domingo, 12 de febrero de 2012

From Newsreels to Real-Time War: how War journalism has changed

Undoubtedly,  media has had to adapt gradually  to the changes that have taken place in society throughout history. One of the most attractive fields in journalism, and related to all these changes, is the so- called War Journalism, which is that type of journalism in which the professional is responsible for covering a specific military event.
Throughout history there have been many wars (since the Grecian societies), so it’s very complex to talk about the role of journalists in all of them, so I will be brief.

For example, Spain is a good reference for the so-called "newsreels." After the Spanish Civil War, in which 2 sides fought (the so-called "National" and "Republican"), it was born in the Península Ibérica  a new regime: the dictatorship, which came from the hand of Francisco Franco. In this totalitarian regime, the freedom of the press was greatly restricted , so Franco created his own media to inform people of their ideas, actions ...: the NODO (1942).
Nowadays, this newsreel, which showed to Spanish population a “different side” of the country, and also of the world, is remembered with some sectors of the population with affect.                              
20 years after the creation of the NODO, and a little  bit far from Spain, and after the World War II, the  Vietnam War began, specifically in 1964. In this case, the paper of the media was very important. They played a crucial paper, cause thanks to them, people could notice the torture and punishment suffered by the prisoners of both sides.
In this case, we can’t talk about the media as mere newsreels; they were the so-called War TV.
 More than one person and two may wonder why the media at that time were War TV and not newsreels.
The reason is simple: this bloody war that left behind thousands of dead people , and even more prisoners, was televised. Obviously, at that time the media infrastructure was not as advanced as today, so this transmission was not in real time. One of the bloodiest conflicts of this War was televised in August 1965 when the CBS
 "...showed the thatched roofs Marines lighting of the village of Cam Ne with Zippo lighters, andincluded critical commentary on the Treatment of the villagers "
Although this war was devastating to the human race, for journalism gave some positive points: medias’ paper was more important. Journalists had more freedom to do their job. In other conflicts such as World War II, or the Civil War, censorship had not allowed the recording of certain images; in this case they televised them. Media knew very good what were the issues that "sold" in the United States (the conflict in its more cruel view)  so the most cruel and shocking images were the most repeated in TVs.

With the change of century (XXI),people thought that the number of conflicts would be reduced considerably, but the general thought was denied in 2003, when troops from various countries, commanded by the Americans and British invaded Iraq. In this case, the media coverage was very controversial. Unlike the TV War in Vietnam, one could speak of a " Live War". Viewer observed, with greater temporal immediacy than in Vietnam, the U.S. offensive on the Iraqi. In this conflict there wasn’t  censorship, so the work of journalists was more extensive. Thanks to the media, in this case, we witnessed acts of war. One could  say that we were almost eye-witnesses of the facts, because the images and testimonies were captured very close to the areas of the conflict, which seemed to be happening in our own living room.
If in this case the role of the press can be defined as indispensable in the case of the so-called Arab Spring was a basis. As the director of Al Jazeera said, without the presence of the media, it could have been a genocide in Tahrir Square, sponsored by the Egyptian government to silence all those people who stood up against Regime.
Although there were so many years between Irak and the Arab Spring (9 in particular), the media coverage itself was different, and even better. In this case one could speak of a Real-Time War, largely due to the great efforts made by the media to give the audience a faithful account of what was beginning to occur in these countries. The “taking” of  Tahrir Square was broadcast by Al Jazeera, and through this channel, the international community became concerned about what was going on, becoming a news source this place.
Not only the media played an important role in this case, the so-called social networks were also a key factor. This sort of revolution started in Facebook, where a young man began to mobilize people to became against the regime. Perhaps this young man would never have expected this “chain reaction” of the Egyptians, and the inhabitants of countries that were and are in similar situations.
With this brief analysis, one can realize about the importance of the press, and specially  the importance of  war press, because thanks to it, we aren’t ignorant about what happens beyond the borders of our country.

jueves, 9 de febrero de 2012

Caso Garzón. Pequeña Reflexión.

Sinceramente,el sistema jurídico español peca en muchos puntos.Esto no es cuestión de derechas o izquierdas.Hay que hacer un lavado de cara a la Justicia...y sí,es cierto,hay sentencias injustas como en el caso de M.del Castillo,pero para eso están planteándose nuevas reformas,que posiblemente mejoren la situación,aunque queda mucho trabajo por hacer.Le pese a quien le pese,Garzón se ha excedido dentro de sus funciones,y eso debe de ser castigado,porque si todos nos dedicásemos a hacer lo que nos viene en gana el sistema se iría a la mierda,hablando mal y rápido.
Desde mi más humilde opinión,y como ya dije antes,la justicia no se puede ver con un cristal partidista. La cosa es sencilla: quien no cumple con la Ley ha de ser juzgado,y punto.Garzón ha quebrantado en concreto el artículo 536 del Código Penal, al escuchar de manera ilícita unas conversaciones sin que los interlocutores lo supiesen.

Será inhabilitado 11 años,sí;esta decisión ha sido acordada por unanimidad. Por algo será,¿no?
                                  El Juez Baltasar Garzón. Fuente: www.swotti.com

domingo, 5 de febrero de 2012

More than 200,000 people face the cold in Russia in favor and against Vladimir Putin

Manifestants Against Putin.Source:Reuters
Despite the freezing temperatures that marked the thermometers in Russia ,which sometimes reached -20 ° C,  the Russians either by ordering a fair elections system, or the continuation of Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, took the streets to show their fears, feelings and commitments.
As state police sources affirmed, the group "Pro Putin", organized by the political party “United Russia” had more participants than the reunion against Putin. In total 138,000 people singed slogans to support the current president and leading candidate to re-occupy the Russian Presidential house.

On the other hand, the opposition convened in principle 36,000 persons, which has been described by some as "impossible", since according to various sources, the number of participants was much higher.

Although the demonstration against Putin  registered less people, it’ s true that there were more participants than the previous one organized, which took place on December 24, 2011 in Moscow, more specifically in Sakharov Avenue. At that time,   attendance reached 30,000 people.
More than one person and two were surprised by the fact that some of the protesters of the  concentration Pro-Putin arrived  from all corners of Russia to Moscow thanks to buses of Post of the country and Russia Channel. Some people said convinced that this showed that these official workers  were forced to go to the demonstration.

It can sound strange, but both manifestations agreed in two things. Firstly, in one of the multiple slogans that they chose. Although the Pro-Putin supporters showed their support to the current president to be reelected in the next elections, and the manifestators Against Putin, which alleged the illegality of the country's last elections, both chose the phrase "For a fair elections system."
They also agreed on other thing, and it was to combat their biggest enemy: the cold. To combat it, the Russians were attired in scarves, hats, fur coats and "valenki", which are a typical Russian wool boots. The most radical nationalists, in particular, covered their faces with scarves to avoid being recognized by law forces.





Follow me on Twitter @martaleira