Taming the wild internet

As the Internet becomes more and more developed, more and more corporations are trying to find a way to gain power over this wild frontier. It is a becoming a virtual manifest dynasty battle. For the past few years the United States has had major discussions over net neutrality. An article published on ZDnet, "Thanks to BitTorrrent, Net neutrality debate reignites", names a few examples of how ISPs are monitoring what customers in the states use on their Internet service. Comcast was caught blocking and slowing down Internet connections where they found bit torrent applications because those types of programs slow down bandwidth. According to FCC laws, it is legal to monitor Internet connections because it is an “information” service, not a telecommunications service-although skype, AIM, ichat and many others are popularity used as a telecommunications services. I don’t know how I feel about Comcast seeing what I do on the Internet, but nowadays nothing is private information. But I do think that it is strange that net neutrality is still a debate in the U.S. In many European countries you pay for Internet by bandwidth. Which means, a person who only uses the Internet for checking email and browsing news websites would pay much less for their Internet connection than someone who plays online games or downloads movies. This also easily targets those who download illegally. In France, not only do you have to pay more if you’re an illegal downloader, but you could also face loosing your Internet connection. A new law put in place last March allows ISPs to report people who are caught using bit torrent programs, and then they are disconnected from the Internet. A Time article analyzes how the law came into place. In France, since they already have pay-by-bandwidth, the new law comes down to protecting major record companies and movie distributors. The debate over net neutrality and illegal downloading is confusing. The Internet is so new that nothing is in black or white and no one knows how to regulate it or whether to regulate it. However, I will have to say I enjoy being able to watch whatever I want and listen to whatever I want without worrying about running out of internet connection or having to pay for a new song.

What does ethics mean to a citizen journalist?

Citizen journalists. It is a term that has been questioned over and over again in the past few years. People outside the media field see this term as meaning someone who does the job of a reporter but has not been trained as a reporter. Many people I have talked to about the future of media mention that journalism is becoming something anyone can do as long as they have access to a computer and the Internet. It is true; anyone can broadcast or publish anything on the Internet and then they instantly becoming a "citizen journalist."

Some of these people have even broke major stories like Mayhill Fowler, who broke stories on both Obama and Clinton during the presidential campaigns last year. She may have broken a huge story but the way she got the story is ethically questionable. One thing that differs a trained journalist and a citizen journalist is ethics.

Ethics is not just one course in many journalism programs, but something that comes up in daily class discussions. A trained journalist knows they are making a huge impact when releasing a story, especially if it is as juicy as the ones that Fowler released. There should be a thought process that goes through a journalist's mind before they publish important information. How will this story affect the people involved? Why is this information important? Did I get this information ethically?

I am not saying that all journalists go through this thought process, and I am sure less and less do now that cycle of information is updated in a matter of seconds. However, ethics should be in the back of their mind, ingrained from their j-school days. Citizen journalists are not taught about the ethics of journalism.

The day Mayhill Fowler got Clinton's rant on her recorder she looked like an average citizen out to support his wife's campaign. When she asked him a question she was just another person behind the rope. If she were a trained journalist she probably would have identified herself and whom she was reporting for. That would have been ethical. Instead, she recorded the answer to the question and then threw it up on the Internet for the whole world to hear.

I don't think the way she went about getting the story was ethical. I also have a problem with the value of the comments that Fowler got (well more like stole, because both times she didn't ask for a comment for a publication, she just pressed record or eavesdropped). Why was it so important the world know these inner thoughts of these political figures? Shouldn't we be more concerned with their ideas for the future of our government? I would have liked to know the ethical process Fowler went through before uploading to the Internet.

Germany proposes a protection for journalism online

Germany is proposing a new idea that they hope will bring more revenue to their dying newspapers. The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel; the Christian Democrats and the Free Democratic Party, is behind the idea of protecting copyright for journalism that is online. An article in the New York Times claims that the party is trying to "level the playing field with Internet companies like Goggle, which German publishers accuse of exploiting their content to build lucrative businesses without sharing the rewards." The copyright law would allow publishers to charge for the use or mention of their work on the Internet if the website is for commercial means. Like how movies must pay to use artist's songs or product brands. The law would create a whole new market, journalism royalties. Many of the establishments behind the proposed law are large publishers and owners of newspapers. Burkhard Schaffeld, corporate counsel for the German Newspaper Publishers Association, was quoted in the New York Times article saying: “Freedom of information is important. But quality journalism costs money. There is no fundamental right to information for free on the Internet.”

The proposed law would mean that bloggers who have ads on their website would not be allowed to link to articles from newspapers without contacting the news outlet and then negotiating a deal with the journalism royalties society.

