Speed matters.. but politics matter more

Broadband internet is the most important form of telecommunications of our time, yet not all Americans have access to high speed coverage. According to Sam Gustin, in his article, "American broadband infrastructure: A national embarrassment" found on Dailyfinance.com, America's broadband infrastructure ranks 28th among developed countries according to a study done by the Communication Workers of America.

Gustin says, that the United States is the only industrialized country without a national broadband policy. Why not? ..Because the biggest broadband service providers in the country; AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, do not want to share the wealth. The Federal Communications Commission plan to regulate broadband internet had been met with opposition from Congress.

According to the New York Times editorial, "The Price of Broadband Politics" lobbyists do not want the F.C.C to extend its authority over telecommunications networks to broadband under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. They want F.C.C. to have to wait for Congress to pass specific legislation.

Even though President Obama is in favor of a national broadband internet policy, the New York Times editorial said that "Comcast warned that the F.C.C.’s efforts could 'chill investment and innovation.' Their (Comcast's) executives and political action committees have been among the top 20 campaign contributors to 58 of the 74 lawmakers in the past two election cycles."

The millions of dollars that the broadband providers AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have each spent on political campaigns has obviously had a lot of influence on our country's ability to move forward. Regulation of broadband internet by the F.C.C would "guarantee open, nondiscriminatory and competitive access and to protect consumers’ rights"

The third annual study from Saïd Business School at Oxford University ranked the United States 15 out of 30 for broadband progress between 2008 and 2010.




A couple days ago I was able to see a screening of the award-winning documentary,
"Slingshot Hip Hop" which is about Palestinian youth culture and protest. The woman who produced and filmed the documentary and the the rap group featured in the movie, DAM, gave a discussion after the screening shown at the Park Auditorium at Ithaca College.


One of the largest parts of the documentary was about the struggle for the young rap groups to try to communicate with each other and share their support for the work they were all doing. Because the kids in the rap groups had limited mobility and were forbidden to travel outside their own cities, they could only use phone and internet to communication. The documentary itself was really eye opening, but it shows how important internet access is for vital communication.

It irks me, that in America, the land of the free.. the only reason that broadband internet access is so far behind other industrialized countries is because, "Reason is not always a match for money in Washington" (NY Times editorial) and the maintenance of wealth in big business, is more important than the growth broadband internet, and American's access to the most important form of telecommunication network.

Act Independently

Question:Without a backdrop of objectivity for Indy' media, is truth/accountability lost?

Answer: Yes. Without a backdrop of objectivity for ANY journalist, mainstream or citizen, credibility is just not there.

So what makes a journalist credible? ..Well blogger David Weinberger believes that transparency is the new objectivity. In 2009 he wrote on his hyperorg.com blog "If you don’t think objectivity is possible, then you think that the claim of objectivity is actually hiding the biases that inevitably are there." Weinberger said.

Part of the SPJ Code of Ethics is to Act Independently, something that is difficult for mainstream media outlets like ABC and NBC who are owned by big businesses Disney and General Electric. This is what Weinberger means when he says the 'claim of objectivity', because we all know that it would not be wise for a journalist at NBC to write negative or critical stories about General Electric. So yes bias is inevitably there.

Weinberger makes a good point, but to say that transparency outweighs objectivity is a pretty bold statement. Indy media is often praised for asking the hard questions in pursuit of the truth. But mainstream and citizen journalists can both get the facts wrong, and especially now with the internet, speed often trumps accuracy.

So what happens when they get it wrong? Does being transparent and disclosing their sources mean citizen/independent journalists are not accountable for what they publish on the web?

In 1999 'Star' a gossip magazine published an "investigative" story about President Bill Clinton knocking up a prostitute. Not many mainstream outlets covered the story right away, but Drudgereport.com, a well know muckraking blog, decided to pick up the "developing" story.

The website gave a synopsis of the story and quoted the Star magazine article, but did not show a very objective standpoint. Drudge wrote, "What becomes immediately obvious to the viewer watching the videotaped confession is that this is clearly not gossip, rumor or anonymous charges being maliciously directed at a politician. Bobbie Ann Williams does not hide her face in shadow when she names Bill Clinton as the father of her son. And there is something sad and lonely about the woman's story and the way she tells it." (The article can be found on the DrudgeReport archives website)

How would Matt Drudge know whether or not the confession was gossip, rumor or malicious charges? Because a GOSSIP MAGAZINE said it wasn't!? This showed a vary slanted opinion in favor of the prostitute, because she didn't hide her face and she looked sad. (wahh)

In my opinion disclosing a source is sometimes important, but that does not mean that the source is credible or even sane for that matter. So sorry Weinberger, you make a good point and yes transparency is important, but it does not completely outweigh or replace objectivity. Noo way. Every journalist should be held to the same standards and be accountable for what they publish.

