchuck on the "new" media.---

Erm, my experience would be that a lot of what I read from the traditional media seems to that upchuck scraped up and re-published.

----[A]t a time of incredible significance of what could be one of the most important presidential elections in the history of this country -- I can't understand why the "new" media is focused on sports and pop-culture?----

It isn’t. You are talking about a percentage of the stuff that is out there. Most of it is the new media offerings of traditional media companies. Sport and celebrity make money (heat etc.) for traditional media so they follow the model online. If that’s the business model that sustains them then good luck to them Other people see it is successful so they follow the model – that’s the joy of online, individuals can do what we do, maybe even better. If the media feeds a diet of celebrity and sport why are you surprised that much of the audience up-chuck the same.

The simple point is that you need to look the good stuff and that suggests that an important part of the role of a journalist is to find it, engage with it and then point their audience to it so that they can do the same.

----[W]hat percentage of the clutter is primary-source material that has been carefully vetted for accuracy?----

Be careful what standards you set for new media. I think a lot of ‘old media’ may find it hard to meet them. The web means that they will be called to task on it as well. And no amount of trying to dismiss it as ‘up-chuck’ will stop them.

----So, are journalism schools "getting it"? Hell no. It's more fun to teach people about shiny new toys and technological bells-and-whistles. Teaching the need for QUALITY journalism is too "old school." ----

I know you aren’t letting old media off the hook but if that’s your stance you need to define quality better than ‘not what I see online’. Your comments suggest you have no real idea of the range and diversity of the content being produced and a selective blind spot to the failings ‘traditional journalism’.

We do need to teach quality journalism but we need to accept that it is not defined by a medium.

As David suggest, what we ALL need to do “is separate out the resourcefulness of the toys from the demands and responsibilities of the profession and not mash them together.”

Old media is a platform for stories, a vehicle for debate. It's 'hi-jacked' by politicians to make propaganda. It's bought and sold for corporate gain falling victim to commercial interests, and 'lobbying'. It's subject to self inflicted rules and regulations and occassionally 'gagged' by legislation. It exisits to deliver an audience to advertisers. Some old media is exceptional. Some old media is rubbish. New media (are we talking ''digital' media?) is a platform for stories - a vehicle for debate. Some new media is exceptional. Some new media is rubbish. Are the two worlds of so called 'old' and 'new' media mutually exclusive - or does their co existence add plurality to the 'voice' of media - digital media engaging an otherwise disenfranchised public offering them a vehicle for expresion. Surely no one is suggesting the only views that count can be heard or seen on old media platforms. (or new media platforms if you're on the other side of the digital divide) Can it really be that the quality of argument determined by the size of its audience?