Say what you mean to say

After reading FAIR's report "Study finds lack f balance, diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour," I realized that OK PBS obviously caters to its higher-ups. We all know that by now. So the main question is....Should it man-up and state its bias? Should it say, "We are PBS and we support and believe in so-and-so,"? Being completely fair and balanced shouldn't be that difficult, but I believe with sponsors it can get complicated. That's why PBS should stop trying to fool everyone and just say what its goals are out in the open.

A closed-minded public broadcasting system

Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted in the article "PBS Discriminates Against Alternative Views" saying:

We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country.

This must be because the Internet is expanding which scares big businesses.

Because 75 percent of public broadcast funding comes from the public — corporations are the single largest source of underwriting for programs — the way PBS broadcasts is largely dependent on what corporations want.

Former "NewsHour co-host Robert MacNeil said, "We [at PBS] are not as provocative, innovative, creative or original as we should be."

But shouldn't public broadcasting be for the public? And shouldn't any program be provocative, thought-provoking and creative? If not, why show it?

Increase the wealth

In the "U.S. lags behind in broadband infrastructure" article, writers John Irons and Ian Townson discuss the need for the U.S. to catch up in broadband efficiency.

An interesting part of this article is the paragraph that says expanding broadband can benefit the U.S. in ways outside of the Internet:

Expanding broadband infrastructure in the United States would not simply improve the speed of connections for entertainment purposes, but it will also bring a wealth of knowledge to more citizens in more areas. With greater reach, the United States could see improvements in education, health care, and first-responder capabilities as communications become faster, more efficient, and more effective.

This idea that the Internet can bring more piece to the U.S. is interesting. Online education and learning tools can download faster and use bigger — more interactive — files if there is a larger broadband connection. Emergency responders can transmit calls via the Internet and arrive at accident sites quicker.

The possibilities are endless with bigger, badder broadband. Would having more space to play give journalists more room for investigation?

Increasing broadband

For the first time, there is an argument saying we need to make something mainstream equal in dollar and quality value.

In Nate Anderson's article "Fixing US broadband: $100 billion for fiber to every home," Anderson quotes EDUCAUSE saying, "broadband prices in countries without unbundling policies exceed prices in countries with unbundling policies."

Anderson shows that the U.S. is falling behind other countries — for no reason — when it comes to broadband packaging. He states that not only are we extremely slow, but we are also extremely expensive when it comes to broadband.

As I said, when it comes to things big businesses own, we usually argue about fairness and objectivity. But here, the truth of the matter is we need quicker, cheaper broadband access to stay on top of our game. It's nice to know that sometimes we just want whats best for everybody.

A necessary Net neutrality

Marguerite Reardon's article "Thanks to BitTorrent, Net Neutrality debate reignites" supports the idea that Net neutrality is necessary.

To my surprise, Comcast prevented some users from uploading certain networks. Comcast is the number one provider in the Philadelphia so the idea that the company that provides my Internet service could be acting as Big Brother is pretty scary.

If Congress didn't think Net neutrality was important before, than it sure needs to now. But what argument will win the case? Other than the three examples listed here, what else can prove to higher ups that big businesses are trying to control the free World Wide Web? My biggest fear is that Congress is in on all of this...

Trust funds for the media

The article "Happy Birthday, Public Broadcasting!" is first of all, very bias. There were hardly any facts to back up the Jerold Starr's point. Aside from that, the article did bring up a few interesting points that relate to independent journalism.

First of all, there is this ideal that all things outside of the paper realm are meant to be like a newspaper. In paragraph eight, Starr said:

KQED itself produced scores of documentaries and offered a "Newspaper of the Air" that featured local reporters commenting on the news items of the day.

As independent journalists know, news doesn't just come in the form of printed word. News comes in packages, sound slides, videos and quotes.

Secondly, after hearing that the U.S. pays only $1 per person for public broadcasting, I understood the need for a trust fund.

But if there is an agency that is in control of the funding, will there be an agency in control of the content broadcasted?

One thing that's nice about independent media that is listener-supported is that the audience gets the issue's it thinks are important covered. If that were to change, watching PBS would be like watching any other government sponsored show.

And that's a threat no independent journalist wants to hear.

Another death in the family

Metropolitan Home is officially folding with its December 2009 issue to focus its resources on Elle Decor. Both magazines were owned under Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. corporation.

There has been a rapid increase in niche media, however, these overdone muffy publications are really taking a hit. We might only need one home decor magazine at this point in time.

The great Huff breaks into sports

Today the Huffington Post finally launched its very own sports section: HuffPost Sports. Not only does Arianna Huffington plan to cover game scores and stats, but she also plans to cover off-the-field stories. Anything from steroids to scandals will be covered on the site. The HuffPost is the first independent news site to take on sports. This news outlet is really becoming something like a newspaper online. Maybe weather is next? 

A blogger's code of ethics

It is pretty obvious the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics wasn't written for online media — especially bloggers. But some rules can limit bloggers if they followed them.

Refuse gifts, favors, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

But not being recognized as a "real" member of the press, bloggers are essentially forced to accept favors, free travel and special treatment when it comes to getting into a closed event. Granted, citizen journalists ignore this ruling often, even when it's unnecessary.

My question to SPJ is, when will there be an online code of ethics?

Overseas tabloids and all that jazz

In the Guardian article "Why Kerry should sue the sun," issues of transparency were apparent. The story goes back and forth between the Drudge Report and the Times of London "libeling" John Kerry.

