Open Forum in the United States: Not Like Britain

Politics in the United States has always seemed to be a behind-closed-doors operation, as the government has been involved with scandal after scandal for many years now, whether it be with Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. Such a private world is not typically seen in other parts of the world, as democracy is supposed to be America's things, but other nations have been utilizing the system much better.

In a 2003 open forum type of interview with Jeremy Paxman and British citizens, Tony Blair gave honest responses and had the courage to face his nation in a way that was not benefiting him. This type of courageous behavior would not be found in America, as the fear of saying something that might not benefit a campaign or would upset the general public is something that keeps politicians from speaking frankly. 

Independent media outlets seem to be the only option in America for people to speak openly on topics that are not typically touched. These journalists have the ability to speak out against the government and truly question what is going on in this country. They are the ones that push the envelope and question everything. 

In terms of the future, it is safe to say that this type of open forum discussion with politicians will never happen in the United States, as fear of the public's response is overwhelming. I would laud Blair for coming out and speaking candidly to the public without prepared questions to help him, and I would hope that Britain received his courageousness well.

Unfortunately, the scrutiny involved with politics in the United States is too overwhelming for any political figurehead to step out and go against what is traditionally done to boost their reputation. 

Does Comedy Speak Wide Volumes?

The popular shows brining light to all things political with hosts Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have become a way to inform citizens on what's going on while adding an element of entertainment to the content. With Colbert and Stewart making their way off of comedy central, one question it raises is whether or not this type of television programming is worthy of being considered viable news?

While it is true that these shows do not break any news, they provide a crucial commentary on what's going on with the world. They have the courage to truly question the status quo of the big name television networks. The fact that they provide a comedic element makes it easier to watch, but I also think that what they are saying should be viewed as having high merit because their take on the world is often a fresh take and truthful.

Now shifting to other names with similar content, John Oliver recently had a rant on net neutrality that essentially put the controversial topic in simplest form for viewers. His rant made it seem like the government was not making the simple choice on the matter, which is often the way that Colbert and Stewart produced their content. By being a realist in his commentary, Oliver provides a unique perspective on the matter.

Hopefully, this evolution of comedy and politics will continue to evolve as it makes often dull content very entertaining for the traditional viewer.

Living in the Smear World

American Journalism has evolved quite a bit since Publick Occurrences was published back in 1690. That paper was published under extremely dangerous circumstances, and it was put to an end after just one issue, because of influence from a higher power. All of the journalism in that paper was courageous, because the writers and editors were working under uncertain circumstances.

Fast forward 325 years and the hard-hitting television news broadcasts of TMZ and E! News are driving the American media. What happened? Reporting on matters important to national security has now turned into reporting on who is dating who in Hollywood. It is outrageous that viewers in today's modern society are more interested in soft news that will not make an impact on anything significant.

Especially interesting stories stem from gossip and rumors, which is seen in a Drudge Report article on a potential Bill Clinton child. While reading this article, consumers will notice that no hard journalism is seen in the page, only quotes from the rumored mother of the child, which just continue the rumors. At no point in the article is it mentioned that this is probably just a scheme to try and get some money from the woman. The idea of this scandal is more important to run with then reporting on a realistic basis.

It can be admitted that I am not a hypocrite on this matter, as pieces like this interest as well, which just shows how poor the journalism has been during my maturation process. Growing up seeing stories involving celebrity gossip and other soft journalism has destroyed this generation's sense of quality journalism, which is an irreversible characteristic.

As long as the money is there with these types of stories, they will be around for a long time. Fear for the upcoming generation is quite high as intellectual journalism continues to be removed from the mainstream media.

Should I Post This?

Once in a while, whether a journalist is covering a political campaign, local sports or what have you, the individual they are interviewing will say something that cites a grand reaction. In one of the more well-known instances of this, Bill Clinton says some particularly scathing comments on a reporter. Those comments were recorded by another reporter, Mayhill Fowler, and were put to press.

Typically, it is fine for this to go to press, but the issue brought up was that Clinton said these things at a private function and it can be said that Clinton was not aware that he was talking to a journalist, especially one that wrote for such a powerful media outlet like the Huffington Post. It is a matter of journalistic ethics, and Fowler was put into question as to whether she handled the situation using proper ethics and if she should have posted the intense interview.

In my mind, there are some parts to the story that lead me to believe that she did not do everything properly in terms of attaining that information. She was in a scrum with many other people, so it is understandable that she did not state her name and where she was from, but I would not have asked such questions to incite a reaction like the one she got from Clinton. If you are trying to get a specific angle that can incite such hostility, I would let the person know who I was, so they do not do anything that they would regret, just as a matter of courtesy.

