Hackers or Hacktivists?

There are definite ethical and societal confusions when it comes to understanding what hacking really it and what purpose it serves. Over the last 30 years, most hackers were those who intended to learn more about technology and create cyberspace societies in which to meet those who had similar interests. Most hackers were either rebellious teenagers or those who intended to develop more advanced technologies by decoding preexisting ones. Now a days, it seems there are is shift in what purpose hackers truly serve. Many hackers have become hacktivists hoping to spread political views via personal blog and web pages or taking over political websites. This form of hacking has become most extremely common, and confused with the hacking intended to exploit others. The law has created an ideology that hackers are rebellious citizens who do not follow through with societal order and surveillance. Opposing this, hacktivists are simply voicing their views through websites rather than protesting on the streets. Cyberspace has become a new place for activists to create identities and discover others who share the same understanding of societal norms and views. This was posted on the CNN website during the Chinese olympics in Beijing, when the government felt offended by the allegations of the western press in portraying their country in a negative light.
This message was a way for Chinese hacktivists to make sure their word was reached by a large portion of the western world. This type of hacking is common and usually these groups have sites which help create a common place to meet in the virtual world. Hackbloc.org is a website that clearly states on the home page, was created with the intention of attracting other hacktivists to discuss and identify with others who have the same political beliefs. It allows hackers to feel free in creating such controversy as the hacking of the CNN website created. Is this right ethically? Should hackers be allowed to do this?

Now can we give credit to citizen journalists?

While surfing on the Internet, I came across this photograph of a CNN billboard reading, " You see it, you report it. Be a Citizen Journalist." At first glance, I thought this billboard portrayed many things. It is not true that most people think of citizen journalist's as being that of opinion rather than of hard fact? I notice that in this advertisement, the letters bellow the main slogan line read, "SMS CJ to 2622." Not only are they advertising people to be citizen journalists, but also they are encouraging them to distribute their information to CNN. This billboard is ironic on many levels, as it promotes opposing aspects of media. Can we see citizen journalism as a valid factual source of news in this instance, or is CNN promoting a false sense of what citizen journalism is?

The fact that CNN wants the citizen journalist to text their news stories in to this credited and valid news source poses many question. Are the stories posted on the CNN website factual and do they contain the work of academically trained journalists? This billboard definitely seems to make the average citizen reevaluate this. It is a positive thing that professional news sources are promoting citizen media and journalism, but I feel it causes more confusion between the two. We have clearly defined the separation between the two, where journalism is the profession and citizen journalism is that of free opinion and discussion. When we see images such as this, what are to think? What is the difference now between journalism and citizen journalism? Can we now call them the same thing?

This advertisement is promoting a type of journalism that is reaching out to the average citizen. But if these citizens are the ones giving professional journalists at CNN news ideas, is CNN news factual? Are the new stories in part taken from citizen journalists who texted their ideas off the streets and in their homes? What can we determine as journalism now?