Why throw away something when you can fix it?

Public broadcasting in the United States, when it started, was a form of independent media. Like the BBC, it was to be free from government and corporation influence. In the United Kingdom, although some people think the government has control, as you can see in the video of a BBC host cross-examining Tony Blair, the UK prime minister at the time, it is not. The show did not go off the air, the host did not get arrested, which is exactly how is should be.

Although it may have been created to be a "system free of commercial constraints," what it has become is far from that.

In the US, as we talked about in my Independent Media class, after being criticized for only bringing one sided views into their shows, The Eleventh Hour had a debate-like show, and brought people on the show with ranging views, some that the corporate sponsors probably didn't agree with. The show after that did not last more than six months.


This type of thing also happened with NPR, where analyst Juan Williams was fired because of comments he made about Fox News. This is exactly what public broadcasting is supposed to be against. Public broadcasting is supposed to be a place where people can go to express their views and not worry about getting fired because they express an opinion. That in some ways is a violation of freedom of speech, but because public broadcasting is now almost fully commercialized, free expression of views is no longer a priority.

Yes, public broadcasting services should be pushed to live up to the goals and expectations they set for themselves when they first started in the US. Yes, they should try to take some pointers from public broadcasting in other countries like Britain, but even if they were pushed, in today's society, would that push be strong enough?

In today's society, corporations control every aspect of the business world, and in some ways things outside of the business world. Public broadcasting is a business, but should not be controlled by corporations or censored. It should be PUBLIC views, which is a wide range of views and different opinions.

Public broadcasting should not only be a public service, but also an independent media outlet that is free of commercial funding, ads, and other things. Isn't that why we watch public broadcasting, so the corporate world doesn't try to brainwash us all?

Activists are pressing to defund public broadcasting, but what would this do exactly? If you made public broadcasting go away corporations will just find another way to get their opinions and views out there and endorsed. This will be through other shows like NPR or PBS, but under a different name. De-funding public broadcasting does nothing. However, in my opinion, trying to fix it is a lost cause until government gives corporations less control in society.

It is truly a lose, lose situation, and sad to see something that could be so successful is helping change government and society go so downhill, where in countries supposedly less democratic than ours it is able to be successful .

Are corporations doing what the government can't?

When the Internet came to be, no one really knew how to handle it, and in a sense, they still don't. Our constitution says that the press cannot be censored in a democracy, however, where does the Internet fall when it comes to that law? That is the question that many debate, and this question is the cause for possible issues when it comes to net neutrality.

The definition of net neutrality:

People across the nation continue to fight for net neutrality, but the battle is getting harder and harder to win. This is because the FCC is not doing their job correctly, and they are not making sure big corporations don't start censoring information over the Internet. This is because the FCC has succumb to the power of the big corporations, and more and more in today's society, big corporation can get away with pretty much anything, even censorship of the press.

Some people may not see the Internet as a form of press, but that is part of what the Internet has become. Without net neutrality, independent media outlets such as Democracy Now! would have a harder time staying afloat, because getting access to their website would be difficult and loading their page would be extremely low.

In December 2010, the FCC passed a rule that said there were full net neutrality for wired networks, but did not give full protection to wireless networks. With a society that now relies mostly on wireless networks, we can see why this rule is greatly flawed. This allows room for the corporations to find loop holes, or maybe they won't even have to find loop holes under this rule.

With the progression of time comes the progression of technology, and with that progression needs to come adaptions to the rules put in place when the founder fathers created the constitution. In order to protect our first amendment rights, we must have full net neutrality on both wired and wireless networks. No company should be able to control what the consumer does or does not see. If that happens, are we even really still living in a democracy? Isn't communist China criticized for doing the exact same thing? Just because it is not government censoring the press doesn't mean that corporations can do it and that makes it okay.

What Calabrese says here is the truth. The FCC is not doing their job correctly, and in turn is creating a non-democratic society. They are letting the corporations take over, and are definitely not thinking about the consequences.

Other countries such as the Netherlands have more internet freedom and Internet protection than we do in the United States. What is wrong with this? Are we not the country where the Internet was launched? Shouldn't that mean we should be farther along than other countries and that our government should be fighting harder to protect something we made to help boost our country?

Our Internet infrastructure should be based more on countries like the Netherlands, where corporations and government do not have a say in what people see. We should not allow corporations to control the Internet just so they can promote companies and websites they own.

Without net neutrality, who knows what this country will come to.

Why do rumors spread so fast?

The point of journalism is to tell the truth, state the facts; this is the case for both mainstream and independent media. Although independent media isn't always as credible or trusted as mainstream media, they are still held to the same standards. In this modern era, with the invention of the Internet, information is just a click away.

