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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, February 6, 2012
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.
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.
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. |
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)