Part of the foundation of America's democracy is the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Since the beginning when our founding fathers wrote up the constitution, censorship of the press was forbidden. This being the case, why is it that government and big corporations today think that it is okay to begin to censor the media and individuals just because they either don't like what they have to say or don't like what they are exposing about said government.
Although our founding fathers could have never imagined the emergence of the Internet, the idea of free speech still applies. People have a right to their opinion, especially in a democracy, and to try to censor that opinion just because others don't agree goes against everything this country was built on.
The fact that a large corporation like Verizon has the power to block messages from NARAL, a subscription service most likely because NARAL's views are not in line with Verizon's. This was therefore violating their right to free speech. Verizon's defense to this was that they blocked it because "phone companies do a service for subscribers by blocking a lot of text-message "spam" - unwanted commercial come-ons that drive e-mail users crazy." Clearly this is a bogus excuse. These people had to SUBSCRIBE to this service, meaning that they wanted these messages given to them. Verizon ended up unblocking these messages, but the fact that the had the power in the first place to do so is worrisome.
This doesn't only happen with large corporations, but there have been cases where our judicial system has ruled against the right to free speech.
In 2008 a federal judge in San Fransisco ordered the WikiLeaks site to be disabled. This was due to the leaking of information about a bank in the Cayman Islands, a known spot to hide money that you don't want found. This is exactly what WikiLeaks exposed of Julius Baer Bank. Although the judge ordered that the domain name WikiLeaks.org be disabled, the loop hole was that many other domain names had been created with the same content.
Not only did he order them to shut down their site, but to stop distributing the documents about the bank corruption.
David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School, even pointed out that the judges ruling "is clearly not constitutional."
Aren't they the ones that are supposed to hold up and make sure everyone abides by the laws of the constitution?
Although the ruling was eventually overturned, it goes to show just how
much power our government has. It also shows the threat against first
amendment rights and against independent journalism. If this continues,
and one time the ruling sticks, journalism will never be the same.
This just goes to show just how important net-neutrality is. If net neutrality goes away, will our democracy truly even be a democracy anymore? Independent media outlets will have a difficult time surviving, and our country will never be the same. Hopefully that doesn't happen.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
When alternative newspapers become corporate owned, what happens?
Independent media is about exposing the truth. Alternative newspapers take the news that mainstream media does not think is important or is not willing to expose and reports on it. These independent media outlets are the ones that do the "real" investigative reporting because they don't have anyone to answer to, the don't have the government or corporate owners to please. But what happens when a mainstream corporations buys out these alternatives?
In 2005, the LA Weekly was acquired by New Times Media. The LA Weekly was an alternative newspaper that was "truly great among alternative weeklies, with news coverage and political writing that towered above its counterparts." During its thirty years, The LA Weekly grew to be one of the largest alternative newspapers in the west, with 200 pages and a circulation of 208,000.
During its time as an independent media outlet, the Weekly would cover world issues in every issue, it used to send its writers out into the world to gather news and expose anything that was going on. It was a true representation of what journalism should be about.
After being acquired by New Times Media, the LA Weekly became not only localized, but when covering issues, it no longer had that "alternative" feel to it. The truth was not being exposed, but it was more mainstream news used to please the people at the top. They no longer wrote articles about the seriousness of the issues in Iraq, but the "issues" going on in Beverly Hills because they believed the people would be just as interested in this type of news. This, however, is not what independent journalism is all about.
Along with covering different kinds of stories, the paper shifted from the left to the right after being acquired. Instead of covering stories that expose serious truths about corruption in government, expose public officials, what is going on in the world, etc., they now cover "investigative hit pieces that target local bigwigs," a favored story of New Times Media. Where before it was a great source for real news, it became a backbone for stories favored by their owners. They began to report to the standards and views of their bosses, not tell the stories from an independent point of view.
Many of the people that stayed after the paper was acquired were slowly outed. Many left, but some stayed.
This example shows how an independent news outlet, that when taken over by a corporation, was not able to stay independent. This shows the importance of independent media and the reasons to stay independent. By being independent, you are allowed to write anything (within reason) without worrying about consequences for exposing the truth. When independent media outlets are taken over, the risk of them no longer being independent is very high.
