Faults

It may be wrong to say so but people really should read more than they do. I understand the idea of micromedia to a greater extent than some because I have seen the effects that the people can have on issues and how it is greatly affected by the archives of the internet and it's knowledge as while as the access to global talk through emails and personalized marketing. I can completely see the Nike story as one that helped the people understand and, most importantly, feel unified against a common evil. This unity is one of the main strengths of the internet and, for all the talk we do on the evils of technology, it is an undisputed fact that through our ability to access more information rapidly our intellect has grown past what we are 'suppose to know' and into 'what they know' in reference to so-called elitist or experts. The Nike article is one that helps identify this fully but it also fails to see the problem with micromedia which is it's lack of complete understanding of an issue. It does not present both sides of the story (i.e. Nike has in fact released accounts on their use in sweatshops as seen here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10122164 or stats on the fact that over 75% of it's companies are found in developed countries) and they tend to go for over dramatic and non personal attributions of events and people (in the Nike article all it said was the use of Nike sweatshops in South Asia but it did not provide additional information.) The problem then is it being completely one sided. I am appalled by sweatshops as well as major cooperations as most people know and in no way am I defending Nike or it's work. However in micromedia we need to ensure that we are attempting to be just as well as fair since that it what we are fighting for. Rather, we need to be careful that the thing that we are fighting against is not the thing that we are becoming.