This New York Times article discusses YouTube’s policy towards videos that insight terrorist actions of violence. This story focuses on the openness of the internet, especially in user-generated sites like YouTube, and how that impacts government and google’s attempts to regulate it. In particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant American-born cleric, has posted hundred of hours of YouTube videos promoting “calls to jihad” which can be seen “as an important instigator of terrorism”. These videos have earned him the title of “the online Osama bin Laden”. To me, it seems like this issue would fall under the broad category of “War on Terror” coverage. As a news topics, this receives substantial coverage in the media.
This story grabbed my attention because I have always been a fan of the way user-generate sites allow anyone with internet access to express their opinions. However, I thought the article did a good job of explaining Congress’ previous struggles with limiting al-Awlaki’s calls for terrorism.
In terms of the structure, Scott Shane frames this article as a conflict between new media, Congress, free speech policies and international security, by focusing on al-Awlaki’s video as a “case study” for YouTube’s community guidelines. He also makes it relevant to current events by connecting it to the House’s upcoming hearing on “the radicalization of American Muslims”. This article provided links directly to some of al-Awlaki’s videos, most of which have since been removed. This would allow the reader to view the content for themselves and determine if al-Awlaki’s message was dangerous and should be censored by a private company like YouTube. The article also interviews a variety of government officials who acknowledge the difficulty in monitoring YouTube and one democratic senator who believes all of al-Awlaki’s material should be removed. Ultimately, I thought the article did a good job of demonstrating both sides of the debate while remaining neutral on the position.
No comments:
Post a Comment