This is a graphic pictorialization of old news, that is, information on events that happened in the past, versus real-time news, information on events happening in the moment of visual access. (Is to be stoned [in the New Testament sense of St Stephen] old news reporting, and to get stoned [in the sense Bill Clinton avoided] real-time journalism? Do old news reporters ask questions of the president, say, differently from the way real-time journalists ask questions? Is the culture of journalism dysfunctional? Why do old news delivery systems hang so tenaciously on to their hard-copy versions of themselves avoiding leaping whole hog on to the world wide web? Is it to play to the sentiments of geezers inured to tree-killing information and data delivery carriers? Is cultural discrimination the clueless bane of old news journalism?) We are learning from the way we in the west obtain information from citizens in Iran that the distinctions between global and community information are rapidly diminishing. Will journalism need to become less "professional"? When Chuck Todd of NBC News asked President Obama why he wouldn’t spell out the consequences of Iranian police brutality against demonstrators, the president shot back, “I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I’m not. O.K.?” Is this true for the rest of us as well?
Is there a non-Arab equivalent for the Arab street vis-a-vis Arab governments? Oppressive governments attempt to suppress internet access to their "street" but do intelligence services like the CIA tune into it in ways that differ from access to it from social networking?
An example of internet policy on censorship:
Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.