An idea that has dictated many laws, regulations, and court cases since the airwaves started being used is that they belong to the public.
This has been shown through the requirement of public, free-access stations both for television and radio. While radio remained free, somehow television had grown in a different direction.
Television has become a more exclusive club. There needs to be a basic package to even get any information to your home, and between phone service, internet, and cable, most pay more for cable than the other two combined.
The exception, for a long time, has been PBS. Sure, few to none watch it on a regular basis, but it brought television entertainment to anyone who seeked it out. It was there for everyone, regardless of class or means.
That is the definition of public access, being accessible to the general public unconditionally. One would think that belonging to the public would mean public taxes would go to help support the art. One would be wrong.
Well, currently they would be right, but not for long. Because of PBS's low ratings, promotion, and interest, many are trying to cut it's federal funding to as little as possible, or even none at all.
Then, what would happen to those airwaves? They'd probably be sold to become another conglomerate.
If PBS was given enough funding or fund raising, it would have the potential to be a great alternative to mainstream news and programming. But I guess we will never know.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Mainstream Praised, Indpendent Criticized
To cut right to the chase, if Mayhill Fowler had been a mainstream reporter, there would be no controversy.
She asked a question, with a recorder in open site, and he answered. It was clear from the comments that people were trying to calm him down, but he wanted to say what he wanted to say. Clinton had no intention of stopping his tirade against the author of the Vanity Fair article.
The main point of discussion among the mainstream media about this incident was that Fowler didn't identify herself as a reporter. But shouldn't a person as politically savvy as Bill Clinton know not to go on a rant like that even in front of only a supporter?
Shouldn't he know not to go off like that when there is a tape recorder in his face? It was a failure of his own composure, not of independent journalism.
Also, it's not like the mainstream press doesn't do things like this on its own. Reporters often frame questions in a way that will provoke the answer that they want to hear, and they often print that response as well. But when a blogger does it, it is suddenly unprofessional.
The mainstream media prides "if you said it, I'm going to print it," but not when it comes to independent journalists, apparently.
It would be different if what she did was so outside journalistic practices, but it wasn't. Mainstream media provokes all the time. They go under cover and don't always tell people they're reporters. But this was so different why? Because they didn't have the courage to ask that question themselves?
It is a double standard that for an independent outlet to get the same kind of recognition they must be better, almost more "professional" than the mainstream in order to be taken seriously. Hopefully as the number of blogs and online media outlets grows, that will change.
She asked a question, with a recorder in open site, and he answered. It was clear from the comments that people were trying to calm him down, but he wanted to say what he wanted to say. Clinton had no intention of stopping his tirade against the author of the Vanity Fair article.
The main point of discussion among the mainstream media about this incident was that Fowler didn't identify herself as a reporter. But shouldn't a person as politically savvy as Bill Clinton know not to go on a rant like that even in front of only a supporter?
Shouldn't he know not to go off like that when there is a tape recorder in his face? It was a failure of his own composure, not of independent journalism.
Also, it's not like the mainstream press doesn't do things like this on its own. Reporters often frame questions in a way that will provoke the answer that they want to hear, and they often print that response as well. But when a blogger does it, it is suddenly unprofessional.
The mainstream media prides "if you said it, I'm going to print it," but not when it comes to independent journalists, apparently.
It would be different if what she did was so outside journalistic practices, but it wasn't. Mainstream media provokes all the time. They go under cover and don't always tell people they're reporters. But this was so different why? Because they didn't have the courage to ask that question themselves?
It is a double standard that for an independent outlet to get the same kind of recognition they must be better, almost more "professional" than the mainstream in order to be taken seriously. Hopefully as the number of blogs and online media outlets grows, that will change.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Difference Between Flop and Viral
YouTube has been used for a variety of things since it first came to being. With everything from cat videos to actual news, it gives people a product they can't get enough of. While a lot of this is animals doing silly things or other videos like that, YouTube has inadvertently given way to promotion of independent journalism.
Many independent media outlets have used YouTube for their videos, if for no other reason than to merely get them on the internet so they can be more easily embedded onto their individual websites.