Not following the old rules

Mayhill Fowler is a citizen journalist. She wrote for the Huffington Post's Off the Bus project in 2008, and stirred up major controversy when she posted an audio recording of President Clinton verbally bashing Vanity Fair writer Todd Purdum, for publishing a long and not so flattering piece about him.

Los Angeles Times staff writer James Rainey's 2008 story: How Mayhill Fowler got the online scoops on Obama and Bill Clinton, talks about how Mayhill "credits her persistence, some luck, and not following old rules."

The question is, does not 'following the old rules' of journalism mean having no moral code of ethics? And should citizen journalists be held to a standard of journalistic ethics and integrity?

Mayhill was criticized for not disclosing herself as a journalist when she asked President Clinton: "Mr. President," Fowler asked, "what do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?"

Salon.com writer, Alex Koppelman gave his two cents on this situation in the article: Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton sparks controversy" saying, "In the age of the Internet, the ability of so-called "citizen journalists" to report these kinds of guarded moments is a good thing, and that's an argument I tend to sympathize with, but the lines become really murky when that 'citizen journalist' is someone like Fowler, working with an organization like the Huffington Post."

Koppelman believes that by making herself sound like supporter rather than a reporter, Mayhill crossed the line.

In my opinion, if a citizen journalist wants to be taken seriously, they should absolutely follow the journalistic code of ethics. No one should be completely exempt from practicing morals. The truth is whether independent or mainstream, with the internet journalists have the ability to pick and choose which ethical code(s) they want to follow, if any.

A journalists job is to seek the truth and report it. That is exactly what Mayhill did. Disclosure is a murky area because it is very often determined on a case by case situation. Citizen journalists tend to ask the hard questions that mainstream media often ignore. The former President had the choice to respond to Mayhills question and he did so on his own will. Whether or not he was under the impression she was a journalist or supporter should not matter. With today's technology anyone can record anything, they don't have to be a journalist.

In my opinion citizen journalists and mainstream journalists should be held to the same standards, just as I believe politicians and common folk should be held to the same standards. In President Clinton's situation he should just remember, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all. Or if you are going to say something, at least be able to back it up.. because anytime anywhere a citizen, or a journalist may call you out on it.

Cutting out the middle man with help from the internet

Cutting out the middle man often means cutting costs, and for creators of art and journalism the internet is the place to head to distribute their work.

LA Times writer David Sarno's 2007 piece, "Want to share ear buds?" is about how the director of the film 'Purple Violets', Edward Barns, and his decision to bypass releasing the film in theatres and went straight for the internet. Consumers were able to purchase and download the film from iTunes straight to their computer or iPod.

"Releasing a film online eliminates costs associated with printing and distribution, while also making the film available, in essence, everywhere" Sarno said.

When this article was written in 2007 iTunes had a catalog of 500 movies. Sarno said, although watching a movie on your iPod isn't as relaxing as watching it from a big theatre chair, people on the go have the ability to download and watch a movie while on their train ride commute, or at the gym.

New York Times writer Brain Steller's piece: "YouTube Videos Pull in Real Money" is about how popular YouTube users were able to become "partners" and added advertising to their videos and pages. Advertising is one of the three main forms of revenue for independent media, and now also for YouTube stars like Michael Buckley, who was making big bucks (over $100,000) from his ads on YouTube.


There are many examples of self proclaimed YouTube "stars", but the site really has launched the career for many talented artists. Without YouTube, the world may have not experienced "Bieber Fever" as abc news reported that Pop singer Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube.

Internet is changing journalism

Journalists have always competed to try to get the scoop on a story before their rivals. Fairness and accuracy are two of the main goals in reporting, but now more than ever speed and efficiency are crucial to successful journalism. Now with help from the internet, journalism continues to grow and change.

Alternet.org writer Will Bunch wrote an article about journalism and the internet in 2008 called, "A Landmark for Bloggers - and the Future of Journalism." Bunch believes even more specifically, that the internet has helped re-invent investigative reporting, "by using new techniques that emphasize collaboration over competition and by working with readers and through collective weight of many news sources to expose government misconduct."
In the article Bunch highlights Blogger Josh Marshall, founder of the interactive website Talking Points Memo, who won the prestigious George Polk Award, (aka the Golden Globe of American Journalism)

What I enjoyed about reading Bunch's article was he talks about the future of journalism, saying that the internet is a new tool and bloggers have a new way of thinking, so stories are discovered that may not have been broken with traditional journalism. Using collaboration over competition is something mainstream media does not do all the time, but I think in the near future as more and more Bloggers like Marshall gain recognition for quality journalism, we will begin to see main stream media reach out to and collaborate with independent media outlets.

