Disillusionment with over-dramatised, misinformed and repetitive coverage of the war in Iraq has led millions of people to turn to the Web for news.
Whether they're for or against the conflict, Internet users have been engaging in passionate debate and reflection, desperately trying to dig below the surface of events to find out what really is going on.
During the first fortnight of the war, the Internet had brought us the anxious words of Baghdad citizen Salam Pax's blog, comments from the war zone by solider L.T. Smash, streaming Iraqi satellite TV, conspiracy theories, anti-war websites, hard-right warblogs, and CNN's military multimedia. Meanwhile, relatives of coalition troops have been able to receive email from the soldiers in the field.
'Cyber activists' from both sides have defaced and brought down websites such as the Arabic news site Al Jazeera.
Following its bandwidth problems during the 11 September attacks, the BBC was well prepared for a deluge of visitors this time. When war broke out on 20 March, traffic doubled as 5 million unique visitors flocked to the BBC News site.
More than a third of those visitors live overseas -- a growing trend, said Mike Smartt, editor-in-chief for BEG News Online. "We get quite a lot of feedback--especially from the States -- that says there's a more rounded, impartial view from the BBC," he said. "We get quite a lot of people saying that the US media, especially on the Web, is too US-centric, and they get a better view from us." But, like most mainstream news sites, the BBC has made some gaffes -- such as reporting that Umm Qasr had fallen when it hadn't.
The instantaneous way in which news can be posted and distributed via the Web is both beneficial and hazardous -- and that's something the BBC is acutely aware of.
"We don't publish rumours," Smartt said. "We make sure anything we publish comes from a reliable source and is backed up."
But accurate reporting can be hard when most journalists are 'embedded' with the military.
"We are objective," insisted Smartt. "It's difficult to find out what's happening in those places being attacked-it's almost impossible. You can report what the Iraqis are saying. but then you report that in the context of realising that there's a great deal of propaganda going on."
Net users have also turned to sites like Oneworld TV (http://tv.oneworld.net), which allows reports to be uploaded into a video-based 'tapestry'. It features mini documentaries on the war, reflecting the diversity of contributors' opinions.
Oneworld multimedia producer Jo Hill said she found mainstream coverage in the US "shocking".
"I think Oneworld TV is unique in presenting the voices of ordinary, articulate Iraqi people, challenging stereotypes and revealing an important perspective that is missing in the mainstream media," she added.
Meanwhile, supporters from both sides have been reading weblogs from embedded journalists in Iraq at www.cyberjournalist.net/features/iraqcoverage.html, pro-war blogs at www.blogsofwar.com, and independent coverage at www.mediachannel.org. There's also the Iraqi civilian body count at www.iraqbodycount.net.
With questions being asked about the accuracy of reporting in traditional media, the war in Iraq has shown that the Web has the edge when it comes to providing access to uncensored information and a diverse set of viewpoints.
Paid-for search is the most lucrative advertising model on the Internet--it's worth $2 billion this year alone, according to Jupiter Research. Each of Overture's 88,000 advertisers bid a certain amount of money in order to be listed at the top of Overture's many partner sites, which include MSN, Freeserve, Yahoo! and Lycos. Advertisers pay Overture the amount they've bid whenever a visitor clicks on their link.
So will increasing consolidation within the market drive up bid prices even further and leave small businesses out of pocket? Yahoo! naturally thinks small businesses can only benefit from its latest acquisition by gaining access to 'on e-stop-shop' integrated marketing.
"Small and medium-sized businesses will have the opportunity to reach additional consumers and generate targeted leads," Yahoo! spokeswoman Joanna Stevens said. "The great thing about commercial search is it's a cost-effective way for small to medium businesses to advertise, since they pay only as much as they value each qualified lead." Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li said the deal would let small businesses "consolidate several Web services into one place".
Although one anonymous Overture user employed to hid on keywords for his company found using Overture "amazingly successful", he said top keywords were way too expensive. Partner sites that display Overture's results, like MSN, tend to jumble up non-sponsored links with sponsored ones, he added. "That's really not what a search engine is for. The Google model is much more honest and straightforward in the way that it presents adverts and spidered search terms."
For our Overture user the acquisition wasn't ideal: "I'd rather have choice, To an extent, a duopoly is being created ... If Overture sells its results on to partners in a way that means the results are more meaningful, then all well and good. But if they try and milk money out of it ... they're shooting themselves in the foot."