The Drudge Report, claiming 15 million readers, alleged that a young "intern" had a "mystery relationship" with Kerry and that several major US news organizations were already investigating. But none published a word, though political society in Washington and New York was instantly consumed with gossip.

A little transparency would have been helpful here. Disclosing sources is a hot-button issue, especially in gossip stories. Recently, at The Ithacan, we published a story using unnamed stories. Later we discussed the rules of using anonymous sources:

Procedures for using anonymous sources:

1. Attempt to convince the source to speak on the record. If that fails,

2. Attempt to confirm the information with sources willing to be named and with documents. If these aren’t available,

3. Confirm the information with multiple independent sources, even if those sources, too, will only speak on condition of anonymity.

4. Provide an explanation of why the source was granted anonymity.

5. Allow anyone discussed in the story the opportunity to fully respond to statements made about them.

I think when dealing with a public figure, disclosing sources is absolutely necessary.

Transparency is the new objectivity

After reading "Transparency is the new objectivity," different questions popped into my head. In my Journalism Ethics class last semester, we talked often about transparency with citizen journalists. The biggest issue was being able to identify the reporter/writer and how to contact them. This article talked about many ways to be transparent, mostly about writers disclosing their own biases. But after looking over all of these suggestions, I wondered, are there levels of transparency? Do larger stories need more information to prove objectivity? Does that include name, title, contact, resources and links? Could some blogs just out right say their bias and that be the end of it? How much is necessary, sufficient or superfluous?

'Failed' writer breaks onto the scene

In the summer of 2008, the LA Times published a series of articles covering a specific event that portrayed Obama in a negative light. Aside from the remarks that this writer uncovered, her ability to make headlines left the media in awe.

Mayhill Fowler was an everyday American just writing about whatever she thought was important. The day she quoted Obama saying "bitter" small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" she opened a door for citizen journalists all over.

The most amazing part of the story is that Fowler never considered herself to be a journalist.

With the immediacy of blogging and news gathering it is a smart statement to make saying everything is on the record. In one of the LA Times' articles, Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor, said:

We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear. You have to assume that everything is on the record. There is no getting around that anymore.

This applies to my generation even more because we have to deal with Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. We cannot take away our online footprints, so saying certain things in our status and tweets will stay with us forever.

Nothing is off the record.

The Future of Indy Media

Journalism professor Vadim Isakov gave a presentation in class Thursday discussing the future of independent media.

The Tech Trends Everyone Should Know:

1) Real Time Web
2) Light Blogging
3) Personalization Niche Targeting
4) Interactive TV
5) Identity Recognition
6) Augmental Reality
7) Mobile Life
8) Geolocation
9) Internet of Things

One debate we had in class was that #2, Light Blogging, almost downplays the art of actually blogging. To me, saying light blogging is unauthentic because someone else types for you is as ludicrous as when reporters complained about bloggers rifting off of mainstream stuff. It's all the same thing. Getting information out there as soon as possible is the goal. The way you do that is honestly up to you.

p.s. Many celebrities do not upkeep their own blogs and twitters homepages. Why start yelling at secretaries now?

Movies on the small screen

In the article "Wanna share ear buds?" published in the LA Times Nov. 20, 2007, David Sarno discusses the ever-changing forms of media — specifically the film industry. The first full-length feature film to go straight from production to iTune's was "Purple Violets," directed by Edward Burns. Burns decided to skip the movie-theater stage because "releasing a film online eliminates costs associated with printing and distribution, while also making the film available everywhere." Burns' film can be viewed on laptops, desktops and even iPods.

This story signifies to me that even other forms of media outside of journalism know they need to adjust the way they present their work and the way they make their products available to the masses. Just like journalists took to blogging to get information out there quicker, now the film industry is picking up on the same tip. 

What's next with the media?

Arianna Huffington speaks at Ithaca College

Today, Ithaca College received a visit from probably one of the most important political pundits in the world. Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, came to the college to speak on the importance of political reporting. More so, Huffington discussed the need for the media to report all sides of events — basically the truth.

"Journalists can give a voice to the voiceless, which is an incredibly powerful opportunity," she said. "We can look in the mirror and discover leadership in ourselves."


One question I have after listening to Huffington speak is:
What is the job, or goal, of independent media?
Is it to cover all stories that are important and newsworthy even if they are on a smaller scale.
Or do they only report on the things the government leaves out?

Maybe it's a little bit of both?

Daily 'Views'

After recently checking out the new homepage design for CommonDreams.org, I noticed a change in their opinion section. Common Dreams has set up its homepage in four columns: "Further...," "News," "Views" and "Progressive Newswire." The "Views" section, which I find most interesting, give the names of the writers and then the headline of their piece. What caught my eye was Chris Hedges' piece on "Opium, Rape and the American Way." Common Dreams new site really draws readers in, especially with headlines like these. Updating is obviously important for independent media.

All roads lead to independent journalism

On Friday, Grit TV with Laura Flanders hosted a program entitled "Media Myths and Misses on Health Care." On the show, Flanders had guests discuss what the mainstream media was publishing on health care reform. Though Lieberman obtained the attention of most headlines, Flanders made it a point to show mainstream media wasn't telling the whole story to citizens. Obviously, independent journalism is a head of the competition — at least with publishing issues that matter in an interesting and truthful manner.

Thanks, Laura, for pointing us in the right direction.