Web Censorship

Governments and main stream media have often tried to censor and even shut down online independent media. Here a just a few examples.

In 2008 Wikileaks was still a new and controversial website. New York Times writers Adam Liptak and Brad Stone wrote the article, "Judge Shuts Down Web Site Specializing in Leaks" The article focuses on Wiki Leaks and the writers predict that the Internet era will majorly test First Amendment rights. They wrote, "Judge White ordered Dynadot to disable the Wikileaks.org address and “lock” it to prevent the organization from transferring the name to another registrar." In response, a statement was posted on Wikileaks comparing Judge White's orders to the original orders for the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, which were eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Liptak and Stone didn't know at the time, (and neither probably did Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks) that wikileaks.org would publish the biggest leak of war logs, some 400,000 documents, since Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers in '71.


A smaller example of web censorship occurred further north. The Main Public Broadcasting Network reported that their local newspaper MainToday shut down their online comment section. MPBN quoted CEO of the newspaper, Richard Connor saying, "The decision was made 'because what once served as a platform for civil civic discourse and reader interaction has increasingly become a forum for vile, crude, insensitive, and vicious postings'." Connor said that if readers had comments they could still write a traditional letter to the editor.

For many reasons, governments and mainstream media outlets are scared on indy media. All the more reason to get out their and keep reporting the truth, and commenting on it.

The little town that could (or at least tried)

I just got home from voting five minutes ago. The new electronic system was boring. No booth with a curtain or cool noises as you push down the lever for your preferred candidate. It was on a scan-tron sheet and you fill in the appropriate bubble. My Mom asked, "What happens if I color outside the lines", which I thought was funny. There was little to no privacy as you filled out your ballot and we felt like we were cheating on a quiz or something, as my Mom and I looked over at each others scan-tron to compare votes (which probably is not allowed)

I live in Norwich, NY. A small town about an hour east of Ithaca and an hour south of Syracuse. This is a view of Broad Street in downtown Norwich, and a photo I took a few summers ago looking down to the town from up on the west hill stone quarry.




Something that I know is not allowed that also happened in my Town Hall voting area, I wasn't IDed!! They asked my name and address, checked me off the list and handed me the form. Granted its a small town and everyone knows everyone, but you would think there would be a little more structure/security than what I saw. I held out my drivers license and asked if they needed to see it and the women said "No thats alright" ... I laughed

I hope this new electronic system doesn't mean people can accidentally vote twice.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in election coverage that isn't from CNN/NBC/FOX tune in to ICTV channel 16 for Newswatch ;) Election center will cover live election results tonight from 8-11:30pm!

"Who defines news?"

According to the city council in Lake Oswego, Oregon, bloggers should not be defined as journalists.

Sieon Roux, (aka The Oregonian) writes for oregonlive.com, and he reported that "Bloggers might be excluded from Oregon's executive sessions." According to Roux, "Oregon is one of a few states that allow the media to attend executive sessions, though they are not allowed to directly report on discussions." However, when Mark Bunster, author of political blog 'Loaded Orygun' tried to attend a closed Lake Oswego City Council meeting in 2008, he was asked to leave. Bunster insisted he was part of the news media, but the city council thought otherwise.

Now the state is designing rules and restrictions as to who is allowed to attend executive meetings, which brings up a huge question: who defines news? According to Judson Randall, president of Open Oregon says, "The policy raises new and troubling questions because it attempts to use content and "news" to determine whether a media organization is legitimate."

Becoming recognized as a legitimate journalist and news outlet has always been a hurdle for bloggers to overcome. There are very many successful bloggers, but the problem is that there is still no clear definition categorizing the difference between bloggers, citizens journalists, independent media and established media. This is something much bigger than the State of Oregon city council, and is not something that a city or state government should be able to determine, in order to simply benefit their own interests.

Investing in the greater good, but with a hidden agenda

Does the rise of nonprofit journalism come with a price? For Slate.com writer Jack Shafer, the answer is yes.

