http://www.quotesby.co.uk/celeb_images/thumb/C/clay_shirky.jpg

Mass amateurization refers to the process where the difference between the experts and amateurs is dissolving and creating a new category of professional amateurs. [1]In the publishing world, because of the web, professional publishers are not being recognized like they used to be. “A professional learns things in a way that differentiates her from most of the populace”[2]. When publishing was an expensive and rare thing to do, a professional publisher would decide what is important to publish in the newspaper and what isn’t. What the web is doing is that it is giving any one the ability to publish a story whether it is important or not. It is inexpensive and easy to publish a story on the web. When a professional publisher publishes a story in a newspaper it is because he or she thinks it is something worth publishing but because it is so easy to publish on the web an amateur can and will publish that same story along with many other stories. The professional publisher doesn’t seem so professional anymore.

Clay explains that one doesn’t need to become a publisher to publish. “For a generation that is growing up without the scarcity that made publishing such a serious-minded pursuit, the written word has no special value in and of itself.”[3] The scarcity of a publisher is what makes him or her special. He is one of a kind. There isn’t much scarcity anymore because anyone can have the ability to publish an event. The outcome of mass amateurization is the loss of professionalism. The Internet is easy to access and free so people don’t mind getting their news from there instead of the newspaper. Blogs and social networks for some people are a replacement to the newspaper and professional journalism.

A personal example of mass amateurization actually happened in my very own high school. The school talent show was always very limited, only the best of the best made the cut but this year things were different. The school principal wanted t to give everyone an opportunity to be in the talent show so everyone who tried out was able to be in it. The best singers and musicians got lost in the crowd because they were surrounded by amateurs. There was no longer a scarcity of professionals. This is an example of what Clay describes as “mass amateurization”.

“News for news sake will continue to be commoditized, but news that is specific to the end user and filled with real-time education will be hard to come by and highly valued.”[4] Although it seems like the amateurs of the web are taking over, people do value breaking news written by a professional rather than an amateur. The expression of different ideas on the web is important however when one is looking for facts they will always turn to the professionals. I believe the future for professional journalism is not going anywhere. Their word will always be valued and respected.

Clay discusses how mass amateurization affects professional journalists as well as photographers many other professions. I still however do believe that professionals will always be valued over amateurs. When people are looking for the best they will turn to the professionals. The best photographers and journalist are still highly respected and they always will be.

---

[1] "Mass Amateurization - P2P Foundation." The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation. Web. 10 Aug. 2011. .

[2] Clay Shirky “mass amateurizaion”

[3] Clay Shirky “mass amateurization”

[4] Spanfeller, Jim. "What The Future Will Look Like For Journalists | PaidContent." The Economics of Digital Content | PaidContent. Web. 10 Aug. 2011.

Professionals are Being Replaced with Amateurs...

Annakrisha.wordpress.com

Shellypalmer.com

It used to be, only the professionals published. Only the professionals called the shots. They decided what was going to be breaking news, and what was simply, insignificant. But as time progressed, and new technologies kicked in, amateurs, regular people like you and I, decided that they want in.

In his article “Everyone is a Media Outlet”, Clay Shirky elaborates on how the spread of literacy was a process of mass amateurization, instead of mass professionalization. Shirky explains how in the past, it was difficult to “move words, images and sounds from creator to consumer "[i]. Then media businesses, the professionals, stepped in with a solution, and in return, they got to control the media. However, nowadays, production, reproduction and distribution, are no longer major problems. As a result, the professionals are no longer in complete control, everyone is; well sort of.

When the web came along, and sites like Twitter, Facebook and Blogspot hit the market, professionals knew they were in for a rude awakening.“The Web didn’t introduce a new competitor into the old ecosystem… the Web created a new ecosystem.”[ii] The difference between the newspaper and the Web is that, newspaper journalists are, well, cheap. If it’s not in the newspaper, it was too expensive to print. On the other hand however, when it comes to the Web, as Shirky clearly put it, amateurs don’t have to ask “Why publish this?” rather, “Why not?”.

