The New Media Diva

New podcast at the shop:

Nashi: Youth power, governing power

The youth group Nashi may have helped the Russian government avoid a ‘color revolution,’ but according to Dr Regina Heller of the University of Hamburg Institute for Peace and Research, its power may be waning.

You can find the podcast here.

Via a co-worker whose blog I’d link to if I thought he wouldn’t come down to my office and super glue my hands together.

I kid, I kid!

Polifact, a project of the St Petersburg Times, has launched The Obameter.

I would have actually liked the name “Obamameter” myself.

The page will keep track of all the campaign promises President Obama made on the campaign trail. Findings at this point: Seven promises kept, one stalled and 14 in the works.

Not bad for two days on the job.

They didn’t let the paint dry on the walls before putting up a new site at the White House. I’m too pooped to poot, but here’s a screenshot:

Click here to visit the The White House site.

Update: I LOVE this – DR Jill Biden.

Via Next Web Blog, above is the first presidential portrait taken with a digital camera.

Next Web has all of the EXIF data, so head over there if you’re interested.

Hmmm. I *almost* think they needed fill light on him on his left, but other than that, it looks…presidential.:-)

It will be interesting to compare this photo to how Obama will look in 2012.

Click here for the large version.

Probably one of the most idiotic commentaries I’ve read in a long time (and I’ve read some doozies) is on The Standard. It was reposted from VentureBeat, but VentureBeat seems to have taken it down. (Update: Article has been removed from TS. See note below post and comment from Eric Eldon of VB). It’s concerning the BART shooting of Oscar Grant and is so breathtakingly awful and goes against any and all logic that I can’t even comment clearly.

I normally don’t get this upset, but when an unarmed man is shot dead in the back at close range by a police officer, and it’s caught on tape basically from beginning to end, or the beginning of when officers had him under control until the end (the shooting), and someone comes up with an article such as this, I just can’t hold it in.

I’ll post some excerpts, then you go decide for yourself if the folks at VentureBeat (VB) are right.

First, according to VB even though folks saw the shooting in broad daylight and recorded it on their cell phones and such, “there’s more to the Oakland BART shooting.”

Both online and off, communities are responding to the tragedy. Thousands have already jotted YouTube comments, posts and response videos to online forums, Facebook status updates and countless Twitter messages. But just because the internet masses and real-world protesters have deemed the police officer a murderer doesn’t mean they know the entire story.

So basically, VB is saying that all of the witnesses and the folks who got it on tape missed something. What that was, VB doesn’t say. It does mention that a scuffle between the men on the train preceded the shooting, but that was about it. It doesn’t mention that the dead man was on the ground and had been subdued when he was shot in the back.

[T]he majority of the videos out there make the situation seem so one-sided, it’s almost impossible not to be furious about the racial and social implications, no matter who you are.

Yep. Those darned folks with those cell phone and cam videos only got one side of the story.

Had the videos not circulated so rapidly, creating a feedback loop of negative reinforcement (”Grant is dead, the cop ruthlessly killed him, case closed”), the riots, smashed windows and burned out cars may have been avoided. At least that’s a distinct possibility.

Yep. It’s the circulation of the videos. Not what’s on them. I guess that’s what happened in the Rodney King case also. If those TV stations hadn’t show the police beating Rod’s a$$, the riots wouldn’t have happened. Nooo. The onus wasn’t on the officers for initiating the action that caused the riots. It was on that darned media for showing the action.

Just because we have limitless technology at our fingertips and everything can be recorded doesn’t mean the videos and photographs captured unequivocally prove what happened at an event. It is true, and tragic that Grant was shot by the police officer, but who knows what went through the officer’s mind in the moments leading up to his actions? People will believe what they want to believe, and it’s impossible to ignore existing biases and past experiences when forming an opinion. Viewing something and reading the comments on a YouTube video doesn’t guarantee a well-informed conclusion.

Nope. It doesn’t. But when a video shows a dude being subdued and then shot, the picture *does* tell the whole story.

***But, here’s my view: Instead of getting pissed off at VB, go over to Witness.org and DONATE to their cause! Witness is a site that posts human rights abuses captured on tape, mostly with cell phone cams and video cams like The Flip. It’s situations just like the BART shooting that highlight the need for this type of site.***

And I strongly urge the folks over at VB to check Witness out. Hopefully they’ll learn something.

Update: Eric Eldon of VB posted an explanation of how the article got online in the comments section. According to Eric a freelancer heavily edited the original author’s copy, changing the tone and argument, and posted it without approval. The Standard picked it up the edited version and ran it. Thanks for the reply Eric.