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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Indy Media Exposes Corruption: Why should journalists be punished?

When it comes to citizen journalism, one of the biggest impacts that they have had is helping to expose the truth about corruption and human rights violations. They speak out against governments, they use the internet, video and images to help expose governmental wrong doing. Citizen journalists risk their lives every day in order to have the truth exposed.

This was the case for 28-year-old Khaled Said. Khaled Said was a citizen journalist who gained footage of illegal police action, and who had his life taken for publishing that very content. Government is so afraid of corruption getting out, even in the United States, which is supposed to be the epitome of democracy. When it comes to things like WikiLeaks, or anything that could potentially expose government corruption, they decide to become oppressive, and in some case even take someone's life into their own hands.

The goal of citizen journalists around the world is do what they can to help save a country, to help overthrow a corrupt president or ruler. Through the Internet, blogging, videos, and everything citizen journalists can provide, they are helping change the world, in a lot of cases, they are starting to bring about change that has been necessary for many years.

 I understand that there is a fear that masses that are organized through the Internet are feared, and that people fear they might get out of hand. People have their own agendas, but it takes a group of people that are really passionate about something to cause a demonstration, and in my opinion, those few that are out to take over the world, don't have the support of the majority. Citizen journalists help gain footage that would otherwise be lost. In countries where foreign journalists are forbidden, citizen journalists are there to capture the story.

Citizen journalists have changed the way we see the news; it has changed the importance of news and has changed what we can do about our own well-being. Through video footage citizen journalists have been able to document human rights violations, they have been able to document human torture and unlawful doings by the government and government officials. Is that not what a journalist is supposed to do? Journalists are out there to expose the truth, and that's what citizen journalists are helping to do. They may not be professionally trained, and yes the credibility of information gets a little iffy, but the good that comes out of a tip that turns into a breaking news story, helps put away someone for wrong doing, or helps overthrow an oppressive government, in my opinion out-weighs the bad. Journalists should not be reprimanded for telling the truth. Even more, innocent citizens who happen to publish the truth should not be tortured and killed because they have exposed something the government doesn't want seen. I understand that there are parts of the world that see that as okay, but as journalists and as people, we need to try to make a difference, and that is what independent sources are trying to do. They are working to make the world a better and more transparent place. Transparency is part of democracy, totalitarianism does not include transparency.

A democracy is about the people making decisions and the government being kept in check; public officials and government figures should not be protected from being exposed. If a citizen has an opinion about their behavior, they should be able to express freedom of speech without facing legal consequences. This is what citizen journalists are helping to maintain.

Many more will die in the name of the truth, but hopefully some day, people around the world will be able to publish the absolute truth without be oppressed, censored or punished.

Just because those that are a part of governments around the world don't like what is being said about them, doesn't necessarily make it any less true, and they need to learn to accept that the world is changing, and that the truth will eventually be exposed one way or another.

That's my opinion, hopefully the government doesn't come after me for it.

Fashion Bloggers given more credit than High-fashion magazines?

During my time in London, I interned at a company called Prospect Pictures. Prospect pictures is a small independent television production company that comes up with new ideas for documentaries, reality television shows and news stories. I was a researcher there, and one of the story ideas was of young bloggers and the impact that they are having on today's world.

The documentary idea was to base the documentary off of young, now 15-year-old blogger Tavi Gevinson, whose blog "Style Rookie" became popular when she was only 13. Researching more into what she does and how she is perceived made me respect her and "citizen journalists" that much more. Although she may be a mere 15-year-old girl blogging about her opinion on designers and their fashion lines, she is well-respected by top fashion designers as a serious fashion critic -- they want her critiquing their lines, because she has a large fan base.

I understand the issue that citizen journalists pose -- they are not trained and sometimes they don't know how to write well, but despite that, their opinions and their presence has not only made a huge impact in today's society, but has helped expose the online world to many new things. Although some journalists may look down upon bloggers such as Tavi Gevinson, they are doing writing at what they are passionate about, and they are succeeding.

Bloggers such as Tavi Gevinson and Bryan Boy are surpassing the popularity and respectability of even the top fashion magazines, such as W, Vanity Fair, etc. A lot of this comes from the fact that not only are the passionate about what they are doing, they are independent, they don't have anyone to answer to. They give their true critique and people respect them for it. Unlike top fashion magazines, they don't have any obligation to cast designers or their fashion lines in a positive light. Not only that, but people around the world feel more personally connected to bloggers such as Tavi Gevinson. This could open a whole new world, more than it already has.

With bloggers starting up so young, it allows for much more success, and a new generational revolution, where young bloggers are where fashion experts and people that are passionate about fashion go to get their information instead of to magazines -- not only when it comes to fashion, but young bloggers are already succeeding in stock advice sites, ways to create a business, etc. Although this is already happening, there is still a lot of room for it to grow.

This doesn't only come with young bloggers, but bloggers and citizen journalists in general. Although mainstream journalists may look down upon them, whether it be because they are jealous and feel that bloggers are inferior to them, or whether they just feel that they should be qualified journalists, they need to accept the fact that this is a growing art. It is more respected every day.