The day the computer was invented and the internet was provided, was the day amateurs became journalists. Shirky, in his article, quotes the Oxford Dictionary who defines a journalist as a “person who writes for newspapers or magazines, or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.”[iii] It use to be, not everyone can be a journalist, and hence, not everyone had the journalistic privileges. However, it is no longer like that. Today, anyone in the world can publish something at any time, making them a journalist. But the big question is, “how should we alter journalistic privilege to fit that new reality?”, or the even bigger question, “who is a journalist?” . [iv]

When I heard about the young Jewish boy who went missing, I immediately put my Facebook status as “PLEASE LOOK FOR LIEBY!”, and I placed a picture of him right beside it. Did that make me a journalist? I was probably speaking out to just as many people as a professional would.

I believe, in the future, amateurs will only gain more control, while professionals quickly lose their power. I think we will have to redefine a journalist, a photographer as well as many other professions. As Shirky stated, “It has already happened. In many ways, the rise of group-forming networks is best viewed not as an invention but as an event, a thing that has happened in the world and can’t be undone.” [v] There will probably be chaos and tension up ahead, just like the printing press brought along, but eventually, like everything else, it’ll come to an end.

[i] Shirky, Clay; Everyone is a Media Outlet

[ii] Shirky, Clay; Everyone is a Media Outlet

[iii] Oxford Dictionary

[iv] Shirky, Clay; Everyone is a Media Outlet

[v] Shirky, Clay; Everyone is a Media Outlet

Operation Delego

(Image featured on "Massive Child Pornography Ring Busted" on RT originally from ttp://lifeglobe.net) When people hear the word "Dream" they often think of clouds, happiness, a place where fantasies come to true. "Dreamboard" an online bulletin board was the opposite of what one would think of a dream. I would personally describe it as the most disgusting, horrendous, evil, and sickening think I have ever heard of. The online bulletin board, again in my opinion, should have been named "Hellboard" because that is what it was for young children and infants under the age of 12, the men that ran the site made their lives hell.

"Dreamboard" (created in 2008 and shut down in 2011) was an online bulletin board which shared violent child and infant pornography to its approximately 600 members. Charlie Savage of the New York Times described the members as "a sophisticated global network of pedophiles who traded pornographic videos and images of children as young as infants over the Internet, using encryption and proxy servers to evade detection". Members were found in 13 countries over 5 continents. The website had four levels of membership "the highest level — "Super VIP" — was reserved for those who produced their own material" according to USA Today. Seventy-two people were arrested, 13 have already pleaded guilty and will be spending 30 years to life in prison.

I read the story on 5 different news sources, the first 3 being the New York Times, BBC, USA Today and the last two being RT (Russia Today) and die Welt. The New York Times is the most respected metropolitan newspaper in the country. BBC is Britain's public service broadcaster, having a long history of being a reliable news source in Europe. USA Today is the most read national paper in the US. RT or Russia Today is state funded Russian based news source that broadcasts in four different languages, it presents news from the Russian perspective. Die Welt (the World) is a German liberal paper. I chose the last two sources because I wanted an international perspective on the story.

Each one of these news sources described "Dreamboard's" history and how it functioned. USA Today and the NY Times did the best in describing how the website functioned. BBC and the NY Times were the only two to name all of the 13 countries where arrests were made, die Welt only listed the Western European countries closest to Germany, including Germany itself. BBC, RT and die Welt were the only ones to call the investigation by its name "Operation Delego". Die Welt used USA Today as a source, therefore it is very similar to the USA Today article.

It is hard for me to describe which source presented the story the best, or the most densely. Each article used terms such as "authorities", and included quotes from these "authorities" (the Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to name a few), these quotes described the website to be "horrific" and as a "nightmare" for the young children who were abused and again each article described how the website functioned. The NY Times, USA Today and RT all ended their articles with a quote threatening to find anyone who is still running similar websites.