Yahoo! is currently in partnership with Google to get spidered search results to its port& but has been widely expected to dump Google after acquiring the Inktomi search engine in late 2002.
Yahoo! also owns the powerful AltaVista and Fast search engines which Overture acquired earlier this year, and the company is busy integrating the results. "Assets of AltaVista and Fast are complementary to those we already own," said Stevens. "Fast has outstanding capability in linguistics and local language search and AltaVista excels in multimedia."
The new, advertising-focused Yahoo! has set itself up to take Google on. MSN is also developing its own search bot, and could acquire another pay-per-click company like FindWhat.com. However, end users may become disillusioned by the rise of paid for searches. In June Forrester found that 42 per cent of US consumers didn't trust paid listings.
"Consumers may not trust the listings," said Forrester's Li. "But as long as they use them--which means they trust them enough to click on them--marketers will continue to pay for them."
The 11 September attacks shocked us all. And the Net bore the burden of our collective emotions as millions jumped online to watch the breaking news, contact loved ones and share their grief. Kim Gilmour reflects on how the Internet united the world on that terrible day.
Internet Magazine
Nov, 2001
The World in union. (opinion piece)
By Kim Gilmour
The terrorist attacks in Manhattan and Washington have numbed us, but the sense of community they generated online was amazing.
And for the most part, the Net didn't fail us, supplying us with seemingly limitless information and support spanning the globe.
Though often thousands of miles away from the US, millions used the Net to find out news as the terrible events unfolded. More importantly, we went online to share our pain, fear, anger and horror through email, chat groups, messageboards and instant messaging services - proving what an important communication tool the Internet has become.
But sadly the Internet is again under the spotlight for its supposed "involvement" in the co-ordination of the horrific attacks. What will this mean for our digital privacy in the future? Much of the media and the FBI are creating hysteria by warning of a surge of vengeful 'cyber-terrorism' attacks. I'm not saying we should get complacent, but it's possible governments will take advantage of the paranoia to justify laws that would make online surveillance even more oppressive than it already is.
A disturbing opinion from The Daily Telegraph's defence editor, John Keegan, on 14 September said: "The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the Internet, without question. If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid Internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the Internet is implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be reckoned to be over."
It's excellent that police were able to find a wealth of electronic fingerprints left behind by suspects, but we too must remember where we tread online. Following the attacks, it was natural that thousands of frank online debates ensued about what subsequent action the US and its allies should take. But when we pour out our most personal thoughts to strangers on a messageboard, we're on the record.
Unprecedented amounts of jingoistic Americans will do anything to help. For some, that includes giving up their civil liberties. But we have the right to demand that criminal investigations are done ethically and professionally, and that a code of practice, like the one that's finally been drafted to complement the controversial RIP Act in the UK, is adhered to. We cannot surrender our online liberties.
Let's recall what the Net really did for us on that fateful Tuesday.
The first email alert came into my Inbox from CNN at 8.52am New York time: "World Trade Center damaged; unconfirmed reports say a plane has crashed into tower. Details to come."
Ironically, at that stage my New York-based boyfriend hadn't heard the news. As soon as I'd contacted him he turned on CNN and kept me updated via ICQ.
With the CNN Web site showing an unbelievable photo of a gaping hole in one of the towers, we soon learned this wasn't a hoax. As events unfolded, instant messages were hastily, incredulously, tearfully exchanged. A huge community was soon mirroring relevant information on the Web. Even the coldest of corporations did their bit to assist in the days following the terror. And online marketing almost vanished! Annoying X10.com pop-ups were replaced with links to how you could help.
For me, the Internet worked as a discussion medium. It helped me get things into perspective as this historic disaster unfolded. My mate Phil set up a Web site expressing his condolences - all he felt he could do. My friend Gabi in Argentina emailed her emotions to faraway friends. Highly personal accounts popped up at sites like World New York (www.worldnewyork.com).
The Net also eased the burden on clogged Manhattan phone lines - email was indispensable for finding out whether people were safe.
Most of all, the Net allowed us to purge the utter shock from our systems. It let us witness the world's reactions and add our thoughts to the passionate discussions. We weren't physically there, but the Net transported us to the scene, bringing our emotions together.
Decades from now, we'll be asked where we were when these terrorist attacks occurred. I was glued to a monitor, furiously typing away to distant folk, but I found myself connecting with them as I tried to grapple with the tragic events happening before my very eyes.
Let's hope the Internet's community spirit endures forever.
Kilm Gilmour is Internet Magazine's reporter.