In 1992, sixteen years ago, it was virtually impossible to view a picture on the Internet. Connection to the Internet was through a slow dial-up modem or, for a lucky few, through academic, governmental or business T-1 connections.

Today, I can look at a photograph taken in China at the scene of a disaster within moments after it was taken. I can read first person accounts of a battle in Iraq within hours. I can exchange points of view with a Peruvian in real time,

You young people, he says in a quavery old voice, don’t know how lucky you are.

The Internet has made the world realtime. The potential of the Net is that everything can be witnessed, worldwide, as it happens. The only obstacle is implementation of the existing technology.

CNN, Fox News, and others have been featuring photos from their viewers that involve current news. Fox isn’t very good about giving those folks credit but the pics do get put up.

There’s the rub. Should we, the public, be contributing to the success of media if we do not get credit or payment for our work?

Let’s face it. In the “old” days, freelance photographers got big money for capturing pictures of news value. Yet, here we are in the Internet age, sending our work to CNN or Fox or the local station for free. And much of the time we don’t even get a printed credit on screen for the effort.

The Internet makes this realtime coverage possible. But, it is destroying the economic model that used to pay for the coverage we saw. Is there a new model that will compensate the public for participating in news coverage yet allow for a valuation of that effort by the media?

I write for a couple of different sites that pay a fraction of a cent per view. For all intents, they do not do news, just opinion and features. I’ve made $19 in the last year off this work. If I wrote more, I’d make more but the incentive is rather low.

Could the local news media find an incentive price that would attract me to provide them articles or photos? You bet! I’ve covered a number of local stories that should have been in the paper or on the TV.

And, I’ve done some work that belongs on CNN. They could have had it for a modest, for them, sum, but there is no mechanism to do that sort of thing.

The old media is beginning to be a day late and a dollar short. They don’t need to be but that’s the way they are applying their business model. I can see up to the minute coverage of many stories on line at no cost. What does the old media have to offer?

Several memes are developing in the old media about the Sadr Revolt in Iraq. They seem to be relying on anonymous sources and lack of familiarity with operation in Iraq. Let’s take a look at some of them.

CBS reports: “The Iraqis didn’t ask permission, they just went, which seems to have caught President Bush by surprise.”

Basra Province is under the control of the Iraqi national government, as are the Iraqi Army and other security forces. The Iraqis do not need anyone’s permission to conduct operations.

The Iraqi government has been moving troops south since late summer, which did not go unnoticed by our leadership. There are American advisors at all levels of the military, from the Ministry of Defense on down. To suggest that the United States was not aware that this operation was going forward is nonsense. Dozens of Americans had to have had been aware.

The quote that CBS feels proves Bush was surprised? “”You know, I’m not exactly sure what triggered the prime minister’s response, but nevertheless he made the decision to move and we’ll help him,” Mr. Bush said.”

Read it again. Bush does not know what triggered the decision to activate the operation. The implication of the quote, if accurate, is that Bush knew about the op but that the prime minister did not consult him about the timing. Fair enough, it is an Iraqi op.

The CBS story also quote an anonymous American officer that “many of the successes of the past 12 months are in danger of being cancelled out.”

Other analysts have also questioned this meme. It is very difficult to understand how this, minor revolt, could affect the Sunni regions of Iraq or undo the increased security in Baghdad. In the four days that the fighting has been underway about the only statement that can be made is that the Sadrists are suffering severe losses and have failed to achieve any gains in any city. They are barely holding the areas that they held four days ago and inroads have been made in that territory.

Reuters quotes Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group think tank: “If it allows (the crackdown) to go forward the ceasefire will unravel and the U.S. will face the Sadr movement in its full power.”

“This will be bad for both sides. Sadr will lose men and the United States will lose the gains of the surge”

Hiltermann said although the United States was “desperate to show progress by Iraqis”, the Basra operation was unlikely to yield results.

“I doubt very much the Iraqi forces in Basra can stand on their own two feet. They are not a national army.”

Again, no evidence is offered that the results of the surge are threatened. Indeed, the story mentions Sadr’s last two revolts which were very unsuccessful and cost the lives of hundreds of his poorly trained militiamen.

Hiltermann states that the Iraqi Army is not a national army. I’m not certain how he defines a “national army” but by most standards, this army is truly national. It is majority Shia, as is the nation, but Sunnis and Kurds have been successfully integrated. The Army has had extensive training, and American advisors accompany many of the units.

Other stories in the national news question the abilities of the Iraqi Army, and suggest that the Basra op is a failure since it has not been concluded in the last four days. Serious military observers realize that fighting in a city such as Basra, where the terrorists have had time to prepare positions, will take weeks. It took the best of the American military two weeks to reduce Fallujah, a smaller city.

I have seen two reports from the terrorist side by reporters from the major media and none from our side. I am not surprised, nor, I suspect, is George Bush.

Oh, God, I’m about to say something nice about the New York Times. Do not adjust your set.

The Times’ Baghdad Bureau has a blog. It’s called Baghdad Bureau – Iraq From the Inside.

It appears to be an outstanding effort at a group blog. It’s full of information, pics, video, and links.

OK, now back to the regularily scheduled critism of the New York Times.

BRAVO! There’s no reason this channel should not be on every cable system in the nation.

DVIDS
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

Arizona cable subscribers will soon have access to the latest military news from the comfort of their living rooms, thanks to an agreement between an Arizona city and a national cable provider.

The Peoria City Council amended its cable franchise agreement with Cox Communications during a city council meeting last night. The change will allow the cable provider to share the city’s Pentagon Channel broadcast with Cox digital customers in the state.

(more…)

AP

The 2007 honor went to the Russian leader because of Putin’s “extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability,” said Richard Stengel, Time’s managing editor.

And the trains run on time!

What a really lousy choice, Time. bin Laden wasn’t available?