I read the book from Brown university people, titled News, Media, Civil War and Humanitarian Action and found it pretty stimulating. They have even a site mentioned in the end of the book, http://www.brown/edu/Deparments/Watson_Institute/H_W/H_W_ms.shtml that is.

If the CNN, or the old media in general, is the one-eyed giant Cyclops (), the Internet is more like a bounch of ant mounds - or an insenct swarm - which I find much more enthusiastic and flexible, efficient information gatherers. It's nature is perhaps the one of the butterfly's in a flower fields, attracted by flowers and transferring the (seeds) in between with a gentle touch.

-

With the Internet there is hope that all important things all around the world, both geographically and in the cyberspace of ideas, get more equally attention, enough care so to say.

Having soon perhaps 500-1000 million users around the world () there's a good chance that basically everything is noted in the new media. If concent producing remains trivial, perhaps even develops to be easier than today, the net could be a powerful decentralized source for locally based reporting. Moreover, a lot there is based on straight personal contact, with less mediators, which among other things makes things feel more concrete, closer - real ().

The big old media still has it's leading role and the change to networked decentralized communication is (slighter) than we sometimes hope, but at least some of it is really happening. Even though the news comes from the giants - or cathedrals like the recent software house analogue goes - the ants, or the bazaar, (.. are buzzing about the things on their own on the net without any control which is the real an-(ti.) power in the world .. sure there has been chat about news always, in cafe tables and such, but not before they have been archived and been accessible for all the world like on the net - i guess that makes a difference)

-

the time is nettime

p. 01:
media->govs, "doesn't affect policy, only the presentation"
 -> IMO transparent net.gov needed!
 media->orgs, how to deal with?
"comission on global governance"

differences in Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sarajevo,

- "attention economy"

p. 04: IMO to: BB.Ghali: Replace the CNN with I!

• emergency -> overattention => all the money (net is stabile, "rauhallinen media")
• rehabilitation / recovery
• continuum
• Human Rights: publicity is crucial
  (more contact with relief)
• security, UN, nation states: coordination hard to see if even exists
  -> UN easy target for the media

p. 31: about media: critisized, "favourite scapegoat", media is no single thing (actor) with a purpose but with a purpose but institutional practices -> system
old media -> uniformity

p. 34: "relatively few trendsetters"
p. 34: IMO those categories don't fit anymore
p. 35: TV most potential but narrow
p. 36: insufficiency of overseas operations -> IMO let them, the locals, operate!
p. 66: about Operation Support Hope:

• ...
• "the best spokesman are (...) individual service members" [a bit out of context]

III how to function more effectively

p. 81:

• early warning system
• peace building
• gov. accountability

• faciliating access to information
• IMO: not for "media: only!
• decentralization! UNICEF [127]

• the experiment has faced the trouble to drag media/plicymaker interest in new information when there is already so much communication...
• IMO: the net is not (only) a source but participation!

• no parachuting but stable insight

general (older stuff):

Humanitarian Issues in Europe:

• unemployment
• does high tech help?
• internet services are not tech!
• do they help?