I have covered a college hockey game before for USCHO.com where a coach said something critical of the officiating from the game during a post-game interview. Under the rules of the conference for which the team competes, criticism of officials can result in punishment, whether by fine or suspension. I was the only member of the media interviewing this coach, so I was presented with a tough dilemma: Do I go to print with this criticism, or do I write about something else? The coach would know who I was and he would know that I was the only one with that audio, so it would be difficult to speak with this coach again if he got fined or suspended.

I decided to keep the audio to myself and not risk getting a bad reputation with that coach. I know this example does not fall hand-in-hand with the dilemma presented to Fowler, but I think it is fair to say that she will not get any type of inside scoop with Clinton.

Trying to be on the Team from the Sidelines

In the sporting world, fans and media members alike tend to get too into the team that they are following and act in a manner that is consistent with a member of the actual team. Getting worked up to the point that biases are created is a terrible form of reporting if you are indeed a member of the media. Not only in sports is this type of behavior exhibited, as shown in an article written by Jeff Cohen on reporting from CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin that shows a bias exhibited towards the United States government.

When discussing tactics that the American government should look to implement, Sorkin uses the phrase "we" which would say that he is a member of the U.S. government and he is just as important in the decision making process as the actual government. As noted by Cohen in his piece, "last time I checked, Sorkin was working for the Times and CNBC, not the CIA or FBI," said Cohen. It is not professional to seemingly get so enamored with a certain organization that your ability to report unbiased content is affected.

Through Sorkin's inappropriate language, it is clear that he is openly trying to associate himself with the U.S. government, which is an example of poor reporting that can be compared to the sporting world. An example of correcting this unprofessional behavior of cheering for an unaffiliated entity is actually found through some of my own personal experience.

When I was a senior in high school, I shadowed a local sports writer. One of the events that we covered on multiple occasions was the local minor league hockey team, which is my favorite hockey team and I have been a fan since boyhood. During a game, the team scored and I openly cheered from my press box location. I was told that was unprofessional behavior and I can't do that again. I was shamed to the point that I have never cheered for something from a press box location ever again, which has now included three years of covering the Cornell men's hockey team. If someone were to ask me about the Cornell team, I would say I am not a fan, but I hope they are successful. At no point would I say the pronoun "we." Hopefully, Sorkin can learn to follow that type of behavior as well in order to increase his credibility.

YouTube Stardom and Separating True Journalism from Smut

In the 21st century, there are many ways to achieve stardom, including some forms of fame that would not even be considered as near back as ten years ago.

YouTube has developed into an outlet that can create extreme fame, and now even fortune, due to the online application's ability to reach millions upon millions of viewers. Countless examples of personalities that strive on the outlet are all over the world, but fame from YouTube can often be found through silly things.

Michael Buckley, who hosts the YouTube show "What the Buck?" has developed a vast following based off of his abrasive and loud personality. An article by The New York Times' Brian Stelter shows just how Buckley made a fortune from working in his home and producing a limited number of videos.

While it is impressive that Buckley no longer needs to maintain a job outside of his videos, it also shows what a good portion of the world is looking for in terms of the content that they are consuming. Buckley's videos do not have any hard-hitting journalistic value and the type of content that he produces can be closely related to that of Perez Hilton, which is not typically considered a compliment.

So much of what grabs the attention of consumers in today's world is that loud and open personality, which is what Buckley has. He is not necessarily making a difference with what he says, but viewers keep on coming back to him because of his personality.

Popularity for this type of content is not a positive sign for the media landscape of America. A focus on more feature type stories and real journalism needs to be established in order to eliminate the paparazzi culture of spreading rumors and not providing factual information that is relevant to the lives of America's citizens.

Who is a Journalist in 2015?

The definition of who a journalist is has no concrete explanation in my mind. Anyone in the world that has internet access can report news in today's world, which is a controversial media landscape in my mind. It is up to the consumers of news to trust certain media outlets that follow the upstanding ethics of journalism. In my mind, I would define a journalist in 2015 based off of their intentions.

I personally maintain a separate blog from this for my own interest, and produce content for a college hockey website and participate heavily in student media, but does that make me a journalist. I would like to think it does, because of the intentions in which I produce my content. I am not creating information for rumors, gossip or just senseless bits of content that do not create any relevant news. With the advances in blogging and other online sites, the question of whether or not those writers are considered journalists is heating up right now, and I would like to think that those bloggers with newsworthy intentions should indeed be considered journalists.