This is why people worry about the integrity of those such as the Huffington Post after it sold out to AOL.
When you are part of the corporate mainstream media, you no longer have the freedom and independence to expose the truth. You are no longer considered alternative because you are no longer an alternative, true source for the news. You are no longer providing stories that the mainstream does not want to or is not allowed to cover in fear of losing funding. With independent media sources, many rely on their readers for support for this reason: being able to stay independent and continue to give voices to the voiceless.
If any independent media outlet is acquired by a mainstream media outlet, it is reasonable for the fear of a type of corruption to happen, a loss of trustworthiness and the hope for full truth.
In 2005, the LA Weekly was acquired by New Times Media. The LA Weekly was an alternative newspaper that was "truly great among alternative weeklies, with news coverage and political writing that towered above its counterparts." During its thirty years, The LA Weekly grew to be one of the largest alternative newspapers in the west, with 200 pages and a circulation of 208,000.
During its time as an independent media outlet, the Weekly would cover world issues in every issue, it used to send its writers out into the world to gather news and expose anything that was going on. It was a true representation of what journalism should be about.
After being acquired by New Times Media, the LA Weekly became not only localized, but when covering issues, it no longer had that "alternative" feel to it. The truth was not being exposed, but it was more mainstream news used to please the people at the top. They no longer wrote articles about the seriousness of the issues in Iraq, but the "issues" going on in Beverly Hills because they believed the people would be just as interested in this type of news. This, however, is not what independent journalism is all about.
Along with covering different kinds of stories, the paper shifted from the left to the right after being acquired. Instead of covering stories that expose serious truths about corruption in government, expose public officials, what is going on in the world, etc., they now cover "investigative hit pieces that target local bigwigs," a favored story of New Times Media. Where before it was a great source for real news, it became a backbone for stories favored by their owners. They began to report to the standards and views of their bosses, not tell the stories from an independent point of view.
Many of the people that stayed after the paper was acquired were slowly outed. Many left, but some stayed.
This example shows how an independent news outlet, that when taken over by a corporation, was not able to stay independent. This shows the importance of independent media and the reasons to stay independent. By being independent, you are allowed to write anything (within reason) without worrying about consequences for exposing the truth. When independent media outlets are taken over, the risk of them no longer being independent is very high.
This is why people worry about the integrity of those such as the Huffington Post after it sold out to AOL.
When you are part of the corporate mainstream media, you no longer have the freedom and independence to expose the truth. You are no longer considered alternative because you are no longer an alternative, true source for the news. You are no longer providing stories that the mainstream does not want to or is not allowed to cover in fear of losing funding. With independent media sources, many rely on their readers for support for this reason: being able to stay independent and continue to give voices to the voiceless.
If any independent media outlet is acquired by a mainstream media outlet, it is reasonable for the fear of a type of corruption to happen, a loss of trustworthiness and the hope for full truth.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
My blog actually makes me money?
Many of us blog for fun. Most of us don't think that what we write will be noticed and then end up big, making us a ton of money. This, however, happens more often than we think.
Blogs that start just for fun, or something that we are passionate about, sometimes turn into huge phenomenon's. This was the case for the Eric Nakagawa, founder of "I Can Has Cheezburger," a blog that posts pictures of animals doing funny things. Nakagawa started it as an inside joke with a picture of a funny cat with the caption "I can has cheezburger?"
The blog was a way for him to have fun, he never thought it would actually become something.
The blog soon turned into something that brought in revenue and became a way for him to make money. Hits to the site began to double each month and now gets 500,000 hits a day. The least expensive ad for about $500 for a week.
When Nakagawa started this blog he was a computer programer, after his blog took off, he quit his job to help see where the site could go. Probably a good choice. The site now makes him a lot of money and the content is contributed by the users. Nakagawa found something that many people enjoy and gave them a way to help make it their own.
This happens not just with comedic blogs, but with blogs such as Talking Points Memo (a political blog), Boing Boing (a money making blog), as well as many others.
