- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Anybody from Russia here?
by Pavel Miliutin 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

Hi all I'm just wondering does anybody of the subscribers live in Russia or is russian-speaking (besides me :)? Could be useful to share links and resources in russian language concerning internet research. As for me, my theme is about internet resources for studiyng geography of the world economy. Best, Pavel Miliutin Moscow State University, faculty of geography, world economy department plm2000(a)narod.ru

6 6

<nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S (fwd)
by robert m. tynes 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:59:42 -0800 (PST) From: jay gatsby <principio_0(a)yahoo.com> To: nettime <nettime-l(a)bbs.thing.net> Subject: <nettime> Aljazeera VS. U.S AL JAZEERA VS. U.S. By Jay Gatsby (http://principia_ny.blogspot.com) The 24-hour Arabic news network Al Jazirah has a very intersting place in the scheme of current events in the Middle East. Since 1996, Al Jazirah has become the most popular Arab news network, with over 50 million viewers. It has been highly acclaimed by journalists around the world for its in-depth, quality reporting. Like all quality news stations, however, it is controversial--particularly for western governments and their Mid-East allies. Jordan, kuwait, and Lybia, for example, have all banned Al Jazirah journalists from their territories. Over and over, whenever we hear anything about a Bin Laden tape or a statement by Saddam Hussein, in the American news, Al Jazirah is the cited source. News about the war on Afghanistan depends heavily on this channel, since the Taliban doesn't allow western media crews into its territory and Al Jazirah is one of only two Arab news networks that are permitted access. As well, the network is particularly reknowned for its reporting of humanitarian conditions throughout the middle east--especially the plight of Palestinians. I wouldn't be surprised if Al Jazirah had a lot to do with putting Palestine on the international agenda. Unlike the U.S media, they seem to give some historical context when reporting mid-east conflict. For example, they always mention the fact that the U.S put Saddam Hussein in power and supported him in the early 80's--things that are absolutely NEVER mentioned in the American press. The network did not exist during the first Gulf War.During the first 5 days of Gulf War II, however, Al Jazirah has already presented a challenge to the U.S: First by broadcasting Saddam Hussein's messages to the Iraqi people; second, by broadcasting vivid pictures of the Iraqi people who have been killed or injured by America's "shock and awe" campaign; third, by showing footage of the recent U.S and British prisoners of war, something about which U.S and British officials want to press 'embarrassment' charges; and fourth, by its coverage of the war on Afghanistan.Thus, we are now witnessing a clash between Al Jazirah and the U.S government. In fact, U.S secretary of state Collin Powell sent a letter to the Qatar government, requesting that it sensor Al Jazirah--to no avail. Within the past few days, Al Jazeera has been banned from the NASDAQ and from the New York Stock Exchange. Rumsfeld has talked about destroying all television and radio communication in Iraq. In recent days, the military has done just that, but Iraq has been able to restore its radio and T.V transmissions after every bombardment. During the opening stages of the war on Afghanistan, the U.S bombed an Al Jazirah bureau in Kabul. U.S officials claimed that the hit was 'unintended.' All of this has raised serious concerns within the International Federation of Journalists(http://www.ifj.org), which claims that the attacks are a direct violation of the Geneva Convention and has called for a U.N investigation of the destruction of Iraqi television stations. Al Jazirah is based in Qatar and a shut-down of Iraqi television will not prevent everyone else in the Middle east --everyone else period--from knowing what is going on in Iraq. Next to budgeting and finishing the war on terrorism, Al Jazirah is just about the biggest problem the U.S has in the middle east. Al Jazirah is available in the U.S through satellite T.V and an English version is due to come out on cable soon. The U.S government has recommended American businessmen to not advertise on this channel. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net

