Censorship in 2011: Obama Decides Not To Release Photos of Osama

After the announcement of Osama Bin Laden's death there was a lot of speculation as to whether President Obama would decide to release photos of Osama Bin Laden dead. As we know now, President Obama has decided against showing these photos for many reasons. Some people are angry that President Obama is not releasing these photos because most want to have actual proof that Osama Bin Laden is dead. On the other hand, some rather not see gruesome photos.

Perez Hilton, the popular pioneer of celebrity and pop culture blogging has recently blogged about this issue. He took a stance and says "the deed has been done- let's just leave it at that." Perez stands by President Obama in his decision and claims that it is not necessary to see these pictures.

John Stewart also comments on this issue on The Daily Show. He shows a clip of multiple news outlets claiming that the president must release these photos. John Stewart brings up how this might not be necessary since Osama Bin Laden's wife personally  identified the body to Pakistani authorities. He says that a photo will not end the speculation. He also claims that the photos being too gory is not a good excuse since all Americans are exposed to gory images via television all the time.


Personally, I do not think it's necessary to show the pictures, however, there are other ways President Obama can prove to the citizens of the United States that Osama Bin Laden is really dead. I agree with John Stewart that President Obama can show the pictures to a bunch of reporters who can spread the news that they in fact have seen proof. By releasing the pictures directly, it might cause people who are involved with Al Queda to startup against the U.S. by committing acts of terrorism.

Do you think the President is doing the right thing by not releasing the photos of Osama Bin Laden?

To see Perez Hilton's Blog Click Here
To see The Daily Show Click Here (begins at 6:40)

Osama's Death Proves Effects of Social Media

Last night around 11:00 pm, at least 10 of my friends on my blackberry messenger updated their status' saying things like "OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD" and "WE GOT HIM!" that is when i first heard the news. Later on when i checked my Facebook the news spread fast that people are"Celebrating with the rest of New York in Ground Zero," Times Square and also outside the White House.

As I watched MSNBC's live news report i was shocked to see the tremendous turn out of people celebrating the death of the man responsible for 9/11. MSNBC stated that although news was kept top secret the week before May 1st, once word got out “[the news] spread very quickly” whether it be through text messages, bbm, phone calls, twitter, facebook...it all showed how important new technology is these days in spreading news. 


CNN also has an article which states that Osama Bin Ladan's death has set the record for tweets on Twitter. It claims that last night between 10:45 till 2:20 am twitters posted more than 3,440 messages PER SECOND!!! 

 The article continued to state that most people become aware of this news via social media, which verifies exactly what MSNBC was stating last night.  

---To check out the CNN article click here--- [very cool and worth reading] 

---To see a clip of people celebrating outside the White House click here---

It is clear that last night was a night that will go down in history and "for many Americans this is a day they waited for, for nearly a decade" (CBS News).

Facebook Lobbyist Speaks Controversial Words

The past few months, there has been a lot of talk of how non-democratic countries such as China and Egypt shut down the internet to prevent people from speaking out against their government and starting riots. It agitates me to hear how countries restrain their citizens by taking away their rights. It would be so comforting to know that Facebook, would use their power to try to help people in countries that need it and they can do just this by giving people the freedom they deserve, when they don't get it from their own government.

In the New York magazine it stated how a Facebook lobbyist says that the company might be allowing "too much free speech" in non-democratic countries. Isn't the whole point of having social media, such as Facebook and etc, so people can express their thoughts?

After researching more on this topic, I found that the Facebook lobbyist, Adam Conner, has also been quoted in the Wall Street Journal. He claims that since these countries have not experienced this kind of freedom before, it might be too much for them to handle and perhaps Facebook might take a change on their previous actions. Conner states "Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others."

Clearly this does not seem fair to the countries that will not get the same contents as others, What do you think? Is it a good idea for Facebook to 'hide' content from countries who are not usually exposed to this kind of freedom? Or should everyone be treated equally? Facebook has a big decision to make, considering how powerful their technology is nowadays.

Social Media: Dilemmas When Used For Political Purposes

It all started when photos were removed from an Egyptian blogger's Flickr account. The pictures were of the policemen in Egypt and were removed because the photos were not taken by Mr Hossam El-Hamalawy himself, which are one of the rules when posting onto Flickr. However, he feels as if he was personally singled out. He uploaded these photos to encourage other Egyptians to come forward with any information they might have about police members who abuse others and hopefully bring these men to justice!

This brings to my attention a bigger problem at hand. Social media sites are now being used for political purposes, and although this is helpful when concerning "pro-democracy forces and activists", it creates an important question: how do these social media sites remain neutral and keep to their policies?

In 2007 YouTube took down videos showing an Egyptian being beaten by the police. Eventually, YouTube restored the videos, especially since the man who posted them was doing it (in my opinion) for a good cause, to show opposition to the torture occurring in Egypt. In class we discussed how YouTube videos clearly have some impact because people are watching them. They help build supports whether for a campaign or for starting riots. The hard part is knowing exactly what type of impact we want them to have.