The Internet has allowed so many more job opportunities. It has allowed a world in which, something that starts off as a joke, or a passion can become how we make our living. It has allowed bloggers to make a decent living and has allowed for a direct connection between creator and reader. It has allowed blogging to be taken seriously and even sometimes grow so big that it becomes its own business.
Blogs that start just for fun, or something that we are passionate about, sometimes turn into huge phenomenon's. This was the case for the Eric Nakagawa, founder of "I Can Has Cheezburger," a blog that posts pictures of animals doing funny things. Nakagawa started it as an inside joke with a picture of a funny cat with the caption "I can has cheezburger?"
The blog was a way for him to have fun, he never thought it would actually become something.
The blog soon turned into something that brought in revenue and became a way for him to make money. Hits to the site began to double each month and now gets 500,000 hits a day. The least expensive ad for about $500 for a week.
When Nakagawa started this blog he was a computer programer, after his blog took off, he quit his job to help see where the site could go. Probably a good choice. The site now makes him a lot of money and the content is contributed by the users. Nakagawa found something that many people enjoy and gave them a way to help make it their own.
This happens not just with comedic blogs, but with blogs such as Talking Points Memo (a political blog), Boing Boing (a money making blog), as well as many others.
The Internet has allowed so many more job opportunities. It has allowed a world in which, something that starts off as a joke, or a passion can become how we make our living. It has allowed bloggers to make a decent living and has allowed for a direct connection between creator and reader. It has allowed blogging to be taken seriously and even sometimes grow so big that it becomes its own business.
The Effectiveness of True Fans to Indy Media
When it comes to many independent media outlets,
advertising is not their first option when it comes to funding. Because
advertising takes away from an outlet's independence, many don't like to
use advertising to help them out financially. This being said, many
independent media outlets look to fans and followers to donate money. This is the case for both Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo and Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films.
During Josh Marhsall's speech at Ithaca College, he discussed how at the beginning, he refused to use advertising because he did not want to lose any of the independence that he had. In the beginning of Talking Points memo's development, Marshall did not have a lot of money, especially money to travel and cover important political events, so when he decided he wanted to cover the primary in New Hamphsire, he told his readers about it and was surprised to find that many of them donated money for him to do just that. He realized then just how much his fan base meant to him as an independent journalist.
Although Marshall now uses advertising to support him and his website, he still recognizes and stresses the importance of readers and true fans.
This is the same thing that happened with Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films. As a documentary maker, Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films does not get the funding a Hollywood movie would get.
One day, Jim Gilliam, the co-founder of Brave New Films got the idea to go online to ask for contributions and funding; they needed funding in order to create a new film called "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers." Gilliam sent out an email to their many potential supporters and promised them that this film would make an impact and that each person who donated would get their name in the credits.
Greenwald was not optimistic at first about getting donations from the internet, he never thought it would work, but he soon learned that it would be a principle factor in helping him make him film. After asking for help, they ended up getting $267,892 in just 10 days. This didn't all come in large donations, but most came from many people contributing smaller donations.
Like Marshall, Gilliam believes that this is the way things are going for independent media. As long as you have true fans, they will help support what you are doing in any way that they can. They will donate in order to make it happen.
"The filmmakers can make whatever kind of film they want to make as long as their fans will support it," Gilliam says. The trick is having a base. "A no-name director would have a much harder time," Gilliam agrees. But a legitimate appeal from a person known to his or her constituent community? "It completely democratizes the process," Gilliam says.
This is especially important in independent media outlets where advertising is not a way they want to be funded. It helps them stay a float and pay their staff in order to help get the truth out and in order to be true journalists. It also helps them establish themselves, and through gaining more of a base of supporters, they have more of an audience, and in turn will get more supporters.
The Internet has helped independent media in so many ways, but as we can see is helping to support and fund it as well. With true supporters and true fans, independent media will stay alive and continue to help journalism progress.
