First dictatorship toppled by the Internet

Interesting article in the UK Hearld

[lgn1]

I saw an interesting article today on the role of blogs in bringing down Junta's and Dictatorship

[theherald.co.uk ]

I have generally found mainstay news sources to be terribly outdated, especially when new sources need verfication. Verfication is nice, but when you have a rapid changing stories, from countries with media censorship, you don't have such a luxory of time.

Take for example, it is now 6:40 PM AST and I just found out their has been a coup in Burma, and the army is fighting between themselves.

[newsdeskspecial.co.uk ]

I bet I won't see this on CNN BBC until morning, however it has been widely reported from several differnt blog sources from the people that have their feet on the ground in Burma.

But it appears that blogs and the internet is away to rapidly spread information, and this appears to have been the turning point in Burma, although at a tragic loss of life.

[Syzygy]

Whilst not wishing to take away from any discussion over whether the "traditional" news media is unable to keep pace with the constant flow of "broadcasting" that comes from so many diverse and independent sources online, and not wanting to venture to make any comment that may be construed as raising the ugly head of politics, can I just point out that the top story in the second link presently offers pure speculation. It is hearsay.

The first paragraph of the top story (presently "...army mutiny...") "suggests" that something may be happening. In the next sentence "it is unclear".

In the second paragraph the attributed source is "at present unsure".

I'm also surprised to see American Express as sponsors, or am I just being too cynical at this juncture.

Granted, online reporting can be as swift as the breeze, but doesn't it need to have behind it the commodities of trust and authority. Or are such things not important anymore?

The story may be entirely accurate, but at present, without secondary, independent, confirmation isn't it just the same as gossip? Surely sources need a bit more insight than third hand reporting and comments that could have been gleaned from somebody else's blog-o-news?

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, too judgemental, or just plain ignorant here?

Syzygy

[edited by: Syzygy at 10:24 pm (utc) on Sep. 28, 2007]

[lawman]

If you want to have credibility as a new source, you should operate as a news source. Of course then all the intrigue and fun of gossip dressed up as news would be gone.

[lgn1]

The thing with blogs and secondary sources. It is up to the user to analye the plasibility the sources. It may require a bit more work, but it is at least better than reading the newswire feeds that CNN, BBC and other major source use.

I may be wrong on this source, but I should know if im right or wrong in about 12 hours.

[Lord Majestic]

It does not look like blogs brought down junta in Burma - more like the opposite: junta brought down ISP there! It is not exactly easy to fight guns with blogs: you only win until they start shooting! :(

[vincevincevince]

I suspect that if the internet is really becoming such an important tool in fighting evil then at the first sign of a struggle, satellite connections need to be hidden throughout a country.

There was this earlier on a related topic [guardian.co.uk]

[lgn1]

satellite connections need to be hidden throughout a country

Most of the news and pictures are coming from Ragoon where the embassies are. I assume the embassies are providing satelite uplinks for the protesters, and if they were smart, setting up free public wireless zones around the embassies.

The only way the Junta could shut down satellite internet would be to invade the embassies, which is an act of war, so it won't happen.