I would recommend reading all 5 (or four since one is in German) articles in order to receive the full story and the most information. Each article did touch on different aspects of the case but no two articles included the same information and not one article included all of the facts.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04porn.html?scp=2&sq=child%20pornography&st=cse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14396194

http://rt.com/usa/news/child-pornography-ring-holder/

http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/brennpunkte_nt/article13525470/Globaler-Kinderporno-Ring-zerschlagen-Sex-mit-Babys.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-03-child-sex-abuse_n.htm

The Dreamboard Scandal

(Pictured, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, image courtesy of theatlanticwire.com)

The advent and proliferation of the internet facilitates the spread of ideas, from harmless cooking recipes to bootleg mp3s to the most horrific forms of child pornography exposed, to date. When purveyors of the latter are thwarted it seems a simultaneous victory and defeat for mankind: on one hand, child pornographers have been stopped, but on the other hand, the fact that such people and their perversions exist is terrifying. So, it is a bittersweet moment when US government officials can say that they've successfully dismantled and apprehended the members of a child pornography ring like that facilitated by "Dreamboard," an incentive-based forum in which users were encouraged to upload child pornography with a high bounty placed on "super-hardcore" content and content created by the users themselves. (1) In exchange for making their private collections available to the rest of the Dreamboard community, members were rewarded with higher ranks and increased access to the site's content. To view content members were required to post content. In fact, according to CNN, if members did not upload content at least once every 50 days, they risked termination of their membership to the board.(2) This past Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano publicized the case and that 72 members of Dreamboard have been charged with child pornography crimes. (3 Vancouver Sun)

I reviewed BBC, USA Today, The New York Times, CNN, Christian Science Monitor, and The Vancouver Sun's online coverage of the breaking news and, overall, I didn't see much variation in slant, possibly due to an almost universal public opinion on the horrors of child pornography. No political bias could cause any news outlet in it's right mind to portray Dreamboard as anything but an abhorrence and Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Delego" team, which lead the investigation, as anything but a savior. The biggest difference I found was that, among the articles I reviewed, The Vancouver Sun and Christian Science Monitor articles were the only ones to include the names of some of the perpetrators. In the case of The Vancouver Sun, the two names listed were Canadian men. I also found that CNN was the only source to claim that all 600 purported users of Dreamboard were men, a claim that is hard for me to believe.

In terms of sources, all of the papers must have obtain much of their information from Wednesday's announcement. Furthermore, all of the articles, save for The New York Times quoted Eric Holder saying: "The members of this criminal network shared a demented dream to create the pre-eminent online community for the promotion of child sexual exploitation but for the children they victimized this was nothing short of a nightmare." CNN, Christian Science Monitor, The Vancouver Sun, and The New York Times all quoted and referred to ICE director John Morton and CNN, USA Today, and The New York Times all quoted and referred to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer. Interestingly, only CNN and BBC quoted Janet Napolitano. The Vancouver Sun reached out to the RCMP, the national police force of Canada for a statement and USA Today quoted Michelle Collins, a VP of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

I would say the article with the most content was the one from CNN. It gave the most comprehensive coverage and in-depth information. In contrast, the New York Times article was very brief and more like an overview than a full news story. The Vancouver Sun's article was more focused in Canada while the rest of the articles were USA-centric, possibly due to the facts that they are, save for BBC, American publications and that the story broke in the US.

1. Kevin Johnson, "Feds Charge 72 people in international online child sex ring," USA Today, August 3rd, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-03-child-sex-abuse_n.htm.

2. Terry Frieden, "72 charged in online global child porn ring," CNN, August 3rd, 2011, http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/03/us.child.porn.ring/index.html?iref=allsearch.

3. Amy Minsky, "Two canadians named in massive international child porn bust," The Vancouver Sun, August 3rd, 2011, http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadians+named+massive+international+child+porn+bust/5201671/story.ht.ml

The Debt Deal

I chose to compare articles about the recent debt deal signed by Obama. This seemed to be the perfect topic to use in order to search for biases in media coverage, since the debate over the debt ceiling was so politically contentious. For each source, I focused on the initial article to report the signing of the deal by Obama. I browsed other articles on the topic as well, since it was such a highly talked about issue there were many, and I wanted to get a good idea of what each source had to say about it. Finding related articles was very easy to do since I was using the internet as my medium. All I needed to do was type in “debt deal” in the search bar, or look on the side to see the recommended related articles.