In his 2009 article, "Nonprofit Journalism Comes at a Cost" Shafer suggests that content for commercial media as well as independent nonprofit media is based around interests of investors and advertisers saying, "Both nonprofit news and commercial news often find themselves constrained by the hidden agendas of their masters. Just as commercially supported journalists often find themselves dispatched to investigate the owners' hobbyhorses, nonprofit newsers are frequently assigned to 'chase after the idiosyncratic whims of funders'."

Though this may be true for some nonprofit media outlets, this seems to be more of a generalization then actual fact. Most independent blogs and websites begin because they are different from commercial, or mainstream news, and these independent websites find some sort of niche audience who choose to follow them. When a site has a lot of viewers it is more likely to receive advertising, but it needs the followers first. So in many cases of nonprofit media, the content or theme is already present, and to change that to cater to the interests of the advertisers or investors could potentially lose the people who follow the site.

Shafer says, "Donors to nonprofits seek not payouts from their investment but psychic income. They want to feel that their money has done good, or at least caused 'evil' some pain. They want to help publish stories that will make Congress to sit up and take notice and pass legislation. The want the major media to chase their stories. They want to publish stories that will convince voters to vote the way they'd have them vote."

I don't see this as a hidden agenda. One of the main differences between indy media, and mainstream media is that indy media has the ability to lay it on the line, show a clear bias, and voice things that could potentially be offensive. And that is what makes indy media so appealing to readers seeking the truth.

Now you see it, now you don't

Just a few days ago while visiting Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo site I saw a large endorsement for Richard Hanna, who is the Rep. candidate for New York State's 24th Congressional district. The website had a large picture at the top middle of the home page, where visitors could click to support Hanna and donate to his campaign. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised to find this endorsement. Although I am a registered democrat, I personally vote based on the candidate not just by party affiliation, and as a registered voter in the 24th district right now I am in favor of Hanna over Dem. Incumbent Michael Arcuri.

However, today when I scoped out TPM... no endorsement. I have no idea how long the link was up on the site, but it was pretty short lived. We have talked a lot about revenue streams for Indy Media websites, and this makes me wonder if the Hanna campaign was paying TPM for the advertising, or if Marshall is just in support of Hanna and chose to post the endorsement?

Either way, today I found the TPM PollTracker which I thought had a lot of good information that was well organized and easy to read. It will most likely become one of the websites I check out daily from now until November 2nd.

Having a passion can be profitable

John Tozzia a writer for businessweek.com wrote an article about blogger success stories called, "Bloggers Bring in the Big Bucks". The article highlights Eric Nakagawa, who turned his website, where he posted funny pictures of cats with even funnier captions, into a blog called "I Can Has Cheezburger" so that visitors could comment on the postings.

Nakagawa quickly saw his viewers double each month, so he quit his job to focus on the website. Now, according to Tozzia, "A week of ads on Cheezburger, via Blogads, starts at $500 and tops out at $5,400 for a premium position. The site also sells through Google AdSense and AdBrite platforms. It recently ranked No. 26 on the most-linked-to blogs list on Technorati."

Something I found very interesting that was not mentioned in the article by Tozzia, is that not only do Nakagawa's funny cat photos- now commonly called Lolcats- appear on his "I Can Has Cheezburger" website, they also appear in emails and on facebook. Prior to reading this article I had never visited Nakagawa's site, but I have seen the Lolcats numerous times in chain emails and on the formally popular facebook app called 'bumper stickers'. I find it very very interesting to see where these crazy photos originated, considering their popularity today is sky high.

According to Tozzia, "Many of the most popular bloggers have similar tales of starting out with a niche idea." There are many many other success stories about bloggers who have turned a large profit, after their blog took off and gained popularity. The best way to gain popularity is to find a way to get community involvement and gain viewers to the blog.

Tozzia included a slideshow at the end of his article that highlighted other bloggers who have found success within their niche. For example, Josh Marshall's "Talking Points Memo" brings in huge bucks. TPM brings in an estimated $45,000 a month based on ad rates and self-reported traffic data.

Ads on blogs are one of the biggest forms of revenue for bloggers like Marshall and Nakagawa. Advertisers naturally want to go where the viewers are, and right now viewers are online surfing blogs. The good news for bloggers is that having a passion can turn out to be profitable.

Can government bullying really stop indepedent media from reporting the truth?

Main stream media and government officials, see Indy Media as a major threat. Online bloggers and citizens journalists have the freedom to say anything they want; in the U.S. that is. Many countries around the world have been caught trying to censor the internet. Some countries make the internet difficult to access, and some others specifically target individuals who make negative comments about the government.