To me, it seems like this law would protect print journalism but eliminate a lot of online journalism. Also shouldn't information be free? What do you think?

Obama goes to Dover to salute fallen soldiers

Right after President Obama was elected Defense Secetary Robert Gates lifted the ban on news coverage of soldiers' remains. Last night President Obama went to Dover to salute the fallen soldiers coming back from war. The ban allows family members to decide whether they do or do no want coverage. I think that it is very important for the press to be given the option to report the deaths of soldiers at war and when their remains return home. There is SO much press on the war; the bombings and the operations but for years it seemed as though we were sending young people over there and where did they end up? We would hear about a number of soldiers dying during a mission but as disturbing as this sounds, these reports became redundant and desensitizing to viewers that those numbers and that report was actually a group of human Americans. The reporting was never complete. In order to remain completely truthful reporters should be allowed to cover the tragedies of war even on the American side.

The picture of Obama saluting a soldier in Dover last night brought up controversy over whether it was a just a photo-op. How could someone even think that? As the President of the United States I would think it was his responsibility to show respect for the soldiers that were lost at war and to remind the United States that it is losing some of it's best.

Kate Sheppard discusses making it in Independent Media

Yesterday Kate Sheppard, an Ithaca College alum, visited our Independent Media class to talk about life after graduation and making it in the world of independent media. Sheppard graduated from Ithaca College in 2006. Since then she has been writing for various online independent news outlets including, The Nation and Grist. She has also written for The Guardian, which I think is amazing considering she is only 25. Sheppard mentioned a few important ways to get noticed in journalism:

1. Gain a presence on the internet. Is very important for young journalists to be able to Google your name and get results with your work or blogs.

2. BLOG. Its one way to practice writing and craft your skill while also getting your work out there. You knows who will stumble upon your blog.

3. Develop a special interest. Having a "speciality" or "niche" will set you apart from other aspiring journalists.

4. Network with people. Find out who accepts or reads pitches at a publication. Keep in contact with people you meet even if you don't think they may have anything to do with what you want to do. You never know.

5. Be persistent. Craft your pitches and be aggressive about getting them out there. Eventually, people will be contacting you, instead of you trying to chase down jobs.

The PRC waves a white flag

This is old news but I revisited the issue after reading the article "Don't stamp out brainy mags" published by the Boston Globe in April 2007. Back in 2007 The Postal Regulatory Commission proposed a way to raise postal fees but in a way that was fair to everyone. Time Warner, which owns...well pretty much EVERYTHING, proposed a more complex system for raising fees. At first the PRC wasn't going to accept Time Warner's suggested plan because it was obviously going to benefit large publishers over small ones. The PRC has always stood for being fair on their pricing because mailing something shouldn't be something only rich people can afford.

The Los Angeles Times said back in 2007 that the proposed increase in fees by the PRC's plan would be about 12%. Time Warner's plan would decrease fees for larger publishers because of the way large corporations mail out their subscriptions and would increase fees for smaller publications from about 15% and up to 30%. Essentially the Time Warner plan would reward those that have huge subscription rates and then cut out the smaller subscribed magazines. Meaning, reward the mainstream media and punish the independent and extreme media. Isn't that a little like taking away the rights of free speech?

I also just saw Micheal Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story the other day and reading about what happened in 2007 with the PRC and Time Warner made me think about how capitalism really does run our country. Why was Time Warner allowed to overrule the Postal Regulatory Commission, a federal committee instilled in our governmental system for the good of the country? Money.

Does big money=big infulence?

Last year, media critic Jack Shafer wrote concerns about the investigative journalism website, ProPublica. The website was founded by Herbert and Marion Sandler, billionaires that promised to provide the foundation journalism outlet with $10 million dollars every year. Shafer questioned how the Sandlers can donnate so much money without infulencing what is being reported on. The two have spent millions on politics, all in favor of the democratic party. Shafer wrote that ProPublica says they intend to remain unbiased but what happens if the investigative reporting turns on the democratic party? What if the Sandlers do not like what is being reported...given their polictical stances. Will they continue to support ProPublica with millions then?

As of right now, ProPublica has extensive coverage on major issues like health care reform, the licensing of California nurses, the stimulus and gas drilling. The articles seem to be neutral but there are many nice pictures of Obama and as of now, no articles that really question the white house. It worries me when a news outlet relies too heavily on one source for money. The Sandlers may not be a major corporation but they still have the big money and I am sure they would not like it if ProPublica decided to do a investigative report on their lives. But as a news outlet, ProPublica should have the right to do an report on the corporation, foundation or any other financial source that supports them, without being censored. Realistically, that will never happen. No entity that is supplying millions or billions of dollars will allow it. In order to remain relatively safe news outlets should have many different sources for money. That way it wouldn't be such a blow if one pulls out because they are unhappy with the content nor will the content start to be driven by the funders.

