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.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
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.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
"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.
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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)