Facebook is now struggling with this dilemma as well. Activists in the Middle East use Facebook to connect rebel groups together and "mobilize protests." Facebook has now been involved in the Israeli-Palestenian conflict and "has been pushed to defend its neutral approach" The Israeli minister of diplomacy contacted Mark Zuckerberg asking him to remove the Third Palistinian Intifada page (which i discussed in my previous blog post).

A spokesman for Facebook stated "We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others." This raises a question: How do these social media sites "[balance] the existing rules and terms of service...with the new ways activist's [use] these tools" Should a company stay neutral even when their content could offend others, or put people in danger? What if the content can help one group significantly? Where do these social media networks draw the line?

Based on a NY Times article

Facebook Does the Right Thing

The past week i had tons of friends posting on their facebook regarding a facebook page called "Third Palestinian Intifada," this page was filled with hatred and sent an anti-semitic message to Palestinians. It told Palestinians to raid the streets on May 15th against Israel's Jewish population. If this raid were to occur we would know the outcome would have a terrible affect on the Jews living in Israel today. It surprises me that this page had over 340,000 fans
before it was able to be shut down.

Originally the page called for a 'peaceful protest' but later on comments on the page started becoming violent. A spokesman for facebook said that usually they do not remove pages off facebook because they believe people should be able to express themselves. Since this issues a "direct call for violence or expression of hate" that violated facebook's policies, they removed the page. 


Mutliple people were sending messages to the administrators warning them to remove the page. Afterwards, the Anti Defamation League (ADL) filed a complaint against facebook. The ADL claimed that this page promoted terrorist violence and facebook should not have waited so long to take off the page.The director of the ADL stated "We hope that they will continue to vigilantly monitor their pages for other groups that call for violence or terrorism against Jews and Israel."


The fact that facebook can stir up so much commotion shows how valuable new media is. In class we learned how new media can improve and immensely affect which way a president's campaign turns. Here in this case, we see how not only does it affect elections but also occurrences around the world. Facebook can cause protests but also save people from harms way.


However, some people might disagree and think it is not right for facebook to remove the Third Palestinian Intifada page because they have the right to express their beliefs.  In my opinion it is admirable that facebook did this and took a stance against anti-Semitism. What do you think?


To see the report on FoxNews.com click here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/29/facebook-removes-page-encouraging-upraising-israel/

What Type of Media Do You Turn To??

The other day in class we saw how political advertising via television really affected the outcome of presidential campaigns. While reading the articles on new media and political advertising, one of the articles really fascinated me because of how imperative it is in this day and age.

In the article "Making an Impression: New Media in the 2008 Presidential Nomination Campaigns" it signifies how many people in the U.S. are using the web for their source of news and information. It is surprising to see that 79% of adults go online. Another interesting fact is that 73% of the general public go online to read the news.

Nowadays, we see more than ever how new media can really affect the political world around us, not only in our country but in countries all around the world. The internet can be used to raise relief efforts for Japan, start a revolution in Egypt, and even draw attention to the problems occurring in Israel.

The past few days i have been bombarded with facebook status' with reports of events in Israel,  such as "In the last 3 days over 70 missiles were fired into Israel. A bomb was strapped to a phone booth at a Jerusalem bus station,killing one and seriously injuring 3 others. Last week a Palestinian terrorist walked into the home of the Fogel family and murdered Rabbi Fogel, his wife and 3 of his 6 children with a kitchen knife. Almost none of this has been given media coverage. Put this as your status to show your support." and "BREAKING NEWS: Family in Laredo, Texas massacred in their sleep, bomb hits bus #74 outside D.C. convention center injuring dozens and killing at least one; dozens of rockets and missiles continue falling in Fairfax, Virginia. Do I have your attention? Is this completely insane and far fetched? Then why is it allowed to be commonplace in Israel? If you agree, post as your status."


These status' really raise awareness to people who are users of facebook. In my case, most of my friends put the status' as noted above on their page. How much attention do you think they raised?? Probably a lot and this just goes to show how we can start using the new media to benefit ourselves and hopefully use it to better our country and world. Do you think that new media has this potential? 

CNN Misleads Followers on Israel News

In class this week we discussed media biases. People turn to the media to get information on world occurrences and therefore, media shapes people's opinions on these matters. After reading articles on the web about the massacre of the Fogel family, it is clear which news sources have biases. The most shocking news report was CNN, in which the title of the article was "Israeli family of 5 killed in ‘terror attack’, military says",  suggesting that perhaps the massacre was not a terrorist attack, which is a very objective claim. Important news sources such as Fox, CNN, BBC and MSNBC must be careful in their wordings, and define their terms carefully. By putting quotations around terror attack, they are no longer neutral in reporting this news and are in fact being biased. Israel's government has sent a letter of complaint to the board of CNN, asking for an apology. In my opinion, Israel has every right to be upset over the medias biases of what happened to the Fogel family. It is important for the news to tell the fully story in order to increase awareness of what really happened in Itamar. After seeing the pictures and reading the horrific story of what happened to the Fogel family, it is hard not to believe that this was indeed a terrorist attack. Do you think Israel is entitled to be bothered by the media's portrayal  of the massacre in a misleading manner?


To view this article click here:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142874