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!