The article in The New York Times was titled “Debt Bill is Signed, Ending a Fractious Battle” [1]. The article was not too lengthy but it did go into a few details about the debate. As the title suggests, the article focused primarily on the struggle between the Democrats and Republicans in the forming of this bill, rather than the actual content of the bill. There were a few jabs at republican, mostly painting them in a stubborn light, that could indicate a liberal bias. At one point, the article says that Republicans have gotten the upper hand in the debate because of “their unwillingness to sacrifice ground even when their stance threatens both the government’s ability to operate and pay its debts, and their own prospects for retaining their jobs”. They even end the article saying how republicans are willing to “bring the entire temple down”. The Times makes sure to point out that the Republicans are willing to put the nation’s economy at risk just to get their own way. Overall, the article was largely political, focusing on the fight between two sides rather than what the bill contained and what will happen now that it is signed. To its credit, The New York Times had a link to a chart on the side that outlined what the bill being passed into law meant, giving us a more in depth understanding than the initial article [2].

The article in USA Today was titled “Debt law signed, attention turned to jobs” [3]. This article was shorter and less detailed The New York Times’ one. It did not seem to have much of a slant in either direction, rather it stated facts in short snippets without going into too much political analysis. When they did mention the political parties, the article pointed out that both have a political agenda, instead of focusing on the agenda of one: “No matter how much of either party’s agenda gets passed before the 2012 elections, they each hope the debate improves their chances of re-election". Rather than focusing on the bill, or the politics of it, USA Today discussed what the agenda of the government will be now: jobs. It then discussed particular things – such as unemployment benefit extension and free trade agreements with certain countries – being worked on by Obama in pursuit of this “creating jobs” goal. Overall the article seemed to be mostly objective.

The article in BBC, “US avoids default as Obama signs debt bill into law” [4],was less lengthy than The New York Times’ article, but more detailed than the USA Today article. This articledidn't seem biased towards any political view at all. It focused slightly more on the economics of the bill, providing charts illustrating the level of US debt as and the debt ceiling. It did devote a few paragraphs to the politics of the debate, but the BBC did not seem to lean towards either side saying things like “The compromise package deeply angered both right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats”. While USA Today and The New York Times quoted mostly congress and senate members, BBC quoted economists. The article seemed overall quite unbiased, even its tone seemed indifferent towards the issue.

I then turned to Fox News, curious to see if I would discover an obvious conservative bias in the article “Debt-Limit Deal is Done, US averts Default” [5]. To my surprise, the article was not as slanted as I expected. It simply gave a quick run through of most aspects of the deal. It mentioned what the deal entailed (an increase of the debt limit by $2.4 trillion and $917 billion of specific cuts) as well as mentioning that the debate was quite polarized calling it a “months-long game of political chicken”. However, the article seemed to evade mentioning the stubbornness of the Republicans during the debate, instead making it seem as if each party was equally stubborn. There were other articles on the site as well that showed more of a slant. One in particular hinted that Obama’s attempt to create jobs was an empty promise, saying “President Obama emerged from the partisan rubble vowing – as he has many times since taking office – to devote his energy to jobs” [6]. It takes a few more jabs like that, being sure to drive in the thought that Obama will fail at creating jobs. Overall, at first glance the article did not seem too biased, but it did not painted a better picture of Republicans than other articles did.

For my last article, I decided to turn to a source that I’ve never used before: The Economist. In this article, “America has avoided default, but political dysfunction is threatening its chances of recovery” [7] was by far the most lengthy and detailed of the five. I quite enjoyed this article, because it pointed out the faults of both parties in the disagreement with statements like “The willingness of one party to sue the threat of default, if not on government bonds then on other federal obligations such as pensions and pay-cheques, marked a dangerous escalation in the partisan rancor that has come to bedevil policymaking". However, the article did not say much about the actual content of the bill, rather it focused on the poltics, just as The New York Time.

