“I’m going to blow RMIT University to shreds if I have to complete another class evaluation survey.” LOL!

A flippant comment but how do I know the Victorian Police Force won’t take it seriously? After all there was no joking around yesterday when Paul Chambers became the first British citizen to be charged on Twitter for threatening to blow the airport in Yorkshire “sky high.”

I acknowledge it is not the wittiest comment to make in the world (or in an airport) but I see the tweeting-humour. It was an overreaction to something meaningless, ultimately reflecting a global society that relies too heavily on social media to obtain information and factual news.

Whilst I agree Twitter has impacted traditional media positively with such responses to the Haiti earthquake and Iran election crisis, everything said on there is NOT fact. In fact, most people on Twitter are not trying to divulge criminal information or become a journalist by breaking news.

The latest statistics show 27 per cent of Twitter message types are private conversations. Most users are merely wanting to communicate with friends and followers by expressing… What is it called again? Freedom of speech.

Yet Paul Chambers is arrested and prosecuted for freely venting his frustration about the cancellation of his flight when the Twitter website states:

Just remember, how you use Twitter is completely up to you!

Obviously not. We all make jokes everyday. Just like I’m not really going to bomb RMIT!  Sure Mr. Chambers’ tweet might have been tasteless (or “innocuous hyperbole” as he called it)  but should a conviction stem from a post on a social media site that promotes expression? Or are we taking our reliance and trust in Twitter too far?

It may be an important tool for journalists and policemen alike. But it shouldn’t be the only one. It shouldn’t be the literal one. So lets all get our wits about us when using the site!

NROTI is not another terrible acronym like Foxtel’s EOFYS advertisement. It is the-fast approaching reality that soon there will be No Room On The Internet.

The announcement made on Tuesday said that the unique number of address combinations on IP Version 4 (the current Internet version) are running dry. The ‘old’ version will still be available, but the ‘new’ internet will require IP Version 6.

This poses several (and a hundred other) problems:

1. Every web server will need to be reconfigured to IP Version 6.

2. Billions of mobile phones (yes including the ‘flawless’ i-phone) are ONLY on IP Version 4 (Telstra does not even offer IP Version 6).

By Leia.

Now let’s imagine the future of a new media company wanting to establish a website, a must in today;s transforming media landscape. To me it looks fairly bleak considering consumers only with IP Version 6 at home, or at work, or on their mobile phone can view the content. 

In a survey by the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association (AIMIA) 21 per cent of respondents said they visit websites on their mobile phone at least once a day. Many traditional media companies (such as ABC Mobile) now offer online news (of not the highest quality) on your phone.

Such an increase in mobile phone usage over the past decade does suggest that they may become the future of news delivery. Therefore as more and more people begin to use mobile phones to obtain immediate and condensed news in a world where people have less and less time, the survival of these new media companies is dependent on consumers not being limited to the ‘old’ internet.

Or am I just overreacting and this is just another scare tactic like the proposed worldwide crash of computers at the beginning of the new millennium? After all it seems pretty surreal to me that the Internet is full. It seems more likely that new media companies will just buy an old IP Version 4 address from someone else, or the genius behind Apple will (with seamless ease) develop another new i-phone software update direct to your phone.

The transition is pretty much similar to the transformation from analogue to digital. Sooner or later it is inevitable, it may be an inconvenience initially but in the end it has its benefits – an almost endless array of IP addresses for the twenty-first century. Hopefully (for the sustainability of new media companies) every body jumps in the IP Version 6 boat!

There are two definitions for PRI-VA-CY:

- The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.

- The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion.

The recent circumstances surrounding ex-NSW Transport Minister David Campbell can instead be described by privacy’s antonym, PUB-LIC-I-TY.

By Dave Pearson.

I’m not talking about publicity for the poor old chap himself, but rather publicity for Channel 7 who broke the story late last week. As interesting and scandalous as it might be, I think the line (yes it may sometimes be a thin line) between public interest and an interested public has been crossed.

Well actually, I’m not even interested. How does a politician’s lawful sex life impact the way they do their job? Does the public need to know of such private and uncomfortable matters? I don’t think so, but Channel 7 obviously does. Their reasoning behind the revelations (when really driven by their own profitable interests) was Mr. Campbell’s use of a ‘tax-payer funded’ car to visit a gay sex club.

Unfortunately for Channel 7 this excuse for causing the politician to lose his job does not stick. Media Watch revealed on Monday 24 2010 that the NSW Minister’s Office Handbook says politicians can use their cars as they please.

Cars and drivers may be used for official and private purposes… Office holders may drive themselves whenever they choose.

Media Watch aren’t the only ones displeased with the actions of Channel 7, several articles in The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald also condemn their shameful role. Oh wait, you don’t think it was shameful? Well, then you would be in the same boat as David Penberthy from The Punch. Apparently (according to Mr. Penberthy) politicians have a lesser right to privacy than you and I because in short, they have chosen a life of public scrutiny.

By Dave Gillard.

 

I get the point Mr. Penberthy, but let’s be clear about the distinction between the ‘right to know’ and public humiliation for the commercial self-interest of Channel 7. In an ideal world such indefensible reporting would not occur. However, I do know the real world is far from ideal, suggesting the future is one where the definitions of privacy and publicity are blurred.

In the end if Channel 7 didn’t run the story, another media outlet would have. Would you have ran the story?