1 0

VIRTUAL ART : new video documentation
by Pete J. Otis 27 Mar '03

27 Mar '03

>Fellow Internet Researchers, Colleagues and Friends, > >The research project DATABASE OF VIRTUAL ART at Humboldt University has >recently created a video documentary series of contemporary media artists >like Maurice Benayoun, Jeffrey Shaw, Jean-Michel Bruyère, Luc Courchesne, >Masaki Fujihata, Lev Manovich and Zoe Beloff... These videos, representing >a small portion of the complex database - going public this summer - are >now already available through the ARTE website. > >Samples from our work can be found: > >http://www.arte-tv.com/emission/emission.jsp?node=220793&lang=de > > >More extensive information: > >OLIVER GRAU: VIRTUAL ART: From Illusion to Immersion, >MIT Press January 2003, ISBN 0-262-07241-6) > >**************************************************************************** > > >production: > >DATABASE OF VIRTUAL ART at Humboldt University of Berlin >scientific direction Dr. Oliver Grau >in cooperation with: channel unit digitale mediengesellschaft mbh > >video direction: Robert loessl >text: Dr. Oliver Grau >assistance: Anna Paterok > >with grateful support from Zentrum fuer Kunst- und Medientechnologie / >Dr. Andrea Buddensieg / Future Cinema. >recording / editing: channel unit digitale mediengesellschaft mbh >titles: Sevrina Giard, Joachim Gaertner

2 2

Citizens of Copyright
by Nathaniel Poor 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Hello international readers: Apologies that the specifics of this will be overly US-centric, but the root problem, I bet, is more widespread. Recently, I've gotten the feeling that US citizens don't really know their rights when it comes to things like copyright. Now many of you might say "Of course they don't!", and that's ok. One mailing list I'm on that is internal to my university had a discussion about CD burning (it's a Macintosh computer list), and there was a lot of confusion about what was legal, and most people thought it was illegal to make a copy for a friend, whereas I think it's legal (it's not for profit, for instance, and I don't mean making a dozen, but I digress without even talking about the small amount extra we pay for blank cassette tapes that goes to the music industry, but I'm not sure about CDs, but a lot of blank CDs at stores are advertised as "for music"). My most recent run-in with this issue, captured in email (below, threaded but it's only 2 emails), distressed me. I am writing a dissertation chapter on videotex (a pre-Internet yet Internet-like, somewhat, 1980's technology), and I found some useful images on a professor's website (he is also a former newspaper industry professional). When I emailed him to see if he had higher-res images, he said he was concerned about copyright (see below). If anyone outside of the legal profession should know about copyright, it's a former newspaper person turned media studies professor. So, given that the Internet (like videotex and every other electronic communication technology) was supposed to transform us all into a global hive-mind of democracy and knowledge (yes, that was somewhat sarcastic), or at least holds the potential for informing people, I find it really frustrating that there still seems to be confusion over important things -- let me be clear, these two copyright examples are impacting the people in the email directly! -- when we supposedly live in the "information age." (Suddenly I am reminded of Microsoft's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) tactics.) I'm not even sure if my question is "why aren't people more informed about copyright" since people, at least in the US, do seem to be very lazy about political knowledge, and for every organization like the EFF there is at least one if not many more well funded organizations like RIAA (sorry, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Recording Industry Association of America, which have very clear sides on certain issues) so for every snippet of good information there seems to be many of misinformation. Well, I'll stop my rant there. (Given that the Internet brings copyright issues to the forefront... Sigh....) (Lessig just spoke here at UM, talking about loss of culture through copyright....) Any input on my frustration appreciated. ndp... email thread (2 mssgs): ---------------------------------------- Clearly it's a case of fair use: educational/non-profit. Even if I were to get my dissertation published as a book, the screen shots would represent a small portion of the Viewtron experience and so would be a legal use, and the ad would be a form of commentary/criticism (not the negative kind of criticism, the critiquing kind). It would be exactly like your use of the same images on your website, it's for educational use. Please see sec. 107 of the copyright code: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html Here are some snippets: "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." "...the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." (And Viewtron has not existed for quite some time.) If you have them in electronic form and it would be easy to email them, I would really appreciate it, but I wouldn't ask you to scan new images, that's too much work. thanks, ndp... On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 09:14 AM, David Carlson wrote: > I do have more images, Nat. But I'm not sure what the copyright issues > might be that surround them. Some are screen shots taken by me or my UF > colleagues back in the day. The one of the family at home comes from a > Viewtron ad, and I do have the original. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel D. Poor Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Communication Studies http://www.umich.edu/~natpoor

1 0

RE: [Air-l] So Much For Embedding
by Randolph Kluver (Assoc Prof) 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