This was the case for French citizen Dominique Broueilh. Last year the New York Times published a story after she, "found herself the target of a police investigation and a lawsuit from a French cabinet official because of a comment she had posted online." (New York Times writer, Scott Sayare) The article titled: 'As Web Challenges French Leaders, They Push Back' high lighted numerous instances of the French government bullying individuals who posted information on the web that they saw as an embarrassment to the country's ruling class. Broueilh had a law suit brought against her for merely commenting on a web posting with her opinion; "Oh, the liar" Broueilh said about a government official. According Sayare, "Ms. Broueilh’s Internet protocol address, obtained her identity and brought suit against her for 'public insult toward a member of the ministry,' an offense punishable by a fine of up to $18,000." The article goes on to say how mainstream journalists in France would purposely not publish embarrassing stories about politicians in order to protect them. In the U.S. the press is seen as a 'check on government'. If journalists never printed the truth, the government could get away with whatever they wanted. Something politicians in France were accustomed to up until the wide spread use of he internet.

Unfortunately, 'As Web Challenges French Leaders, They Push Back' is not the first article I've read about governments going after individuals who use the internet to tell the truth. In Egypt, citizens searches and activities online can be monitored. Human Rights First blogger Reagan Kuhn, wrote a story about a young man who was beaten to death by police, simply for not showing his ID card to police at an internet cafe. This is a stunning and horrifying example of government taking censorship to an extreme.

Journalists have often been seen as a third check on government. However, at times when mainstream media neglects to report the truth because it may be conflicting with their network affiliates, Indy Media has picked up the slack. Historically, independent journalists and publications have faced backlash from the government. Now with the wide access to the internet and other technology widely available, producers of Indy Media are continuing on full stem ahead; showing that in the U.S. and abroad, bullying won't stop the truth from being told.

News 21: Reporting On A Changing America

About News 21
"The nation's leading journalism schools come together in this unique program to experiment with new forms of in-depth and investigative reporting."
The list of journalism schools that contribute to News 21 is very noteworthy, nine university newsrooms which include, Arizona State, Berkeley, Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, North Western, Southern California and Syracuse. Admittedly, one of my first thoughts when I viewed this site was.. pfft Ithaca College could totally contribute to this unique program. Competitiveness aside, I was impressed by how in-depth these stories really were. More than a just a profile of something or someone, each story really shows a variety of opinions, and angles; more than any other type of news outlet that I’ve noticed.

This website was impressive in more ways than one. What I liked the most was that there is such a variety of multi-media. Most of the stories on the site were primarily video pieces with voiceovers and brief written introductions, but there were also longer written stories that included pictures and captions, music for some pieces and even original cartoon visuals. Having all of these different forms of media is great for readers/viewers who have different preferences on how they’d like to access their news. This makes the site very user friendly and really draws people in.

The story that really drew me in was “How Older Americans Live.” It is an interesting topic that never really seems to be covered unless people are complaining about the costs of social security. News 21 took viewers into the homes of elderly Americans from all over the country. Showcasing people who lived on their own, or in a nursing home, or with family or some kind of assisted care. It was really interesting to learn how culture, and demographic location play a major role in where and how geriatric citizens end up living. News 21 took one topic- ‘How Older Americans Live’, and reported on it using multiple video interviews and profiles, photos, written stories and interesting general facts of information.

This particular topic was titled “Brave Old World” and focused on elderly America. Columbia University’s news team reported on this topic for News 21, and it was one of my favorite pieces on the site.

Overall this website is beautifully organized, and completely engaging. I really think I learned a lot from what I saw and read, and that is what news is all about. Although this definitely is not an outlet to turn to for breaking news, it’s nice to have somewhere to find real, accurate journalism, that wouldn’t otherwise be covered by mainstream media.

http://columbia.news21.com/2010/

Politics and Media

I won't go too far into this, but here are a few things I found amusing today... I'm taking U.S. Politics this semester, it's a 100 level course so expectations can't be super high, but I thought it would be a nice refresher course. Funny thing one: our text book said, "The worldwide network of personal computers, commonly called the Internet, can also be classified as broadcast technology." Commonly called the Internet?! As if it was a new novel idea. The book is from 2009 so I think I have the right to criticize it's choice of wording in this particular instance. Amusing instance two: A person in class did not see any reason why it would be a problem for one individual person or group to own all of the media market place. Even after a number of other students commented and made objections, this person was a firm believer in free market I suppose. After watching the screening of 'Independent Media in a Time of War', I definitely plan to try and read much more news from Indy media and media outlets from other countries as well.