"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.