Shafer thinks that the Sandlers should have donated the money and then resigned from being able to make decisions about ProPublica. That way the money could keep flowing but the content would not be guided by the funders. I think ProPublica will be interesting to keep a check on over the next few years. Will the big money influence the content?

Left, Right, Center?

Mark Finkelstein visited the Independent Media class yesterday and shared some of his conservative views on the Fox News vs. the White House and what it is like to be a republican in liberal Ithaca, NY. As Finkelstein began talking about certain journalists and broadcast news outlets we quickly discovered that his views of what was leftist and what was rightest was different from some of the people in the class.

Jeff Cohen drew a scale of what he thought was left and right and the mainstream media outlets fell in the center but leaned more to the right. Finkelstein disagreed with this scale and said that MSNBC was much more liberal than Cohen believed. How do we establish what is right, left or center if everyone has a different opinion on this? When I was talking to my father the other day about some of Obama's policies he thought that Obama was very liberal but I believed he was too moderate. The United States has always been diverse in their political views but it seems that lately there has been a debate between the left vs. right, yet many other degrees of the scale are left out of mainstream media.

I decided to test my own political stance by taking the Political Compass test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/test.

This is what the website bases their left and right sides on:

This is how I was placed on the scale:

Now this is just an Internet test but they do base their questions around historical

political figure's stances. It is just interesting to see where you fall on the scale.

I wonder where Fox News would fall? Maybe they would have to change their motto from

"Fair and Balanced" to "Conservative and Critical" (or conservative and crazy).

At least, they would be honest about where they stand on things.

Where do you fall? Do you think mainstream media provides an outlet for all sides of the scale?

Children singing for Obama

Mmm Mmm Mmm!

The right-wing media has found something new to dwell on...a video of second graders singing a song honoring Obama. The song was performed for Black History Month last winter but was just recently dug up online. Fox news reported on the video on September 24th and said it was "overflow(ing) with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama." After that report the right wingers began calling the video reminiscent of Hitler and a leftist plant. My question is, was it really necessary to bring this "news story" to the attention of the whole nation? The lyrics are inspirational from the point of view that Obama is our FIRST black president but other than that, it is no more patriotic than other songs about presidents. There are more pressing issues going on around that world than children singing an empowering song about equality.

I think that it is funny that with the Bust administration citizens were forced to be patriotic with the "patriot act" but during this administration, as soon as people start to be proud to be an American again they get destroyed.

Who is the real fact checker?

Blogs or newspapers...

The Huffington Post posted a story from the Toldeo Blade about Obama's view on the shaky status of many newspapers across the nation. ""I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said,"" the article quoted. Although I am all for preserving the newspaper industry in the United States, I think that I will have to disagree with the president on the trend towards blogs shouting at each other without any real facts. Newspapers do not always have the right facts and in fact, many blogs are now the fact checkers for newspapers. The issue of blogs vs. newspapers is a confusing battle. I am still unsure of how there will be room for both blogs and newspapers in the media world if in the future newspapers are given a non-profit status. 

Blogs allow journalists to express themselves and report without a hovering big brother. In that sense, I think blogs are great for today's media. However, it is hard to weed out the ones that are trustworthy and the ones that really are just nonsense. 

Newspapers are the traditional standard of journalism and because of that they already have the trust of the reader, although this trust can be broken and has been broken in the past by false reporting. Right now, I believe newspapers are constrained to reporting what their publisher and advertisers find important and that is not real journalism. 

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Should the government lend a paycheck to newspapers?

In January, nytimes.com published an opinion piece on the financial state of newspapers in the United States. The writers, David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, wrote they believe that the government should endow newspapers and take away their need to rely on businesses and corporations for ad revenues. While this theory seems very idealistic, it is at the same time unrealistic. Swensen and Schmidt pointed out that of course newspapers would have to remain objective. I just don't see how that could be possible.

"One constraint on an endowed institution is the prohibition in the same law against trying to “influence legislation” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” While endowed newspapers would need to refrain from endorsing candidates for public office, they would still be free to participate forcefully in the debate over issues of public importance. The loss of endorsements seems minor in the context of the opinion-heavy Web."

Taking out the business model and allowing the government to fund newspapers would bring government and media too close together for my comfort. What if our government does some things that the public does not agree with? How is the editor of the newspaper supposed to report badly about the government while receiving funding from them at the same time?