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.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, March 20, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, March 2, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)