I disagree with much of what Maximilian Forte says, based on my observations of the embedded journalists both within BBC and CNN, as well as the print journalists. To my thinking, the embedded journalists haven't been much help to the US at all, as they have only highlighted delays and difficulties that wouldn't signal much concern if they weren't there. When a reporter comes under fire, he/she says "the strategy is falling apart! We're gonna die!" Two telling examples, the Sunday afternoon (Singapore time) skirmish in Umm Qasr, which was portrayed on both networks as a major battle, along the lines of battle of the bulge. The nature of this coverage prompted the Iraqi information minister, who just a couple of hours earlier had said that all the footage from Umm Qasr was actually shot in Kuwait, as the coalition forces "weren't even in Iraq," to go on air to prove how effectively Iraq was repelling the troops, who were, in fact, in Iraq after all, and were getting a drubbing. The response of Iraqi TV illustrates, I think, that the embedded reporters are not really helping the US forces much. A second example is the initial helicopter attacks in Medina, in which reporters as much as said that the hand guns fired at helicopters would prevent any effective air attack. Probes are a normal part of military strategy, and thus heavy resistance in one place is just more data, not to be confused with a true threat. Certainly the military units involved paid attention to these, but only as part of a much larger battle field. The following briefing by Tommy Franks was interesting, in that it showed that what military analysts and strategies took as a normal occurrence, the journalists interpreted ominously. One final issue is the Jerusalem Post embedded reporter, Caroline Glick, who "broke" the story on the supposed chemical factory. Clearly, the pentagon said that news was "premature," as if it turned out to not manufacture weapons, the credibility of the US would suffer. It seems at this point that it is an arms cache, not a chemical plant. This illustrates my point, though, that the embedded reporters, although they are under orders to not reveal certain kinds of information, are something of a liability to the US forces. I guess I am curious as to how the military would be able to embed journalists among the Iraqi civilians, since there seems to be a desire to do that. Remember, there are at least as many "independent" or "unilateral" journalists in Iraq as there are embedded. In fact, It seems that there are probably more independent journalists in Iraq, since as Forte has noted, out of 500 or so embedded journalists, a number of them are bored to tears, watching missiles fly out of warships, or sitting at military bases. I would be curious to know how many embedded jorunalists are actually in forward combat units. At least two, but most likely four, have already lost their lives, so the message coming from the Pentagon is just as likely a friendly warning as it is a threat. Thus, the embedded journalists are more likely to undermine popular support for the battle, than to serve as cheerleaders, precisely because they have, in Forte's words, "very little in the way of critical analysis or concrete information". In fact, now that every columnist in every newspaper, including Maureen Dowd, is giving war advice, it seems much more accurate to say that the embedded reporters are not much help to the military and/or political strategies fo the administration. I would not argue that the program is to be suspended, as I think it is a valuable way of getting at least some perspective on the war. Tommy Franks says he is a "fan" of the embedded reporters, but my sense is that he likes them primarily because they serve primarily to present the "view from the field," and thus are a check against false allegations. If this post is too "off topic" for this listserve, perhaps Dr. Forte could email me his responses privately. A. Randolph Kluver School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University 31 Nanyang Link Singapore, 637718 (65) 6790-5770 Fax (65) 6792-4329

2 1

Re: [Air-l] Re: peace
by Ildiko Kaposi 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

To Steve's question, another possible and wholly speculative answer could be that perhaps people avoid discussing the war also because they honestly do not see/feel it as having an impact on their lives? Nancy and others have pointed the finger at the news media for presenting the war in a video game fashion. That could be true (I don't have access to US network news in Hungary), and it would account for making the war an unreal spectacle. But the persistent fact remains that the war is somewhere far away, and there is no fighting on American soil. There is no geographic immediacy associated with the events, nor is there much doubt about the outcome (has anyone seen articles discussing what happens once Iraq wins?). That is a pessimistic explanation. The optimistic one would go for the potentially explosive and divisive nature of the events, not something people could bring up in ordinary social conversations for fear of generating political conflict. In this case, the implication would be that people care and are interested. Anyroad, I can already picture the academic books that'll be published about this war and the media, incl. (or especially) the internet. It's hard to stay a lily in this affair. Ildiko

7 6

Aljazeera website
by robert m. tynes 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Here's the url: http://english.aljazeera.net/ NBC reported this morning that Aljazeera reporters were banned from the NYSE trading floor for "security reasons." Hmmm... -robert

