Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Pulitzer- Winning Investigaion Silenced
CommonDreams.org posted Glenn Greenwald's latest article entitled, The Pulitzer-Winning Investigation That Dare Not Be Uttered on TV. Greenwald does a great job explaining how the biggest news organizations chose not to include information about the investigation, while finding time for the other pulitzer winners. David Barstow's investigation revealed that many military analysts, presented as unbias experts, shown on network news during and in the lead up to the Iraq were were co-opted by the Pentagon and had "undisclosed" ties to companies benefiting from the policies they supported. Very crazy that even Pulitzer winning journalism can be ignored by the mainstream media when it goes against their own interests. A perfect example of why there is a need for more independent journalists.
Radiohead as Independent Media
I recently got into a discussion with some of my peers about the success of Radiohead's album, In Rainbows, which they sold online and let their fans decide how much they thought they should pay for the album using their own discretion. It has become standard practice for many younger people to expect to get their music for free from one of the many file-sharing programs. It doesn't seem like it would be possible to reverse this expectation or reduce the number of people downloading music illegally. How smart to let Radiohead depend on their true fans to support them and pay at least something for their music, which many seemed more than willingly to do. They eliminated any middle man and were able to collect all of the profits for themselves.
Some of my friends argued that while this worked for a band like Radiohead the same idea probably wouldn't work for other bands who don't have the same kind of cult following that radiohead has grown on their own. While this may be true, the best musicians and artists would have no problem funding their music this way. If the average person has 5 favorite bands and say each year, on average, three of them release albums within the same year, what fan wouldn't be willing to pay $30 a year (assuming a "donation" of 10 bucks an album) for three albums in their entirety? I would like to see this action and see how the general public responds to other bands/artists participating in the market this way. Pretty soon, the music industry might not have much of a choice.
Some of my friends argued that while this worked for a band like Radiohead the same idea probably wouldn't work for other bands who don't have the same kind of cult following that radiohead has grown on their own. While this may be true, the best musicians and artists would have no problem funding their music this way. If the average person has 5 favorite bands and say each year, on average, three of them release albums within the same year, what fan wouldn't be willing to pay $30 a year (assuming a "donation" of 10 bucks an album) for three albums in their entirety? I would like to see this action and see how the general public responds to other bands/artists participating in the market this way. Pretty soon, the music industry might not have much of a choice.
Both Sides Agree on Net Neutrality
When it comes to free speech, both sides agree that the more freedom the better. It is something that people on either side of the spectrum, speficially bloggers, can agree about. Any possible that restricts specific content is bad for both sides. The statements by Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America during a hearing on Net Neutrality and free speech on the internet prove this point.
The coalition went as far as protecting NARAL, the pro-choice advocacy group, when Verizon Wireless bocked them sending content out to their subscribers. Verizon wireless eventually backed down after the New York Time's picked up the story and pushed Verizon's inappropriate actions out into the public's awareness. They also pointed out AT&T blocking political speech during a Pearl Jam concert and Comcast blocking access to the bible using file-sharing technology.
When people pick up the phone, the expectation is that their content will not be blocked, and this concept should spread as the access and capabilities of communication via technology spread. A statement from the hearing confirms this:
The coalition went as far as protecting NARAL, the pro-choice advocacy group, when Verizon Wireless bocked them sending content out to their subscribers. Verizon wireless eventually backed down after the New York Time's picked up the story and pushed Verizon's inappropriate actions out into the public's awareness. They also pointed out AT&T blocking political speech during a Pearl Jam concert and Comcast blocking access to the bible using file-sharing technology.
When people pick up the phone, the expectation is that their content will not be blocked, and this concept should spread as the access and capabilities of communication via technology spread. A statement from the hearing confirms this:
"If phone companies cannot tell Americans what to say on a phone call, why should they be able to control content or tell us what to say or send in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else?
Looks like we will have to fight for the complete freedom of speech once again, but history tells us that something like Net Neutrality will win out, lucky for us.
Public Broadcasting in the U.S.
Something I did not realize was the difference between the state of public broadcasting in the U.S. and public broadcasting in foreign countries. Even the stations and airwaves that are supposed to be reserved as a true public forum and a safe place to report on just about anything fail to be so in the United States.
In class we referenced a Canadia study on public broadcasting that noted we pay only about $4.92/citizen in the U.S. for funding toward public broadcasting, which is nearly 20 times lower than the average for most other countries. I couldn't find a link for this study, unfortunately.
The real problem with public broadcasting is that the funding is not isolted, but rather appropriated by the government. Therefore there are certain restrictions for the broadcast, because otherwise they know they won't receive the full amount of funding if they are, for example, criticizing the policies of the government. On top of that, the amount of money received is not enough and they have to go to big corporations, like GE, in order to make up the rest of the money.
