So that's not really what he said?

I've never actually been to factcheck.org. I remember Cheney's gaffe during the vice-presidential debate however, so I read with interest the analysis of the MoveOn PAC Internet ad pitting Edwards vs. Cheney. As is their style, they summarize the ad, offer the full text, analyze it, and then edit it to show the true context of the words. As is done in most campaign ads, the "Compassion" ad took from speeches both men had given earlier and used snippets, splicing them together to portray Edwards as trustworthy, caring, and hopeful while Cheney's words provoked fear.

As a student of political communication, I am well aware of the techniques and tactics used to make political ads and take them with a grain of salt. I also assume most of America sees enough of these to understand that they are partisan and can not be taken literally. Factcheck may go to extremes in spelling out what was exactly the original context of the speech. The ad designers did nothing wrong in editing the way they did, and even included the proper disclaimer. I would be more upset if a partisan organization did NOT produce and ad like "Compassion."

However, the service that Factcheck offers is a good one. I noticed that you can sign up to receive all of the factchecks in your email as they are released. I think that doing so is a smart move for any swing voter, well really any voter, but in particular a voter who can be persuaded. It shows integrity to do whatever you can to gather all of the facts in order to make an educated decision. Next time campaign season rolls around, I'll have to remember to see what Factcheck.org is up to and encourage my non-political management friends to check it out as well.

Is it really for their own good?

As someone who studied both politics and communication in college, I am well aware of the extensive monitoring of the Internet by the Chinese government. However, Internet Filtering in China 2004-2005: A Case Study did offer me some information.

I did not know that while the BBC was blocked, most Chinese citizens can still access American news sites like CNN, MSNBC and ABC. I actually find that quite surprising considering the extent the Chinese government went to cover up the SARS outbreak among its citizens. It was one of the biggest stories in the American news media throughout the height of the outbreak. The document stated that most Chinese citizens were informed through receiving text messages from friends in other countries and then spreading the word. I suppose it's likely that the pages on the American news sites referring to SARS were blocked, or that they appeared temporarily unavailable during that time. I would be interested in finding out more about that situation.

Another item I found particularly relevant was that Chinese blog service providers prevent posts with certain keywords or edit them out. Now that I regularly keep a blog, the thought of whomever runs Blogger editing each of my posts that spoke negatively of the government appalls me. It almost defeats the purpose of keeping a blog. As tightly regulated as the Chinese media is, blogs in theory could offer an alternate opinion. However, since citizens are unable to offer any opinion deviating from the official Communist party line, I don't see much point in their existence in China.

the legality of it all...

As someone with very little background in law, it had never really occurred to me that movies had to run every single item that appears in them by a copyright lawyer in order to include it in the picture. However, after reading Lessig's piece, it makes perfect sense. I remember all the movies I watch and groan 'product placement' when I see a character obviously drinking a Pepsi or typing on a Mac. Of course, some of it is product placement, but some of it may just be because it was the brand that gave permission.

As of yet, the Internet doesn't really have many laws to regulate it. Last night in class, Carol Darr was speaking about how hard it will be to try and do so. For example, I could easily take the Coke logo and place it in my blog. I could then write an entire paragraph telling you how much I hate Coke. The truth is though, Coke can't do anything about me using their logo. Streaming video allows anyone with a basic knowledge of technology to create their own mini-film. These films use all types of music and pictures, and none of these novice filmmakers got permission, nor did they probably even consider that they might possibly be doing something that could be illegal.

It looks like I'll be doing more legal reading in the next week, and I'm interested to see what more I don't know about what's legal and illegal when it comes to the media and the Internet. Stay tuned.

the generational divide...

Jakob Nielsen did a study on the usability of websites for teenagers. He found that teenagers are easily bored online, and that the best way to capture their attention is with simplicity and interactivity.

I may no longer be a teenager, but as someone who grew up online I can appreciate his points. Television bores me and I no longer spend much time watching it, but I can waste hours online just searching and visiting different sites. The ones that pull me back offer me a wealth of information, are frequently updated,and include pictures or video but no overwhelming graphics.

My grandmothers have both purchased computers in the last five years and they use it strictly for e-mail or keeping up with friends' deaths in the obituary columns. They have no need for graphics and pop up ads just confuse them. Perhaps if more sites took their needs in mind, then they would explore the Internet a bit more.

If, as Nielsen found, teenagers need large text and simple layouts just like the older generation need, then who are those super fancy flash sites designed for? Hopefully web designers read Nielsen's columns and take note that wasting a companies money on bells and whistles just isn't necessary.