How the death of a newspaper can really crumble a government
The previous two blog posts I have produced over the last fortnight have been about the phone hacking scandal which now has slightly gone out of hand. The Metropolitan Police's hierarchy is in a complete mess as everyone appears to be resigning by the minute. Rebekar Brooks was arrested, like Andy Coulson in the last ten days. The current outlook is all muddled up the government have failed to grasp the problem at hand. People have been pointing fingers at David Cameron's lack of judgement in appointing Mr. Coulson as a shadow cabinet minister, then government minister.
No doubt, the government have got it all wrong. Their relationship with News of the World and other newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch's has gone haywire. People have already lost faith in the press and Cameron is doing nothing to reassure the public that the current investigations will be solved in a constructive manner.
This matter has gone beyond the phone hacking scandal and it baffles me how one newspaper can tarnish the police and government. The power, the influence is truly overwhelming.
I know people are groaning about this scandal - When is this going to be over? When are we going to hear about some "proper" news? My suggestion is that News Corporation, the Coalition government and Metropolitan Police hierarchies get on with things the tax payers have paid to do, forget about the whole thing and move on. It's easier said than done, I realise this but the government are being put in increased amount of pressure with something which had very little to do with them. All political parties were effected when the expenses scandal story broke out but the Conservatives managed to throw that out of their system rather quickly, so why not end the phone hacking story in a hurry?
I really do hope that this will be the last time I'll be writing about the phone hacking scandal as it has slightly got on my nerves too. Also, I really hope there will be no more major resignations from anyone in the near future!
Google+; A social networking site too many?
Now onto the topic, I intended to blog about today. The new "Google+" was launched last month to rival Facebook and Twitter in becoming the new social networking hot spot for the youth, adults and professionals alike.
It enables people to share their thoughts, add videos, photos and links - just like Facebook. You can share your specific location, which I found a little disturbing - Twitter has a similar system but doesn't identify the street where you live. Didn't like that really. But all-in-all, it's a cocktail of the other Web 2.0 sites.
However, the difference is how Google+ users can organise their friends in different "circles". You can categorise your friends by various categories such as "friends", "acquaintances", "followers" and many more. Sounds like Robert De Niro's "Circle of Trust" in Meet the Parents, but It's another way of Google saying that "this social networking website is unique to other websites".
Is it different from any other website, certainly. It needs to be. If it looked identical to Facebook, I'd be extremely concerned and I think Mark Zuckerberg would be too.
My question is, do we actually need this website? Is Google+ going to become a revolution? It has definitely changed the original definition of "Google". When the website was first launched back in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google was primarily a "search engine". It has been the case for several years until they've introduced GMail, free blog sites and now social interaction making it one of the most viewed websites in history.
I can think of several social networking websites which Google+ need to be inspired by in order to be a successful phenomenon. Obviously Facebook and Twitter who have caught the eye of many people across the globe are just two to aspire. Also the smaller websites such as LinkedIn, Friends Reunited and Flickr which attract a niche audience. Google+ need to find a suitable audience if it's to be a success.
Since Facebook's launch, Google was just a small shadow as now, hundreds of millions people are members of the website and a film "The Social Network", released last year about the rise of Facebook has been given a lot of major acclaims such as Oscars and Bafta.
So in a sense, Google+ is just a snipe back to fame and showing Facebook their moves. Are they going to be as big, I doubt it. Facebook has developed to be a website for everyone - Google has just joined the social bandwagon and probably in the next five and ten years, if the member count consistently increases, we'll wait and see.
I registered to Google+ today and really unsure how long my interests in it will last. I suppose I have to give it a chance, set up my privacy settings to my liking and get it the way which satisfies me.
The previous two blog posts I have produced over the last fortnight have been about the phone hacking scandal which now has slightly gone out of hand. The Metropolitan Police's hierarchy is in a complete mess as everyone appears to be resigning by the minute. Rebekar Brooks was arrested, like Andy Coulson in the last ten days. The current outlook is all muddled up the government have failed to grasp the problem at hand. People have been pointing fingers at David Cameron's lack of judgement in appointing Mr. Coulson as a shadow cabinet minister, then government minister.
No doubt, the government have got it all wrong. Their relationship with News of the World and other newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch's has gone haywire. People have already lost faith in the press and Cameron is doing nothing to reassure the public that the current investigations will be solved in a constructive manner.
This matter has gone beyond the phone hacking scandal and it baffles me how one newspaper can tarnish the police and government. The power, the influence is truly overwhelming.
I know people are groaning about this scandal - When is this going to be over? When are we going to hear about some "proper" news? My suggestion is that News Corporation, the Coalition government and Metropolitan Police hierarchies get on with things the tax payers have paid to do, forget about the whole thing and move on. It's easier said than done, I realise this but the government are being put in increased amount of pressure with something which had very little to do with them. All political parties were effected when the expenses scandal story broke out but the Conservatives managed to throw that out of their system rather quickly, so why not end the phone hacking story in a hurry?
I really do hope that this will be the last time I'll be writing about the phone hacking scandal as it has slightly got on my nerves too. Also, I really hope there will be no more major resignations from anyone in the near future!
Google+; A social networking site too many?
Now onto the topic, I intended to blog about today. The new "Google+" was launched last month to rival Facebook and Twitter in becoming the new social networking hot spot for the youth, adults and professionals alike.
It enables people to share their thoughts, add videos, photos and links - just like Facebook. You can share your specific location, which I found a little disturbing - Twitter has a similar system but doesn't identify the street where you live. Didn't like that really. But all-in-all, it's a cocktail of the other Web 2.0 sites.
However, the difference is how Google+ users can organise their friends in different "circles". You can categorise your friends by various categories such as "friends", "acquaintances", "followers" and many more. Sounds like Robert De Niro's "Circle of Trust" in Meet the Parents, but It's another way of Google saying that "this social networking website is unique to other websites".
Is it different from any other website, certainly. It needs to be. If it looked identical to Facebook, I'd be extremely concerned and I think Mark Zuckerberg would be too.
My question is, do we actually need this website? Is Google+ going to become a revolution? It has definitely changed the original definition of "Google". When the website was first launched back in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google was primarily a "search engine". It has been the case for several years until they've introduced GMail, free blog sites and now social interaction making it one of the most viewed websites in history.
I can think of several social networking websites which Google+ need to be inspired by in order to be a successful phenomenon. Obviously Facebook and Twitter who have caught the eye of many people across the globe are just two to aspire. Also the smaller websites such as LinkedIn, Friends Reunited and Flickr which attract a niche audience. Google+ need to find a suitable audience if it's to be a success.
Since Facebook's launch, Google was just a small shadow as now, hundreds of millions people are members of the website and a film "The Social Network", released last year about the rise of Facebook has been given a lot of major acclaims such as Oscars and Bafta.
So in a sense, Google+ is just a snipe back to fame and showing Facebook their moves. Are they going to be as big, I doubt it. Facebook has developed to be a website for everyone - Google has just joined the social bandwagon and probably in the next five and ten years, if the member count consistently increases, we'll wait and see.
I registered to Google+ today and really unsure how long my interests in it will last. I suppose I have to give it a chance, set up my privacy settings to my liking and get it the way which satisfies me.
Comments
Post a Comment