Yes, there are citizen journalists that probably should think again about the content that they post, and the way that they write, but with both the good and bad, citizen journalists and bloggers are making a huge impact on journalism, especially online.

I feel that bloggers like Tavi Gevinson and Bryan Boy should be given the chance to succeed, just like any editor in a high fashion magazine. I understand that they feel they had to work harder to climb the ladder and to get where they are today, but people like Tavi Gevinson also worked hard to not only get a fan base, but also to maintain her credibility and to stay independent. This is true for not only her, but many bloggers around the world like Glen Greenwald, Amy Goodman, etc. They may be bloggers, but they are well-respected bloggers and are even seen as journalists. They should be given the same respect as a mainstream journalist, if not more.

Democracy or Dictatorship? What will happen if the government gains the right to censor free speech?

First off, I would like to say that Julian Assange is doing what any self-respecting journalist in main stream media should be doing. Our country was built on the idea of freedom, and that includes the idea of free press; this is exactly what Julian Assange is exercising, he right to free speech. There is no reason to be prosecuted for exposing the truth about public officials and about our government secrets. Isn't there supposed to be a sense of transparency within government and also through media?

The article from Newsweek makes a very good point -- the prosecution of Assange would make the United States just like any authoritarian governments that American troops are fighting so hard to demolish. How can our government give into the idea of suppression and censorship, when that is against the law, and against what our constitution states?

I understand that in theory, the government can get away with whatever they want, they have almost all of the power, and if the people don't take a stand, the government will gain complete control, and eventually the people will not have a say at all; we will go from a democracy, to what Russia calls a democracy but is more like a dictatorship.

In no way is censorship by any means okay. I understand that the government says that these confidential documents that Assange leaked through WikiLeaks provided a threat to national security, but when it comes down to the evidence, there is nothing that shows that this information caused any damage when it came to the military, just to the governmental egos. Assange exposed the truth; he created the transparency that is supposed to be present in mainstream media, but is not. If he doesn't expose it, who else will? Not the mainstream networks.


A good point is made by Bruce Maiman in his post in the Examiner: Journalists and newspapers such as the Washington Post are so quick to call Assange a traitor, but aren't they the ones that broke the story about the Watergate scandal? Aren't they the ones who exposed the truth about governmental corruption?

This just goes to show how much the mainstream media is now influenced by the government. It's sad really -- it's sad that the media outlet that was created to expose the truth about our government and about our country as a whole, has now bowed down to higher officials. This is highlighted by the fact that, although some journalists have come out against Assange's prosecution, they don't think that he should have exposed confidential documents; they believe that he was within his rights, but don't think that he should have exposed the truth. Isn't that what journalists (especially investigative journalists) are supposed to do?

Back in the time of Woodward and Bernstein, this behavior would have been, in my opinion, not only accepted, but encouraged. To expose government scandals and corruption is part of what journalism is all about. So how can you turn your back on someone who is doing just that? Isn't that his job? Isn't he just doing exactly what Woodward and Bernstein were praised for doing?

Not only does it upset me that some mainstream outlets are standing by the side of the government, but that some of these government officials are calling for the execution of Assange, like Sarah Palin. Now we are trying to execute people for exercising their right to free speech? We are trying to dispose of people who speak out against the government? That sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Julian Assange talking to reporters.

Michael Ratner makes a good point, where he says that the government will have a hard time explaining why they are going after Assange and not others. He says that if the government ends up winning, it will have a scary effect on investigative journalism in the coming years. This is true, if the government is able to censor and dispose of anything and anyone that they don't like and who expose them, what kind of democracy are we? We aren't one.

Investigative journalism is part of what makes this country so great -- the idea that no one is above the law, and that the government shouldn't really be keeping secrets. I understand that some things are better left unsaid, but there are also times, like in the instance of the confidential documents exposed by WikiLeaks, that show the government lies to the people, and the people should have the right to know the truth. A man who exposed this truth should not be prosecuted, and no one should be scared of governmental retaliation just because they expose the truth about governmental corruption.

Our constitution calls for the right to free speech, and just because the government doesn't like what is being said, doesn't mean that they should be above the law and have the right to censor it's citizens, as I said, that's not a democracy. I, 100 percent, stand behind Julian Assange and believe that what he did was right and is what every journalist should set out to do, even the mainstream ones.

I know that they would most likely get fired in modern times for running a story about governmental corruption as an original piece, and any mainstream media outlet, like Amazon will be subject to the wrath of the government just for hosting this kind of information, but if we are scared of the government, then what is journalism really for anyway? Yes, there is an aspect of reporting the news, but shouldn't that not be government controlled news?

Journlaists should back Assange, not only that, they should take a few notes, and maybe begin to stand up for what's right and start writing about the truth, not just what the government wants you to see, not just in independent media, but in mainstream media as well. This is being done by organizations such as ProPublica and others like it, and I think that more people should take after these people -- they should investigate and expose, not bow down in fear. Julian Assange took a stand against the government, not only in the United States, but around the world and he should not be prosecuted for doing that.

If Assange is prosecuted, we should not only fear for the sake of journalism, but for the idea of what the government will be able to get away with next.