A recent article by The Oregonian gives an example of a blogger that had a hard time fighting for his right to be called a journalist. The blogger in question, Mark Bunster, was asked to leave a political hearing, because he was not considered a member of the news media, even though he produces content related to the political world in Oregon.

I believe that Mr. Bunster should absolutely be considered a member of the news media, because he is creating content that is considered newsworthy to the general public. It is absurd to think that just because his content is not being produced in print, he has been denied similar rights in the media to those outlets that produce content that can be physically held. Today's world and the future is all about digital content, and there needs to be more opportunities for those digital producers to create content that can often be less restricted by corporate interests.

I honestly think that this "digital media discrimination" will not last, because content is so digital in today's world and it is progressing down a similar road. Print is dying, and there needs to be more acceptance of digital producers of similar content.

Net Neutrality for Dummies

There have been two recent topics of debate that have been all over the news over the past few years, and I have little to no idea what they mean. Those two are fracking and net neutrality. I have started to understand what fracking is after having it explained to me on a couple (many) occasions. Now, with that being said, if you were to ask me right now "what is fracking?" I would skirt the question, so let's just move on to discuss net neutrality.

When the basic aspects of net neutrality were explained to me, I did not understand, because I just assumed that the internet is free, as long as you have a connection to it. Apparently, the internet is not as much of a wild west as one would imagine, and the future of free internet is in jeopardy.

According to an American Civil Liberties Union article on the topic of net neutrality, there are a few major service providers that dictate how the internet is run and which services remain free. The issue right now is that there is some content out in the world that those service providers want to slow down. A recent issue with this blocking of services is highlighted in a Common Dreams article that discusses how the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL had a text message subscription service for users to update them on information regarding the group.

It is absurd that the service was blocked, because that is taking a clear stance on the issue of abortion rights by the service company, and it is also blocking a service that was willingly delivered to users. This is another instance of corporate takeover, and something needs to be done to slow down this trend, in order to maintain the ethics of free speech untainted.

Since this is an independent media blog, the issue of how those independent media sites are affected by net neutrality is worth mentioning. Again, in this corporate world where the conglomerates set the agenda in the media, independent media is already an underdog strictly because they don't have the cash to truly make an impact on the general public. If this conglomerate power continues in the net neutrality game, then independent media sites will start to be harder to access, as the ability to set the agenda is so important for these media giants and if they can eliminate the nay-sayers, they will do it in a heartbeat.

Hopefully this helps with the issue of net neutrality, it is a big dog's game and the government is in charge of slowing down their power in order to keep free speech truly free.

Future of Independent Media - Setting the Agenda

Are you busy right now? No? Flip on CNN for a few minutes, I'll wait...

Notice how there wasn't anything on there that really questioned what was going on? You can say that is was good coverage and they covered whatever event was going on with due diligence, but that was not really the best that they could do because of corporate influence. The major media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, etc. set the tone for what is discussed in the media.

A change needs to be made in American media. Commercialism and the never ending search for more money has established a journalism culture in today's society that restrains major media outlets from really speaking their minds. Only independent media outlets, which do not have any flashy corporate sponsors that need to kept happy, are reporting on the serious issues with a truly unbiased opinion.

While the major outlets are reporting what is happening, they are not always reporting everything, certain bits of information are often kept out of reports, because setting the agenda in a manner that most benefits themselves is more important that journalism integrity. If only compensation was given for wholesome and unbiased reporting, but the world that we live in, and the world we will always live in, will be commercialized with a corporate bias.

With conglomerations, almost everything that you find on TV is being brought to you by a higher source. ESPN is the best example of this world of conglomerates, as they are owned by Disney. Everything done at ESPN is consciously done in the best interest of their owners, as they need to keep the big boss happy in order to keep their jobs. Media personalities so well known for their outlandish views at ESPN, such as Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless will say things to stir the pot, but they are not actually causing any major controversies typically, because they need to keep their Mickey Mouse overlords pleased. Certain cases of suspensions have shown that some personalities can have the whip cracked on them, but that is just Disney flexing their muscles to make sure that everyone stays in line.

You never see independent media sources in the major news, because conglomerations are afraid to touch them, because those independent voices could change the media landscape in a manner that does not fall in line with the head honcho's vision. Unfortunately, this is not a system that is set to change, as money rules the world and those conglomerations have endless outlets to make sure that they continue to control to minds of American consumers.