During Josh Marhsall's speech at Ithaca College, he discussed how at the beginning, he refused to use advertising because he did not want to lose any of the independence that he had. In the beginning of Talking Points memo's development, Marshall did not have a lot of money, especially money to travel and cover important political events, so when he decided he wanted to cover the primary in New Hamphsire, he told his readers about it and was surprised to find that many of them donated money for him to do just that. He realized then just how much his fan base meant to him as an independent journalist.
Although Marshall now uses advertising to support him and his website, he still recognizes and stresses the importance of readers and true fans.
This is the same thing that happened with Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films. As a documentary maker, Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films does not get the funding a Hollywood movie would get.
One day, Jim Gilliam, the co-founder of Brave New Films got the idea to go online to ask for contributions and funding; they needed funding in order to create a new film called "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers." Gilliam sent out an email to their many potential supporters and promised them that this film would make an impact and that each person who donated would get their name in the credits.
Greenwald was not optimistic at first about getting donations from the internet, he never thought it would work, but he soon learned that it would be a principle factor in helping him make him film. After asking for help, they ended up getting $267,892 in just 10 days. This didn't all come in large donations, but most came from many people contributing smaller donations.
Like Marshall, Gilliam believes that this is the way things are going for independent media. As long as you have true fans, they will help support what you are doing in any way that they can. They will donate in order to make it happen.
"The filmmakers can make whatever kind of film they want to make as long as their fans will support it," Gilliam says. The trick is having a base. "A no-name director would have a much harder time," Gilliam agrees. But a legitimate appeal from a person known to his or her constituent community? "It completely democratizes the process," Gilliam says.
This is especially important in independent media outlets where advertising is not a way they want to be funded. It helps them stay a float and pay their staff in order to help get the truth out and in order to be true journalists. It also helps them establish themselves, and through gaining more of a base of supporters, they have more of an audience, and in turn will get more supporters.
The Internet has helped independent media in so many ways, but as we can see is helping to support and fund it as well. With true supporters and true fans, independent media will stay alive and continue to help journalism progress.
If we didn't have independent media...
As I was scrolling through my news feed on Facebook the other day, I came across a post from one of my friends. The post was about a FAU (Florida Atlantic University) student who lashed out in class and threatened to kill both her professor and students in the class (those that were white).
The student, Jonatha Carr, asked the professor, Associate Professor Stephen M. Kajiura a question about evoltuion. The question she posed was "how does evolution kill black people?" Carr asked the question several times, and she began to get more upset each time she asked the question. The professor, not knowing how to answer the question, did not provide an answer that satisfied Carr.
Carr then began yelling and threatening to kill the professor and then walked over to a white student, threatening to kill him as well. When a school tech came in and asked her to leave, Carr got in his face, and a physical altercation between the two broke out. She was then lead out of the room.
After Carr "snapped" many students in the lecture hall took out their phones in order to record a video of what was going on.
As I was reading through the comments on my friends page, I came across one that I found very interesting:
Although this story is not one of national importance, this person's comment applies to everything independent media stands for. Independent media allows us to see the truth, and to be aware of things happening that we may never have been able to see before.
Instant media, through video, is what helps independent media outlets do their job and get information out. Without instant media, this story may have never come to light in the news, or caused a debate as to why this girl did what she did. We may never have been aware of some of the things that happen in every day life, such as students snapping and threatening to kill those around her.
Independent media and instant media are helping to bring light to issues that we may have never noticed before, and this person's comment is what I have been thinking for a while, without instant and independent media, what would the world be like, what truth's would still be hidden? This goes to show the importance of the growth of journalism and growth of independent media.
The student, Jonatha Carr, asked the professor, Associate Professor Stephen M. Kajiura a question about evoltuion. The question she posed was "how does evolution kill black people?" Carr asked the question several times, and she began to get more upset each time she asked the question. The professor, not knowing how to answer the question, did not provide an answer that satisfied Carr.
Carr then began yelling and threatening to kill the professor and then walked over to a white student, threatening to kill him as well. When a school tech came in and asked her to leave, Carr got in his face, and a physical altercation between the two broke out. She was then lead out of the room.
