Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent years, traditional media in this country have been buffeted by changes, including a drop in audience, competition from cable, and industry consolidation (Graber 2005). Another force in this hurricane of change has come from the Internet, specifically from the blogs. Following several high profile successes from bloggers, speculation began to swirl about the impact of blogs on traditional journalism. Opinion ranges from the “Blog Triumphantalists,” who hear the bells tolling for traditional journalists and inside-the-beltway politicians, to the “Blog Alarmists,” who blame bloggers for dragging down a noble profession. It is necessary to step away from these exaggerated claims and the isolated events and ask, how much of an impact do blogs really have on media and politics. Are they improving or degrading news coverage? Are they are an important new force in the media industry or are they merely oddities whose fifteen minutes of fame are coming to a close?
This paper attempts to take us one step closer towards understanding how technology, and blogs in particular, is affecting traditional journalism. In July 2007, a survey was sent to journalists at four elite newspapers -- New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times. Journalists were asked to describe the impact, either positive or negative, of blogs on their work and on the profession as a whole. While their answers may be too partial to be the last word on the subject, they take us one step closer to learning more about this major change in media and politics.

Overall, reporters believe that blogs have had a minor, positive impact on their profession, especially as sources of ideas and access to experts. Reporters were divided over whether blogs have made the profession more sensational and whether blogs have improved the accuracy in articles. The chief downside of blogs they believe has been a loss in newspaper readership. The impact of blogs on their own work was a sensitive topic evoking passionate responses. Most reporters read a few blogs a day, though they might not have a regular blog reading list. Most reporters review blogger commentary about their work. Reporters feel that they, and the profession as a whole, has benefited from bloggers that link and comment on one topic.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: What determines the policy of Great Powers towards Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm (PATHs)? A PATH is defined here as a nonstate group, organization, or network that inflicts or projects harm across state borders. Harm is understood in this project as material damage and injury to persons' bodies and/or property done intentionally or as a result of a conscious disregard of a formal international prohibition to engage in a certain practice. Harm can be propagated through the application of designated means such as weapons, but it can also come in the form of collateral damage. The persistency dimension in the definition of the harmful actor relates to the fact that the actor will not stop doing harm due to intrinsic considerations. That is, persistent harmful actors cease doing harm only when extrinsic considerations and factors compel them to change or abandon their practice, as, for example increasing material costs or diminishing rewards. Great Power policy towards PATHs varies on a spectrum that consists of accommodation efforts (e.g., bargaining, buying-off), law enforcement efforts, limited military strikes against their territorial bases, and full-blown military campaigns including occupation of the PATHs bases. However, the thesis of this project is that Great Power counter-policy against PATHs does not depend solely on the material harm as such caused by the harmful actor, but also depends to a great extent on the challenge the PATHs pose to Great Power authority. PATHs that are perceived by the Great Powers as destructive to their authority in world politics (predators of authority) are dealt in harsher means than harmful actors that do not directly challenge the authority of the Great Powers. The latter type of PATHs is seen merely as a problem of control and as having an abusive nature (parasites of authority), and therefore state response tends to be less coercive and destructive. As opposed to the conventional wisdom in International Relations theory, which posits that world politics is an anarchic environment because it lacks central and legal authority, this paper argues that structures of authority and hierarchy are present in world politics. There are many other forms of authority and the lack of central and legal authority does not necessarily imply anarchy. Hierarchy can exist even in the absence of central-legal authority, as sociologists and political theorists argue. In the case of the international system, hierarchy is an outcome of the institution of sovereignty, which constructs a cartel of states, in which the Great Powers play the role of gatekeepers by establishing and enforcing norms of security. Transnational harm is defined as a threat to Great Power authority when it is propagated in open defiance of the existing norms of security in world politics. Thus, drug trafficking, although responsible for the death of more than 200,000 Americans since 1980, is seen a lesser threat by the US in comparison to terrorism - mainly because the drug traffickers do not openly challenge the structure of authority and hierarchy in world politics within which the US consider itself and is defined by other states as a superpower. Therefore, the US avoided occupying states like Colombia that serve as territorial bases for drug networks, while it occupied Afghanistan, al Qaeda's home-base. Similarly, the Barbary pirates of North Africa were not perceived as a threat in the early 17th century by the dominant European powers: despite the fact that the pirates kidnapped and killed tens of thousands of Spanish, English, French, Italian, and Dutch nationals during the first four decades of the century, the European powers saw the corsairs as merely parasites because there were no norms of security which the latter defied and challenged. The Great Powers of the time refrained from any significant attack on the Barbary city-states that served as the territorial bases of the transnational community of pirates. On the other hand, in the early 19th century, the same pirates were considered by Britain as a threat to her authority as a Great Power because the pirate city-state of Algiers openly defied Britain's authority in the context of the British campaign against slavery. Thus, Britain inflicted on Algiers a deadly naval attack in 1816.