CBS Detroit: How Can You Allow These Comments?

Sunday morning and I’m catching up on the news of the weekend. I am reminded why, in part, I despise reading the news:  the negativity, lack of unbiased reporting AND the racial comments by readers, following some reports.   I would love to know how it is that CBS News / Detroit can allow some of the comments that I read today by a few readers.  Don’t they moderate for this kind of ‘talk?’  Furthermore, if anyone in politics or sports or celebrity spoke this way, they’d be shunned from society and their jobs; and forced into public apology.  I just don’t get it.  Read the article “Bus Company: Employee Who Roughed Up Kid Was Wrong.”  Follow it up by reading the ‘ugly’ comments if you have the stomach for it.

Personally, I find the comments racist and disrespectful.  Grant it, we have freedom of speech but there is a point to draw a line, no?  Why should it be any different for a community of readers (vs celebrity)?

A Photographer’s Groan

I think you could say the same about photography/ers.  The sentiments across the professional photogs are  mutual.  All you have to do is research and read a number of photography forums to hear the groans.

I work to put a roof over my head and food on my table.  If you are doing it for the fun of it:  let your clientele know upfront so they can expect what they pay (or don’t pay) for.  This way, it doesn’t interfere with the professional price tag that comes with the professional photographer that offers a professional and quality product and service; and you aren’t contributing to a world-wide demise of pro photography as a career, especially for those that have been in the industry for a long time.  This teaches prospective clients that no matter how big or small, we all work for our bread and butter and we are worth our fees.

While I’m on the topic of groans.  If you plan to shoot weddings and have not done so yet, please do not post pictures on your website of weddings that you shot as a guest at one.  Maybe your website visitors don’t recognize the difference but it’s obvious to other photographers and it’s not right for a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head.  When I was starting out in wedding photography, I simply advertised it WHEN I had my first wedding under my belt and images I could display as my own project portfolio.  Getting in the way of a PAID photographer while they are shooting a wedding, so that you can steal a few posed pics to post on your website and mislead your visitors is just plain WRONG in so many ways.

Rockefeller, Bono Mack seek explanations from Facebook

Rockefeller, Bono Mack seek explanations from Facebook.

Gotta read the full article to appreciate the last paragraph… a real CHARM.

““Facebook has never been the poster child for security,” Steinberg says. “This situation reinforces that concept. If some form of beach occurred and information that you configured to be viewable by only your friends became viewable by the entire world it is unlikely that Facebook is going to compensate you. But they can gather information about you and advertise to you. In many ways, you are Facebook’s product, not its customer.””

Technogenic Disasters

Love her style of writing for one. Second, this article rocks. A must read. The excerpts below were just a few that hit the mark for me.

Technogenic Disasters: A Deadly New Normal for the Media

Jul 6, 2011 07:00 AM

Some go to school to become journalists. Others hit the road with a notebook, camera and insatiable curiosity, while others have a shocking moment of awareness of the complexity of the human condition and want to document it. I decided to enter the field when a war journalist showed me a roll of images from Kosovo. The first shot was of a man engulfed in flames to the knee. In the next shot the fire spread to his waist, then his chest. By the end of the roll, he was reduced to a charred skeleton smoking on the burnt ground.

868 journalists have been killed since 1992, which raises the question: is it worth dying to tell the story? Documenting what has already gone wrong often feels like a futile endeavor because no story can change the past. If the process of documentation costs another life, the tragedy is compounded.

If modern media reaches its potential, it can affect the manner in which the public copes with, mitigates and potentially holds industry and the government accountable for preventing various disasters. That’s a completely different proposition: a struggle with a potentially massive reward.
Understanding how technogenic disasters affect people in the short and long term requires patience and the development of simple, reliable community hubs where people input their own stories and data. Achieving this will also require greater emphasis on science communication
Not every opinion is useful, but even those contributions that seem contrary or even vitriolic might contain part of the clue that can unlock a complex story.

Disasters caused by the by-products of technology often have tentacles that reach around the world in an invisible stranglehold of consequences that are difficult to trace back to the source.

At the same time, our species is developing all kinds of new existential risks that could cause mass extinction through unintended side effects, deliberate application by a “person of malicious intent,” or a successful doomsday arms race–one that ends with complete annihilation of our species.

If modern tools are explored to their fullest, without fear of failure of conforming to an industry standard caught between two disparate eras, the media can eventually fill the role of helping to provide solutions instead of just documenting what has already gone wrong.

Each one of us has a different role to play. Some of us will spend months researching mountains of data. Some of us will contextualize that data into text, visuals, maps, videos, platforms and other mediums that should include greater levels of outreach and engagement.

The role of the great modern media is to orchestrate usefulness and order from this chaotic process and help us more clearly see how we can shape our own future, together, before we miss our chance.
About the Author:  Rita J. King is the EVP of Business Development at Science House, the Generalissima of the Imagination Age, Founder and Creative Director of Dancing Ink Productions and lover of the infinite cosmos.

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com

 

Technogenic Disasters

Love her style of writing for one. Second, this article rocks. A must read. The excerpts below were just a few that hit the mark for me.

Technogenic Disasters: A Deadly New Normal for the Media

Jul 6, 2011 07:00 AM

Some go to school to become journalists. Others hit the road with a notebook, camera and insatiable curiosity, while others have a shocking moment of awareness of the complexity of the human condition and want to document it. I decided to enter the field when a war journalist showed me a roll of images from Kosovo. The first shot was of a man engulfed in flames to the knee. In the next shot the fire spread to his waist, then his chest. By the end of the roll, he was reduced to a charred skeleton smoking on the burnt ground.

868 journalists have been killed since 1992, which raises the question: is it worth dying to tell the story? Documenting what has already gone wrong often feels like a futile endeavor because no story can change the past. If the process of documentation costs another life, the tragedy is compounded.

If modern media reaches its potential, it can affect the manner in which the public copes with, mitigates and potentially holds industry and the government accountable for preventing various disasters. That’s a completely different proposition: a struggle with a potentially massive reward.
Understanding how technogenic disasters affect people in the short and long term requires patience and the development of simple, reliable community hubs where people input their own stories and data. Achieving this will also require greater emphasis on science communication
Not every opinion is useful, but even those contributions that seem contrary or even vitriolic might contain part of the clue that can unlock a complex story.

Disasters caused by the by-products of technology often have tentacles that reach around the world in an invisible stranglehold of consequences that are difficult to trace back to the source.

At the same time, our species is developing all kinds of new existential risks that could cause mass extinction through unintended side effects, deliberate application by a “person of malicious intent,” or a successful doomsday arms race–one that ends with complete annihilation of our species.

If modern tools are explored to their fullest, without fear of failure of conforming to an industry standard caught between two disparate eras, the media can eventually fill the role of helping to provide solutions instead of just documenting what has already gone wrong.

Each one of us has a different role to play. Some of us will spend months researching mountains of data. Some of us will contextualize that data into text, visuals, maps, videos, platforms and other mediums that should include greater levels of outreach and engagement.

The role of the great modern media is to orchestrate usefulness and order from this chaotic process and help us more clearly see how we can shape our own future, together, before we miss our chance.
About the Author:  Rita J. King is the EVP of Business Development at Science House, the Generalissima of the Imagination Age, Founder and Creative Director of Dancing Ink Productions and lover of the infinite cosmos.

Read more at www.scientificamerican.com