Blog Money: How to get it

I recently read a few articles on how certain small businesses or nonprofits establish a system of sustainment financially. Although I do not like the system, they are sustained through asking for donations in order to keep their businesses alive. Brave New Films and nonprofits such as the Voice of San Diego, MinnPost and the Washington Independent are examples of media outlets that require funding help through their consumers.

While it is one thing to ask for donations for companies that can prove they are making a difference with the content that they are producing, it can be difficult for other media outlets that might not be breaking down any barriers with the content they are running. I run a sports fashion blog that currently has no revenue stream, Sports in Suede, and these articles stood out to me, because they are examples of success that started out at small levels. I just fear that I do not have the ability to do the same thing given the content that I am producing.

I am not running groundbreaking stories on hardship or anything that the aforementioned sources would run, I am running stories on what athletes are wearing and my opinion on it. It is a satirical blog, which is difficult to fund, unless the readers are greatly entertained. The current issue with my blog is that it does not have much of a reach. I have friends sending me material on what I should post, but I do not know of any consistent readers on the site. 

Reading these articles have made me wonder if I should ask for donations if I establish a large enough readership? More money would allow me to do a multitude of things in order provide a greater range of content on the site. Whether or not I have enough confidence in my material to go through with this venture is the only question left, but clearly Brave New Films and those nonprofit outlets believed in their content enough to take it to the next level.

George Seldes Sendoff

Often times in corny interviews being produced for fluff content, the question "Which person, alive or dead, would you most like to have dinner with?" While this question does not often come with an interesting response, George Seldes fits the bill as someone that would have an amazing hour long conversation.

The word "fearless" is throw around quite often when referring to journalists, but the true meaning of fearless journalism is recognizing the consequences, going through with it, while being respectful. As noted in the article published shortly after his death, "Seldes offended dictators and demagogues, press moguls and industrialists," through his work. He may not have been liked by all that he worked with, but it can be said that his work was fair and just.

With Seldes, the fear of losing a source did not seem to resonate with him, as some of the material he posted would lose his sources, such as his work on fascism. I would not have the same level of fearlessness as Seldes. A primary concern of mine that I constantly try to eliminate is publishing stories that benefit my sources too much; I want to make them happy and that is not proper journalism.

Seldes deserves the praise that he receives, because he is a true journalist in that he eliminates biases and reports the absolute truth, no matter the toll.

"Top Ten Ways Bradley Manning Changed the World" Reaction

Right away in the leading paragraph of the story done on Bradley Manning, the author makes it clear that the American government has a form of corruption that is not helping out the work of Manning. Being "found guilty of 20 counts, including espionage (despite the lack of evidence for intent to spy and the lack of evidence that his leaking ever did any real harm,)" is a clear violation of the court system, which makes the government seem corrupt against those that are trying to bring the truth to society.

There is something that I questioned myself while reading this article: "Why have I never heard of this man or any of the work he has done?" That is when I realized how important media framing is and the audience that is receiving this information. A lot of the stories that Manning posted from the article would not be considered appropriate to run with on any traditional news networks because of the fear of the government.

If fear can be eliminated from holding mainstream media networks from running with certain stories, that would better serve the public, because everyone deserves to know the entire truth. Unfortunately, independent media sources do not always bring in large audiences, so the message is not usually spread out very far, but change is always a possibility.

"A Grass-Roots Newscast Gives a Voice to Struggles" Reaction

I was intrigued to read about the struggles of operating an independently-run news network, because the funding and profit margins have always been a piece to those independents that has confused me. With network news, it is clear that they have to stick with a certain agenda, so they do not disturb a certain source or audience that they are broadcasting towards. With independent media, there are essentially no rules, because there is no authoritative source to tell them what they can and can not broadcast. One example used by the author, Brian Stelter, was how George Bush was being sued for letting four Canadian citizens be tortured. An independent media source would be the best source of information for this type of event, because they would give the hard news without the fluff that might be created if a network news company were to report on incidents of this nature involving the president of the United States.
It was also interesting to read about how certain people associated with these independent networks get paid. To hear about one correspondent getting paid out of pocket is not something you would hear if the story was done for NBC, ABC, CBS or any of the media conglomerates. All in all, I think independent media sources will typically have better information for their viewers, but their viewing audience is typically smaller and it is more difficult to advertise without the network dollars, making it difficult for them to spread the word about the great stories that they are doing.