There are solutions to this. Jeff Cohen spoke about how if there was a simple tax on television sales or if big corporations had to pay a tax on the television stations they own, then there would be significantly more money coming into public broadcasting. Maybe even more important than the amount of money would be that the money would have to isolated in order for public broadcasting to have real freedom with their reporting. A better public broadcasting system would do wonders for truly educating on country on the real issues. It is necessary to have something like this, especially during such a crisis like our country is facing now. It seems almost necessary to democracy to have fair and properly funded public broadcasting.
In class we referenced a Canadia study on public broadcasting that noted we pay only about $4.92/citizen in the U.S. for funding toward public broadcasting, which is nearly 20 times lower than the average for most other countries. I couldn't find a link for this study, unfortunately.
The real problem with public broadcasting is that the funding is not isolted, but rather appropriated by the government. Therefore there are certain restrictions for the broadcast, because otherwise they know they won't receive the full amount of funding if they are, for example, criticizing the policies of the government. On top of that, the amount of money received is not enough and they have to go to big corporations, like GE, in order to make up the rest of the money.
There are solutions to this. Jeff Cohen spoke about how if there was a simple tax on television sales or if big corporations had to pay a tax on the television stations they own, then there would be significantly more money coming into public broadcasting. Maybe even more important than the amount of money would be that the money would have to isolated in order for public broadcasting to have real freedom with their reporting. A better public broadcasting system would do wonders for truly educating on country on the real issues. It is necessary to have something like this, especially during such a crisis like our country is facing now. It seems almost necessary to democracy to have fair and properly funded public broadcasting.
Number of Bloggers in the U.S.
Business Insider posted an interesting article stating that there are as many paid bloggers in the U.S. as their are lawyers. Those numbers seems surprising, but regardless show how fast blogging became a viable career for many. It also provides a real opportunity for up and coming journalists to enter the debate and have a chance to be taken seriously, which just wasn't possible before.
As bloggers have increased in numbers, the number of journalists has significantly declined. In Washington alone
, there are now 79% fewer DC-based employees of major newspapers than there were just few years ago.
, there are now 79% fewer DC-based employees of major newspapers than there were just few years ago.The article goes on to continue to explain that journalism isn't dying, but rather is simply becoming more efficient. Although the long term effects of trimming down journalism, negative or positive, have yet to be seen in such an uncertain time.
A Chat with Amanda Michel
Chatting with former Off the Bus editor Amanda Michel, who is now working for propublica, was a great opportunity to get inside the world of citizen journalism.
Mayhill Fowler was the citizen journalist that got Bill Clinton to go off on Purdum for the article written in Vanity Fair. (The whole story here). She approached him after a rally as he walked down the red roped line and spoke to who he assumed were all Hillary Clinton supporters. Since that time with someone like Bill Clinton at a rally is so short, Mayhill didn't have enough time to identify herself as a reporter. Although I think it is always best to identify oneself as a reporter when it is appropriate, it does not mean Mayhill was going against journalistic ethics and standards. She did not try to trick the former president or approach him in a private setting, but rather at a public rally where he should be accountable for his words. Maybe her question was a little leading, but politicians are responsible for whatever comes out of their mouths, not just their thirty second sound bites that are put on the nightly news.
Michel spoke about how Fowler received a lot of public criticism for reporting the infamous Huffington Post "bittergate" story, regarding Obama's comment about rural pennsylvania. Many people felt that Fowler betrayed democrats by reporting this story, however a real independent journalist is not afraid of blowing this whistle on both sides when necessary. This was something the public should know about and it shouldn't be kept secret for fear of messing up a political candidate's campaign.
Michel also talked about how people showed up at Fowler's house and she was being attacked as an individual reporter, something that mainstream journalist don't have to worry about as much. I thought Michel's point about having a news organization backing you up was interesting and something I had not fully considered before hearing her talk about it. Citizen journalists, those who are truly seeking the truth, do enter themselves into the public eye and must realize the potential danger they are putting themselves in, especially those with a large readership, who have a certain expectation about content. Jeremy Scahill faced similar obstacles when he began criticizing Obama's picks for cabinet members.
Mayhill Fowler was the citizen journalist that got Bill Clinton to go off on Purdum for the article written in Vanity Fair. (The whole story here). She approached him after a rally as he walked down the red roped line and spoke to who he assumed were all Hillary Clinton supporters. Since that time with someone like Bill Clinton at a rally is so short, Mayhill didn't have enough time to identify herself as a reporter. Although I think it is always best to identify oneself as a reporter when it is appropriate, it does not mean Mayhill was going against journalistic ethics and standards. She did not try to trick the former president or approach him in a private setting, but rather at a public rally where he should be accountable for his words. Maybe her question was a little leading, but politicians are responsible for whatever comes out of their mouths, not just their thirty second sound bites that are put on the nightly news.