This means that fact checking should be easy for any media outlet and that anything suspicious or not confirmed should not be published, in my opinion. Without fact checking, how can we ethically print something and present it as fact?

The story about President Bill Clinton's illegitimate son proves that without fact checking, stories that are untrue can come back and blow up in your face. In this case, the Drudge Report took this story and spun it, presenting information that did not exist, and creating parts of the story that were less than factual. The story was picked up by the mainstream media and became huge news in just a short period of time and the world believed the allegations to be true.

It was later revealed that Bobbi Ann Williams (the mother of Clinton's so-called "son") was paid off by Star for her interview. Not only was it revealed that she was paid off, but years later the real results of the DNA results came out; the test was negative and Clinton never fathered Williams' child.

The thing that is so amazing to me is how fast a story like this can spread, but how slow the media is to finding out the truth. After the story broke, it wasn't until seven years later that they found out the truth. You would think they would want to find out the truth as soon as possible. Not only that, but that they would find out the actual truth before going ahead with publicizing the story. Getting the results of a DNA test shouldn't be THAT difficult, and getting the results if Clinton is really innocent shouldn't be a problem.

This reminds me of Stephen Glass and the fact that he got away with partially or fully fabricating 27 of the 41 stories that he wrote for the The New Republic, along with more that he wrote for other prestigious magazines, such as George Magazine They had fact checkers, yet for years he got away with false stories, because they only checked his notes. They didn't go on the internet (which they had at the time) to double-check that these stories were factual.

Although the story with Bill Clinton broke in the early 90s when Internet was young, these things still happen today when Internet is at its prime and one of the easiest and most used forms of fact checking and communication. It baffles me how far a false story can go in the mainstream media before it is shown to be false.

In society today, with all the technological innovation that we have, there is no reason for false stories to make their way into mainstream media, or independent media for that matter. This should be even more true during presidential elections. Clearly there are going to be rumors that come out in order to try to smear a certain politician and hurt their campaign, and if we don't wait until we can actually print the truth, we are giving into what people criticize independent media for being, unreliable.

Independent media itself is not unreliable, but certain websites may be, certain blogs may be as well, but when trusted news sources such as the Drudge Report (or somewhat trusted) and the mainstream media to a certain extent are picking these things up without getting the full story, that is where we need to be concerned.

Check out the facts, find out the truth, use the amazing thing called the Internet. False reporting can be avoided, especially with all the technology that we have today. 

Did Fowler cross the line?

When it comes to citizen journalists, where is the line between ethical and not ethical? If an event is not open to the media, as a citizen journalist, should you be allowed in this event even though you are technically a part of the press? What kind of question is considered ethical? Where is that line?

Mayhill Fowler, a citizen "Off the Bus" journalist for the Huffington post has been criticized for her methods of getting interviews and information. Mayhill Fowler got information on Obama that could have severely hurt his campaign by going into a closed to the media session.

Mayhill Fowler

She also got an interview from Bill Clinton, where he called a writer from Vanity Fair, who wrote about his ventures with young women, "slimy" and "sleazy." However, she did not introduce herself as a citizen journalist, but had her recorder in clear view.

Were her ways of getting the interviews unethical? In my opinion, not necessarily.

The information that she got during Obama's campaign in 2008 may have been a little bit in the grey area, seeing as she got her information during a "closed-press fundraiser." She got in because she was a supporter of Obama; she did not make it known that she was a journalist.

In my opinion, even as a citizen journalist you are part of the press. If citizen journalists want to be respected, even if they are independent, they must still consider themselves part of the press. Because people were video taping and recording the fundraiser, the information may have gotten out sooner or later, but I'm not sure how ethical her actions were.

Whether her way of getting the information was ethical or not does not cancel out the fact that it was information that needed to be known. I believe that it was respectable for her to report about something she felt was important, even against a candidate that she openly supported. Reporting the truth, despite of your beliefs is exactly what true journalists should do. I don't think that people should criticize her for reporting some negative information on a candidate that she supports, do they expect her to hold back the truth because she feels he is a good candidate? They must not know what real journalism is about.

When it comes to how she got the information from Bill Clinton, I don't think there is any grey area at all. Maybe she didn't introduce herself as a journalist, but he recorder was in clear view, therefore Clinton knew that he was being recorded. Also, in a situation where you may only have time to get in that quick sentence, you don't have time to introduce yourself as a journalist, and public figures should know that every word is subject to reporting.

In the case of President Obama, I feel that she may have crossed the line because as a citizen journalist, in my opinion, she is part of the press and should not have been at a closed-press fundraiser, but although her methods of getting the information may not have been ethical, printing the story was in my opinion ethical, and she gave the entire transcript and allowed people to create their own views instead of manipulating the situation.