After Carr "snapped" many students in the lecture hall took out their phones in order to record a video of what was going on.
As I was reading through the comments on my friends page, I came across one that I found very interesting:
Although this story is not one of national importance, this person's comment applies to everything independent media stands for. Independent media allows us to see the truth, and to be aware of things happening that we may never have been able to see before.
Instant media, through video, is what helps independent media outlets do their job and get information out. Without instant media, this story may have never come to light in the news, or caused a debate as to why this girl did what she did. We may never have been aware of some of the things that happen in every day life, such as students snapping and threatening to kill those around her.
Independent media and instant media are helping to bring light to issues that we may have never noticed before, and this person's comment is what I have been thinking for a while, without instant and independent media, what would the world be like, what truth's would still be hidden? This goes to show the importance of the growth of journalism and growth of independent media.
Monday, March 5, 2012
George Seldes: A Legend in the world of journalism
George Seldes is one of the legends when it comes to independent journalism. He is like those such as Ida B. Wells, Victoria Woodhull, Margret Sanger, and other who used independent media outlets to expose the news that was not being covered by mainstream media outlets. Even when he was attacked by others and seen as a communist, or when government tried to bring him down, he fought until the very end.
George Seldes was not afraid to tell the truth, he was not afraid to get the facts and tell the rest of the story that the mainstream press was leaving out. He did not have advertising, and was completely independent when it came to producing his periodical weekly newspaper. George Seldes created the first periodical in the nation's history.
George Seldes reported on fascism when other mainstream media outlets wouldn't. He went to the source, he went to Europe and reported what he saw. By keeping himself completely independent he did not have to abide by the press lords that he saw as "slanting and censoring the news to suit those with economic power and political clout." He did not have anyone to answer to and therefore got away with things that the mainstream press would have never gotten away with. His loyatly, like Izzy Stone, was only to his readers, and to the truth.
Many people and critics saw George Seldes' "In Fact" as one sided and accused him of being biased and with this being hypocritical. But as others say, he was reporting on what wasn't being reported on, and that may have been only one side of the story. He was a prime example of a true investigative journalist, and wanted the people to be aware of all the facts, not just what the government wanted them to see.
George Seldes helped make people aware of the harm that tobacco causes, even when mainstream press was encouraging it because of their loyalty to their owners and their advertisers. He showed people the truth, which yes happened to be only one side, but the side of truth.
George Seldes did not give up, he did not give in to government demands and did not conform to what the press was doing at the time. He was a true independent journalist and set an example for many influential independent journalists in the future, one being Izzy Stone. His work is legendary, and through his work he made a difference. At the end of his life he was recognized for his achievements, even in the mainstream press. This goes to show just how much of an impact he made on America's journalism.
George Seldes was not afraid to tell the truth, he was not afraid to get the facts and tell the rest of the story that the mainstream press was leaving out. He did not have advertising, and was completely independent when it came to producing his periodical weekly newspaper. George Seldes created the first periodical in the nation's history.
George Seldes reported on fascism when other mainstream media outlets wouldn't. He went to the source, he went to Europe and reported what he saw. By keeping himself completely independent he did not have to abide by the press lords that he saw as "slanting and censoring the news to suit those with economic power and political clout." He did not have anyone to answer to and therefore got away with things that the mainstream press would have never gotten away with. His loyatly, like Izzy Stone, was only to his readers, and to the truth.
Many people and critics saw George Seldes' "In Fact" as one sided and accused him of being biased and with this being hypocritical. But as others say, he was reporting on what wasn't being reported on, and that may have been only one side of the story. He was a prime example of a true investigative journalist, and wanted the people to be aware of all the facts, not just what the government wanted them to see.
George Seldes helped make people aware of the harm that tobacco causes, even when mainstream press was encouraging it because of their loyalty to their owners and their advertisers. He showed people the truth, which yes happened to be only one side, but the side of truth.
George Seldes did not give up, he did not give in to government demands and did not conform to what the press was doing at the time. He was a true independent journalist and set an example for many influential independent journalists in the future, one being Izzy Stone. His work is legendary, and through his work he made a difference. At the end of his life he was recognized for his achievements, even in the mainstream press. This goes to show just how much of an impact he made on America's journalism.
