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?