Can curry treat caner?

The BBC posted an article about research where curcumin, an extract from yellow curry spice, destroyed cancer cells in a lab. Cancer experts said the results could create or lead to new treatments. The article then links the results to the increase of oesophageal cancer.

The article titled "Curry spice 'kills cancer cells'" is very vague, giving little sources except for the doctor in the study and explaining the results in the simplest terms. It is always important to be skeptical about new science just like anything else. However, it is hard to give more credit when the news does not dig deep enough into the story. There were more questions raised from this article than answered. 

I found this article linked to a friend's facebook page. The Internet and especially facebook and twitter is the new way to exchange information. Like we talked about in class weeks ago, news updates and breaking news are not being spread through these social networks, which at first were just college and high school trends. 

An article like this need more information. It seems like there was no background research or previous knowledge. When posting new information such as new cancer treatment, there needs to be more explanation than just giving the facts.

Post office helping or harming small magazines

"Don't Stamp Out Brainy Mags" discussed the post offices possible plan to raise the cost of postage for periodicals. The post office until this article had cheap costs to allow people to stay connected for a low cost between long distances. The reason the Boston Globe was worried about this change was because it would hurt smaller, independent magazines.

The cost going up for publications would be bad for the news media in general but mainstream and larger periodicals would be able to afford the cost. Some small, new and not-for-profit places would have to close down if the cost to send out subscriptions went up.

The last few paragraphs acknowledged that the post office does need to make money and the Internet has allowed smaller media sources to survive. However, it a touchy subject because the post office will not be making it difficult for the media as a whole but singling out the smaller publications.

It goes back to what we talk about every week; how independent media survives in the present media set up. The mainstream and larger publications have the upperhand because the Internet has not wiped out newspapers or television and these media sources still have more power. The post office's change is upsetting because it takes power away from the independent media that have a following of people just not the money. A magazine will have more trouble railing its followers to support them than people on the Internet can. For example, Jim Gilliam used the Internet and got fans to donate $267,892 in 10 days to Brave New Films. Just like the Boston Globe said though magazines are still important in our world today and although the Internet is a great new medium, magazines, newspapers, and television are still around.

It is disheartening to think that one organization can cause problems for another. Since government, media, and other businesses are intertwined and must rely on each other it can lead to problems like this one. It is scary to wonder though how smaller groups can will find a way to survive.

Shafer criticizes Herbert Sandler

One of our readings for class sparked my interest because it was talking about ProPublica, which I wrote my first paper on. ProPublica is a non-for-profit investigative journalism news source. The organization is heavily funded by Herbert, who is chairman, and Marion Sandler.

I was very shocked by Jack Shafer's comments in his article, "What Do Herbert and Marion Sandler Want? Investigating the Funders of ProPublica, the new investigative journalism outfit." Shafer said ProPublica credits themselves with being different from the mainstream and creating investigative journalism that does not exist today. Shafer says that it is much larger scale effort than we have seen before but feels there are other sources out there.

He also criticizes Sandler for the times when he has and has not donated to journalism. Shafer quotes Chicago Tribune's James Warren saying "he declined to help journalists as much as he probably should have," referring to past incidents. Also, at the end Shafer says Sandler should donate money for 10 years to ProPublica and then resign as chairman so he does not have influence in something that "might turn out to be a good thing."

I agree that having such a large donation from one source can create a problem for ProPublica. However, Shafer's ideas for improvement are unrealistic. A person who give millions of dollars should not be told to have no input in what happens to his money. It is a double edge sword. The organization should be able to do what they want but at the same time Sandler should not be epxected to do anything such as step down as chairman. ProPublica should have a wider range of smaller donators so they can have more control over the organization. Shafer solely criticzing Sandler for problems in journalism history and in ProPublica's current position is not fair to Sandler.

I am not denfending Sandler saying that he can give as much money as he wants and then tell the people at ProPublica what to do. There are just two sides to every story and it is important to be aware of that.

Balloon Boy Still Covered

Today, looking at the news from today, I found another article about balloon boy. An incident that occurred over a week and half ago and has very little newsworthy merit has already been covered by many news stations many times.

The article I found was very critical of the coverage of the story. Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote about the hyped up news coverage of this story and many others in the past. In his article "In Defense of the 'Balloon Boy' Dad," Rich talks about the huge amount of reality television in entertainment and the news. He also mentioned the countless other times the news turned a small, unimportant story into worldwide, urgent media topic.

Rich made a good case for the irrelevance this balloon and family have in the news. However, that does not stop media sources from covering it or even Rich for that matter. I am giving balloon boy more coverage by just talking about all this in my blog. So when does stop?

If it was a hoax, Richard Heene is getting all the news coverage he wanted; good and bad. All the news stations that reported on the story at first were the beginning and are to blame for giving this story even a small amount of merit. However, it should stop there. Talking about how ridiculous the story is or even reporting on reporting is just feeding the story. My blog does it give this incident the covergae is has been and will still receieve but my post just feeds the flame.

Josh Marshall and the future of media

Reading parts of Josh Marshall's speech when he came to visit Ithaca, he made a lot of good points about the media and its future. Independent media is necessary, accuracy can get lost when trying to be balanced, and opportunities are endless on the web were just a few. One of the last questions he promoted and answered that we even discussed in class made me think.

He said in "Keynote Lecture: Josh Marshall: The Growth of Talking Points Memo and the Importance of Independent Media,"

"The question in my mind: Are we just in a period of tumult and we’ll settle down and have the same kind of dominant entities – or is there something about the technology that has created a permanent ingrained ease of entry into the space? I think the latter is the case."

I do not know if he is right. After reading, Rodger Streitmatter's "Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America,” it seems there is always a dominant media or even a basic ideal of the time. When lynching was accepted, there were still people like Ida B. Wells who wrote against it. When black suppression was still occurring in the 60s, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out. Whether it is media or political issues, there is always someone speaking out because the majority or what used be to the majority has more power. It is possible that when I am older, independent media will be mainstream. Although it seems now that new technology has allowed for wide views, it is unsure how this will affect the media in time to come. So although Josh Marshall makes a good point and he could be right, it is still difficult to tell if this new media has wiped out the old way of doing things.

Mark Finkelstein visits class

Mark Finkelstein, journalist and blogger, was a very interesting speaker to have in our Independent Media class yesterday. It was great to bring in someone from the other side of the political spectrum. Ithaca is very liberal and although I agree with many of their ideals, that does not mean the conservative spectrum is wrong or irrelevant.

Finkelstein spoke well, presenting his view and at the same time repsecting other people. It was noble of him to admit he could be wrong when him and a student were discussing Obama's decision to not go on FOX News. Finkelstein defended his view well at first but when caught in a web of conflicting views, he admitted his fault. It didn't discredit Finkelstein or prove that his opinion was wrong, which gives him even more merit for admitting it. Although some people may have seen "submitting defeat" on Finkelstein' part as him losing the arugment, I believe it only shows that he can be honest and fair. He pushed his ideas on the class and of course believes in what he is saying but he was realistic about it.

Whether the student or Finkelstein was right is irrevelant and there really is no right or wong answer. I think both people spoke well and defended their points strongly. Finkelstein is partial to conservative groups but he did a good job of speaking to an Independent Media class so props to him.