"Free Love" In the Victorian Age: A passionate argument
When it came to freedom of expression, those in the early years of our country tested the limits of this value. Those who fought for reform, fought for the rights of themselves and others, and although they may not have had immediate results, or even seen any result at all (such as the Socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason), they fought for what the believed in, and some even changed history.
When it comes to Victoria Woodhull and her fight for sexual freedom, although some of her ideas were radical (such as banishing the institution of marriage), she fought hard, and did not give into government pressure, such as her being jailed in light of the Comstock Laws, her as well as others who believed in the idea of free love, fought through the hard times to stand up for what they believed in.
But even though she had very radical views, some of her views are what we consider to be normal and even more accepted in today's society. Victoria Woodhull fought for the right of women to divorce, fought for their right not to stay in an unhappy marriage. She fought for the right women to love who they saw fit, and proposed the idea of having multiple lovers. She said "I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can, to change that love every day if I please."
This is something that is still argued even today, although, yes maybe in a different context, the right of women to do with their body as they please is still being debated in courts today with the issues of birth control and abortion. As pointed out in Rodger Steitmatter's Voices of the Revolution, Woodhull believed "A woman had the right to deny her body to anyone, including her husband. These ideas made her viewed in some circles as "Mrs. Satan," but this never deterred her from what she was on a mission to accomplish.
Through her newspaper Woodhull & Clafin's Weekly -- run by her and her sister -- and through her efforts to get this idea across, although her efforts didn't really amount to anything during the time period, they opened up debate and got the public thinking about these issues. She got others on board to her idea and newspaper such as Lucifer and The Word.
Through her efforts as well as the efforts of others who promoted the idea of "free love," society's minds were expanded and more open-minded. Although their efforts didn't get very far, they led to the ideas of such things as birth control, women being allowed to report rape by their husbands, the right for a woman to divorce a man. With efforts of not only Woodhull, but others such as Ida B. Wells, Margret Sanger, and others, woman now have the right to vote, African American's are free from lynching, civil rights and women's rights have come a long way because of the efforts of many, who when faced with issues, fought back and fought for what the believed in. They made a difference.
When it comes to Victoria Woodhull and her fight for sexual freedom, although some of her ideas were radical (such as banishing the institution of marriage), she fought hard, and did not give into government pressure, such as her being jailed in light of the Comstock Laws, her as well as others who believed in the idea of free love, fought through the hard times to stand up for what they believed in.
But even though she had very radical views, some of her views are what we consider to be normal and even more accepted in today's society. Victoria Woodhull fought for the right of women to divorce, fought for their right not to stay in an unhappy marriage. She fought for the right women to love who they saw fit, and proposed the idea of having multiple lovers. She said "I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can, to change that love every day if I please."
This is something that is still argued even today, although, yes maybe in a different context, the right of women to do with their body as they please is still being debated in courts today with the issues of birth control and abortion. As pointed out in Rodger Steitmatter's Voices of the Revolution, Woodhull believed "A woman had the right to deny her body to anyone, including her husband. These ideas made her viewed in some circles as "Mrs. Satan," but this never deterred her from what she was on a mission to accomplish.
Through her newspaper Woodhull & Clafin's Weekly -- run by her and her sister -- and through her efforts to get this idea across, although her efforts didn't really amount to anything during the time period, they opened up debate and got the public thinking about these issues. She got others on board to her idea and newspaper such as Lucifer and The Word.
Through her efforts as well as the efforts of others who promoted the idea of "free love," society's minds were expanded and more open-minded. Although their efforts didn't get very far, they led to the ideas of such things as birth control, women being allowed to report rape by their husbands, the right for a woman to divorce a man. With efforts of not only Woodhull, but others such as Ida B. Wells, Margret Sanger, and others, woman now have the right to vote, African American's are free from lynching, civil rights and women's rights have come a long way because of the efforts of many, who when faced with issues, fought back and fought for what the believed in. They made a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)