In the end, most articles focused on the politics on the bill, with the exception of USA Today and BBC. The New York Times seemed to have a slight liberal slant, pointing out only Republican faults while Fox had ignored them. The other articles were quite objective, and The Economist pointed out the faults of both parties. Overall I am pleased to have actively searched for bias in these articles. I had never before thought that The New York Times had much of a biased until I actively looked for one. I feel as if my media literacy has grown as an outcome of this assignment.

[1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/politics/03fiscal.html?pagewanted=1&sq=debt%20obama%20deal&st=cse&scp=3

[2]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/22/us/politics/20110722-comparing-deficit-reduction-plans.html?ref=politics#panel/11th-hour-deal

[3]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-08-02-debt-law-signed-obama-gop-talk-jobs_n.htm

[4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14379240

[5]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/02/senate-approves-debt-limit-deal-averts-default/

[6]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/obama-vows-to-pivot-to-jobs-republicans-question-track-record/

[7]

http://www.economist.com/node/21525446

Sometimes Size Does Matter(budget deficit)

I read several articles from The New York Times, USA today, The BBC and the Los Angeles Times pertaining to the recent budget cuts instituted by U.S. congress.

Aside from the media frenzy surrounding congresswoman Gifford's return after her near fatal injury to vote,( which seemed to be unanimously celebrated), the budget cuts spurred a number of polarized reports from from several different news outlets.

Perhaps as evidence of the diminishing presence of print journalism.(and my diminishing wallet), I found all my sources via the interweb.

The NY times article I read is titled " To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal", and doesn't stop there at expressing disapproval to the budget cuts. It describes the deal as " nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists" and goes on to say that "Democrats will have no choice but to swallow their fury, accept the deal and fight harder the next time. "

The Times doesn't hide itself from being known as a liberal paper and I'd imagine their agenda manifests clearly in this article.

The BBC on the other hand was by far the most optimistic paper that i read concerning the budget issue. They do admit having budget cuts does not necessarily mean that the U.S. will cut spending, but they acknowledge the cuts as "..a start, a psychological turning point, the moment after years of running up debts that the US government at last started to get its budget house in order" Interesting enough the BBC is the only one of these news outlets that are not owned by a corporation or a public interest as its been operated by the Royal Charter since 1927 (2).

Whereas the Times article regularly uses words such as "extortion, and "arbitrary butchering" to describe the event, the BBC describes the cuts as "calculated."
Even without divulging deep into the material, you can easy tell what side of the debate each paper is on.

USA today was a little more centric than the BBC and the NY times. They touched on both sides of the issue arguing that the budget cuts may stunt economic growth but also include the right wing viewpoint that the opposite could happen and that cutting a budget can spur growth in itself(3).
I had a hard time figuring out whether USA today was a liberal or conservative news source. Conservatives denounced the paper as liberal trash but liberals seemed equally unwilling to accept association with the paper.

I picked the next article from the Los Angeles Times because i wanted to see how a paper focused on the issue from a local perspective would interpret what was happening in Washington. Unlike the other papers, they focus on how the budget cuts negatively affect the Californian Economy.

This paper starts off by arguing that these budget cuts take away from necessarily programs within California. Interesting enough they then quote Mike Genest, who is a self proclaimed "tea party-er", that argues that programs cuts were necessary and that people have to stop spending more than they have. Even after quoting democrat Mark Leno who has the opposite viewpoint, they close the article by saying "What Californians — all Americans — need is an honest debate over which services we want to pay for and how do we go about it. And the answer is not mindless borrowing".

I truly expected an article from the LA times to be against a program that cut off funding but this article seemed support just that. Then again, The La times is not really locally based if you think about it. The Times is owned by the Tribune Company which is the 2nd largest newspaper conglomerate in the U.S. Whether or not the times is influenced heavily by their ownership is hard to say, but it was definitely surprising to see paper from LA to be in favor of a bill that could exacerbate their state deficit. (4)

The last article I read was from a paper called the Christian Post. Honestly I picked this out because i expected this to be noticeably conservative and for the budget cuts. However this was not the case. Surprisingly, the article merely systematically listed the goals of each political party and stated whether or not they achieved their goal. Weirdly enough, the Christian Post read as the least bias news source of those mentioned(5).