While there were blogs earlier for those wanting to being their own print journalism, there wasn't a medium yet for those who wanted to so broadcast. YouTube gave people that avenue, without needing to buy a channel or be accepted by the mainstream.
The subject of the article we read, Mr. Buckley, worked his way into a full-time job with a YouTube show. He said that he was putting about 40 hours of work a week into his show for almost a year before he began seeing any kind of revenue stream.
In this sense, I think it is more difficult to get an online TV show going than it is to get a blog. You can do a good blog several times a day to generate an audience, but you would have to work around the clock to get that same amount of content up in video form.
Therefore, you need to have better quality content than the blogs out there, otherwise they will go where there is more. There are also more costs involved if you want to do it well, like camera and lighting equipment.
I think this is why we don't see them as often. There are several blogs that have come up with a lot of support, but the same can't be said for independent news in video form. While the initial costs may be more, it also seems as though the potential to make money is higher, with individuals making 6 figures.
Just another medium that is learning to adjust with the internet.
Many independent media outlets have used YouTube for their videos, if for no other reason than to merely get them on the internet so they can be more easily embedded onto their individual websites.
While there were blogs earlier for those wanting to being their own print journalism, there wasn't a medium yet for those who wanted to so broadcast. YouTube gave people that avenue, without needing to buy a channel or be accepted by the mainstream.
The subject of the article we read, Mr. Buckley, worked his way into a full-time job with a YouTube show. He said that he was putting about 40 hours of work a week into his show for almost a year before he began seeing any kind of revenue stream.
In this sense, I think it is more difficult to get an online TV show going than it is to get a blog. You can do a good blog several times a day to generate an audience, but you would have to work around the clock to get that same amount of content up in video form.
Therefore, you need to have better quality content than the blogs out there, otherwise they will go where there is more. There are also more costs involved if you want to do it well, like camera and lighting equipment.
I think this is why we don't see them as often. There are several blogs that have come up with a lot of support, but the same can't be said for independent news in video form. While the initial costs may be more, it also seems as though the potential to make money is higher, with individuals making 6 figures.
Just another medium that is learning to adjust with the internet.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Transparcey Trumps False Objectivity
The David Weinberger piece made several very good points. His basic point is that where bloggers lack in objectivity, they more than make up for with transparency. That is true, but I would go one step further and argue that there is no such thing as objectivity.
Everyone has biases. One of the great facades of journalism is that reporters supposedly have none. It may not be overt, or even visible, but they have opinions, and it affects their perspective. Everyone has different life experiences, and those experiences have a huge influence on how you view the world and different situations.
Those views exist. They don't merely turn off because you become a journalist. Most are good at masking it, but it can affect things like word selection, shaping a particular opinion or picture in the reader's mind.
What makes up for that bias is being open about it so readers know what the context of your work is. The internet, and specifically blogs, makes that possible. In fact, it demands it, because otherwise the readers will turn on you.
It reminds me a lot of the trailer for a new show coming out on HBO called The Newsroom, written by Aaron Sorkin. Looks like a news anchor has a breakdown in the pilot when giving his ACTUAL opinion, something he had always hidden for the integrity of his career. Should be a good one!
Everyone has biases. One of the great facades of journalism is that reporters supposedly have none. It may not be overt, or even visible, but they have opinions, and it affects their perspective. Everyone has different life experiences, and those experiences have a huge influence on how you view the world and different situations.
Those views exist. They don't merely turn off because you become a journalist. Most are good at masking it, but it can affect things like word selection, shaping a particular opinion or picture in the reader's mind.
What makes up for that bias is being open about it so readers know what the context of your work is. The internet, and specifically blogs, makes that possible. In fact, it demands it, because otherwise the readers will turn on you.
It reminds me a lot of the trailer for a new show coming out on HBO called The Newsroom, written by Aaron Sorkin. Looks like a news anchor has a breakdown in the pilot when giving his ACTUAL opinion, something he had always hidden for the integrity of his career. Should be a good one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)