4 5

Fwd: [isoc-members-discuss] Impact of Internet Info
by jeremy hunsinger 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

ideas? cc stefan Begin forwarded message: > From: Stefan Probst <stefan.probst(a)opticom.v-nam.net> > Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:44:34 PM US/Eastern > To: ISOC Members discuss <isoc-members-discuss(a)isoc.org> > Subject: [isoc-members-discuss] Impact of Internet Info > > Dear All, > > several reports say, that those US TV channels, which have the highest > viewing rates, are very much pro-US based in this war. > > My own observation confirms this, kind of. > A few on CNN's website e.g. gives a very different selection of > reports, even if compared with something like > http://news.yahoo.com/iraq/ (which I think is quite good for a > mainstream channel). > > Does anybody know of a study on how Bush's rating and the opinion > about the war in the US population depends on the main information > source of the asked persons? > > Means: Can it be said, that people who get their infos from the > Internet have a different opinion than those who rely on TV? Are there > differences on the amount of infos (only TV, vs. TV and Internet, vs. > only Internet)? > > Best Regards, > Stefan > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + Meet me in my grave-yard http://www.stefan.probst.cx/iraq/ + > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > _______________________________________________ > ISOC-members-discuss mailing list > ISOC-members-discuss(a)isoc.org > http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-members-discuss > > Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture

1 0

Fwd: [eliterature] Call for Abstracts - INST Conference Vienna
by jeremy hunsinger 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Begin forwarded message: > From: Gerald Ganglbauer <gerald(a)gangan.com> > Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:57:59 PM US/Eastern > To: eliterature <eliterature(a)yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [eliterature] Call for Abstracts - INST Conference Vienna > > Dear Colleagues > > The goal of the Conference "The Unifying Aspects of Cultures" is to > analyse and present the importance of culture in contemporary processes > in a new way. In particular, the unifying (transnational) aspects of > cultural processes will be examined. > > Dates: 7 to 9 November 2003 > Venue: Austria Center in Vienna > Organised by: INST (Research Institute for Austrian and International > Literature and Cultural Studies) > > Abstracts for my section "Cyberspace - The Closeness out of Difference" > are invited. > Deadline for Titles and Abstracts: 31 May 2003 > > Information about my section: > http://www.inst.at/kulturen/2003/04transnationales/ > sektion_ganglbauer_e.htm > > > More information about the conference itself: > http://www.inst.at/kulturen/index_e.htm > > Kind regards > Gerald Ganglbauer > > > Three doors to art and literature. > Drei Tueren zu Kunst und Literatur. > www.gangan.com | www.gangart.com | www.gangway.net > PO Box 522, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012, Australia > Ph.: +61 2 9280 2120 - Mobile: 0411 156 309 > Fax: +61 2 9280 2130 - E-Mail: gerald(a)gangart.com > > > The Electronic Literature Organization is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit > organization with a mission to promote and facilitate the writing, > reading, and publishing of electronic literature. > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture

1 0

RE: [Air-l] Aljazeera website
by Andrew Herman 26 Mar '03

26 Mar '03

Dosn't work for me either. What gives? Andrew Herman, Ph. D. Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology College of the Holy Cross Worcester, MA 01610 (508) 793-2531 >>> hgildezuniga(a)wisc.edu 03/25/03 19:29 PM >>> It is really bizard... I opened the site this morning and it did work. But when I tried from a computer on campus I couldn't open the web page. It might not mean anything at all or perhaps it does... I'll try to do it later again. Let's see... Homero University of Wisconsin-Madison www.homero.educations.net -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin(a)aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org] On Behalf Of robert m. tynes Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:45 PM To: air-l(a)aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Aljazeera website that's weird. i was just on the site before and after i sent the post. -robert On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Frank Thomas wrote: > the connection was refused -what does that mean ? > > robert m. tynes wrote: > > >Here's the url: > > > >http://english.aljazeera.net/ > > > >NBC reported this morning that Aljazeera reporters were banned from the > >NYSE trading floor for "security reasons." Hmmm... > > > >-robert > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Air-l mailing list > >Air-l(a)aoir.org > >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Air-l mailing list > Air-l(a)aoir.org > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l(a)aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l

2 1