1)http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/to-escape-chaos-a-terrible-debt-deal.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy
2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14367292
3)http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-01-economic-woes-stacking-up_n.htm
(4)http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-money-20110804,0,1443947.column
(5)http://www.christianpost.com/news/budget-control-act-of-2011-who-won-the-debate-53299/

Mubarak Trial

This past week news has been circulating about Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak and his sons are currently on trial for charges of corruption and for ordering the killing of protestors during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The trial was to be held in Cairo on August 3^rd, and Mubarak will have to return to Egypt for the first time since his fall from power. I have read articles about this topic covered by the New York Times, BBC, USA Today, FOX News, and The Australian.
At around 5:45pm Eastern standard time, BBC posted updated news on the Mubarak trial. The article was initially a few sentences long and revealed that Mubarak and his sons denied all charges of corruption and killing. (1) Hours later, BBC posted follow-up articles running a few paragraphs long exposing the details of the event. Mubarak’s defense team claimed that his medical condition was very serious and that he may not be able to attend his trail. His condition was so bad in fact, that “he was wheeled on a hospital bed into a cage in court to the astonishment of onlookers outside.” (2) Since the article’s update at around 10:00pm, there have already been 35 comments posted.
USA Today updated their online story of the Mubarak trial about 12 hours before BBC did. The page already has 140 comments as well as a video. The article is lengthy and more descriptive than BBC’s. “Mubarak (…) was wheeled on a hospital bed into the defendant's cage, made of iron bars and a metal mesh. Though he was pale and his eyes were ringed with red, he appeared alert and aware of what was going on.” (3) USA Today also uses quotes from citizens of Egypt about their reactions to the event. Every Egyptian citizen quoted was angry at Mubarak and wished hateful things upon him and his family.
The New York Times online article of the Mubarak trial has also has a video on its page, as well as 73 comments. However, the content of the article is mostly background information. The first few paragraphs focus on the symbolism of this event and its significance in history; only towards the end of page one/beginning of page two is there any mention of the trial details. Of the three articles, the New York Times was the only one to interview supporters of Mubarak. The article revealed that some citizens of Egypt chanted “We love you, Mr. President” and called the trail “an insult to Mubarak and all honorable Egyptians.” (4)
The fourth source I chose was http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ because I wanted to see what insight another country’s news had on the event. The article didn’t have a video like the other sites; instead it had hosted a large gallery of images. The photos expose the violence taking place from outside the courtroom. The citizens in opposition of Mubarak had open aggressions to the citizens in support of Mubarak. The article focused mostly on the perspective of the citizens, along with their reactions and responses. There was little mention of Mubarak’s health or condition.
The fifth source I chose was Fox News. I thought it would be an interesting article to read because Fox is rumored to have a ‘republican bias.’ The content of the article was much like the other sites, containing some details about Mubarak’s life and some quotes from Egyptian citizens. However, at times, it seems that the author was a bit opinionated. “Though he was pale and his eyes were ringed with red, (…) he was awake, alert and even had a moment of his characteristic defiance, wagging his finger as he denied the charges.” (5) No other news source claimed that Mubarak had a defiant character or ‘wagged his finger’ when denying the charges.
In summary, I felt all five articles were well written and very informative.

[1] BBC - News Middle East. "Day of Reckoning for Egypt's Mubarak as trial begins." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14396788) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.

[2] BBC - News Middle East. "Mubarak trial: Egypt's ex-president denies all charges." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14382997) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.

[3] USA Today, The Associated Press. "Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in hospital bed at trial." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-08-03-egypt-mubarak-trial_n.htm) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.

[4] Shadid, Anthony. New York Times. "At Mubarak Trial, Stark Image of Humbled Power." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/middleeast/04egypt.html?pagewanted=1) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.

[5] Fox News - Africa. "Egypt's Mubarak Denies All Charges Against Him." (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/03/egypts-mubarak-flown-to-cairo-to-face-trial/) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.

The Austrailian - World. "Response to Mubarak trial mixed across Arab region." (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/middle-east-reaction-mixed-on-trial/story-e6frg6so-1226108017408) Web. 04 Aug. 2011.