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.