Michel spoke about how Fowler received a lot of public criticism for reporting the infamous Huffington Post "bittergate" story, regarding Obama's comment about rural pennsylvania. Many people felt that Fowler betrayed democrats by reporting this story, however a real independent journalist is not afraid of blowing this whistle on both sides when necessary. This was something the public should know about and it shouldn't be kept secret for fear of messing up a political candidate's campaign.
Michel also talked about how people showed up at Fowler's house and she was being attacked as an individual reporter, something that mainstream journalist don't have to worry about as much. I thought Michel's point about having a news organization backing you up was interesting and something I had not fully considered before hearing her talk about it. Citizen journalists, those who are truly seeking the truth, do enter themselves into the public eye and must realize the potential danger they are putting themselves in, especially those with a large readership, who have a certain expectation about content. Jeremy Scahill faced similar obstacles when he began criticizing Obama's picks for cabinet members.
...And Go Where the Silence Is
Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald spoke downtown at Ithaca's state theatre as they both accepted the first ever Izzy Award, in honor of the late and great independent journalist Izzy Stone. Both had great things to say about the path that independent media is paving and seemed to have high hopes about where it is going next.
One of my favorite portions of Amy Goodman's speech was when she showed the video of her calling out Chris Matthews during the MSNBC birthday celebration about the firing of Phil Donahue for his anti-war political views. (Watch it here.) I thought it was so great that Amy Goodman chose to use her time on MSNBC to point out their true bias for the war as many mainstream media outlets at the time were participating in. It shows that Amy is willing to put her own career on the line and maybe upset some people to get her point across, she is truly not afraid of the reprecusisons of speaking out against the voices of the mainstream media. Her intelligence and perseverance to give a voice to what would be silent is something all up and coming as well as current journalists should aspire to.
Glenn Greenwald could have said nothing else other than the quote (Greenwald also blogged about this topic.) from Newsweek's Evan Thomas, as he tries to explain his view of the role of journalists in society:
As a journalism and politics major, this is exactly what I would define as the opposite of a journalists role. I almost couldn't believe it when he read the quote. There it was, a mainstream journalist admitting what their role has been over the past decade and seeing it as a contribution to society! I was glad to see the reaction of the audience was clearly as aghast as I was. I guess I should stop being surprised at the mainstream media's true agenda. I would have love to asked Lester Holt to respond to this statement and hear what his response would have been.
Glenn Greenwald also boldly stated "There's no way to be a journalist without being independent." (Check out the article from CommonDreams written about the event.) Greenwald explained that journalism by definition needs to be independent in order to be useful to the rest of society. If journalist's work is placed within certain perimeters, because of a larger corporate ownership or funding from big donors with strings attached, then what kind of real content will be produced? We would end up with corporate agenda pushing media, which is what our mainstrem media seems to be comprised of now.
As cynical as I get the more I learn about the media's situation in our county, it is nothing less than refreshing to know there are other options and other business models for journalism that actually work. There is definitely lots of opportunity floating around the journalism world. The public needs to continue pushing for these other options and not just settle with what they give us.
One of my favorite portions of Amy Goodman's speech was when she showed the video of her calling out Chris Matthews during the MSNBC birthday celebration about the firing of Phil Donahue for his anti-war political views. (Watch it here.) I thought it was so great that Amy Goodman chose to use her time on MSNBC to point out their true bias for the war as many mainstream media outlets at the time were participating in. It shows that Amy is willing to put her own career on the line and maybe upset some people to get her point across, she is truly not afraid of the reprecusisons of speaking out against the voices of the mainstream media. Her intelligence and perseverance to give a voice to what would be silent is something all up and coming as well as current journalists should aspire to.
Glenn Greenwald could have said nothing else other than the quote (Greenwald also blogged about this topic.) from Newsweek's Evan Thomas, as he tries to explain his view of the role of journalists in society:
"By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring."
As a journalism and politics major, this is exactly what I would define as the opposite of a journalists role. I almost couldn't believe it when he read the quote. There it was, a mainstream journalist admitting what their role has been over the past decade and seeing it as a contribution to society! I was glad to see the reaction of the audience was clearly as aghast as I was. I guess I should stop being surprised at the mainstream media's true agenda. I would have love to asked Lester Holt to respond to this statement and hear what his response would have been.
Glenn Greenwald also boldly stated "There's no way to be a journalist without being independent." (Check out the article from CommonDreams written about the event.) Greenwald explained that journalism by definition needs to be independent in order to be useful to the rest of society. If journalist's work is placed within certain perimeters, because of a larger corporate ownership or funding from big donors with strings attached, then what kind of real content will be produced? We would end up with corporate agenda pushing media, which is what our mainstrem media seems to be comprised of now.
As cynical as I get the more I learn about the media's situation in our county, it is nothing less than refreshing to know there are other options and other business models for journalism that actually work. There is definitely lots of opportunity floating around the journalism world. The public needs to continue pushing for these other options and not just settle with what they give us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)