When it comes to the case of Bill Clinton, I don't think she crossed any line at all. She conducted herself professionally, gave the interview for all to her, and reported the truth.

This does show though, that citizen journalists still currently have more advantages than other independent media outlets and mainstream press. This, however, is changing. If citizen journalists want to be taken seriously, they must be considered part of the press.

Indepence is the key.

When it comes to the music industry, many artists have a middle man, are connected to a company, and have to please their bosses. Those who are are able to cut out the middle man are more likely to sing what they want to sing, and are able to get more "true fans."

In this way it is very similar to mainstream news outlets and independent news outlets. Mainstream news outlets have to please the big bosses of their corporation, while independent media outlets don't have to answer to anyone but themselves and their readers.

Radiohead has detached themselves from the big record label and gone made in the independent media world.

By becoming independent, they were allowed to record at their leisure and did not have pressure from someone telling them what to do and when, allowing them to put more time into their music, creating better quality. This makes it more true to the views a values of the band itself. 

When their album "In Rainbows" came out, they sold copies without setting a fixed price. They allowed people to pay as little or as much as they wanted for the album.

By not setting a fixed price for their album, it made more people want to buy it, therefore giving it more attention. Some people pre-ordered the deluxe package for $80 and some people paid as little as 90 cents. They allowed people to pay what they thought was fair price.

They also allow people to record live bootlegs at concerts, getting people interested before the album was even released. This allowed them to "add more moving parts to make them bleaker and jumpier."

By doing this, and ridding themselves of a middle man, they have put themselves in a great position to market themselves online and acquire even more loyalty and true fans. By marketing itself online, they can get more fans in a shorter period of time.

Radiohead, however, had the advantage of already having a set of followers from when they were a major-label band. This most likely made it easier for them to expand and become independent. By already having a set of true fans, they were able to count on those fans to spread the word and to buy that $80 package when their album came out.

By getting rid of the middle man, it allowed to the break out of their shell, and in the end will allow them to make more money. They won't have to pay the middle man and most of the profits will go directly to them. Besides the money aspect of this, it allows them to interact more directly with their fans and the audience, making the relationship more personal, and creating more of a following.

Although many bands may not be able to just get their big start on the internet, Radiohead is a good example of how going independent can be beneficial.

Is there ever true objectivity?

Journalists have always been told to be "objective" when writing stories, not to be biased, not to have a point of view. But is this really realistic? No. Everyone has a point of view on anything they read or write about, there is no possible way to be truly objective.

When I pull up the objective in the dictionary, the synonyms are: impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.

Can you really be impersonal or disinterested in a story you are writing about? Isn't what makes a story good and captivating the fact the the writer IS interested in what they are writing about? Yes. If a writer isn't interested in the topic they are writing about, it's going to be a pretty boring story. Not only that, they shouldn't be writing the story if it's something that doesn't interest them. 

I think that David Weinberger, in his blog "Joho the blog" has the right idea when he says, "transparency is the new objectivity."

When you think about it, the only way to be anywhere near objective is to expose your biases when writing a story. This allows people to take your biases into consideration, and weight them as they may when reading a story.


"Transparency gives the reader information by which she can undo some of the unintended effects of the ever-present biases. Transparency brings us to reliability the way objectivity used to."
Some people say that by being transparent, you are creating a situation where people don't trust your writing, but I think the opposite is true: By being transparent, your writing is even more trustworthy, because you are showing your views and writing as objectively as possible.

"Transparency puts within the report itself a way for us to see what assumptions and values may have shaped it, and lets us see the arguments that the report resolved one way and not another. Transparency — the embedded ability to see through the published draft — often gives us more reason to believe a report than the claim of objectivity did. "

This statement couldn't be more true. By creating transparency, it shows that you are not hiding anything, that you are being honest with your readers, and therefore making what you write more credible. By having links, exposing your biases, it is less likely that something written is bogus. Yes, this sometimes happens, and most likely always will, but transparency decreases the chances.

Transparency is the only way to get anywhere near objectivity. By revealing sources, creating links, presenting both sides of an argument, giving evidence, etc., you get closer to objectivity than we ever could before.

Without transparency, there is no way that a writer can be objective. No where in the SPJ Code of Ethics does it call for a journalist to be objective, but calls for honesty and truth.

Transparency is the basis of honesty in writing, it is being fair to the readers and being fair is reporting and interpreting information.

Times are changing. There has never been any real objectivity in journalism, and now people are beginning to realize this. Transparency is the new objectivity, and will help journalism for decades to come.









 

Censorship in a Democracy?

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.