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!
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wikileaks: Independent or Illegal?
Wikileaks brings up one of the best arguments of our time about mainstream vs independent media. Mainstream media has helped the assault on Wikileaks, probably because they aren't the one getting the scoop.
The legal attacks on Wikileaks would never happen to a mainstream outlet. In fact, is doesn't, because of Time v US, the Supreme Court case regarding the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
Through that litigation, the Court established that the only party who can be prosecuted for releasing classified information is the person who actually leaks it. The publication who runs it is protected under the first amendment.
This precedent has protected publications time and time again when they spread damning information and protect whistle-blowers. However, the publication had always been mainstream media.
Since Wikileaks is online-based and an independent outlet, it has taken harsher scrutiny for its publishing. There have been multiple attempts to get it off the internet under national security claims from different countries. They wouldn't be able to make the same claims with the New York Times.
It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with this most recent Bradley case with Wikileaks. If they decide not to give Wikileaks the same protection as they do mainstream outlets, it could be disastrous for interdependent investigative journalism.
The legal attacks on Wikileaks would never happen to a mainstream outlet. In fact, is doesn't, because of Time v US, the Supreme Court case regarding the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
Through that litigation, the Court established that the only party who can be prosecuted for releasing classified information is the person who actually leaks it. The publication who runs it is protected under the first amendment.
This precedent has protected publications time and time again when they spread damning information and protect whistle-blowers. However, the publication had always been mainstream media.
Since Wikileaks is online-based and an independent outlet, it has taken harsher scrutiny for its publishing. There have been multiple attempts to get it off the internet under national security claims from different countries. They wouldn't be able to make the same claims with the New York Times.
It will be interesting to see how the courts deal with this most recent Bradley case with Wikileaks. If they decide not to give Wikileaks the same protection as they do mainstream outlets, it could be disastrous for interdependent investigative journalism.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Legal Insurrection: Doing It Right
The common belief with blogging is that anyone can do it and be successful. While that's somewhat true, not just "anyone" can do it, which becomes more clear when seeing how much hard work William Jacobson puts into Legal Insurrection.
As of 2:10 on a Saturday afternoon, there are already 4 new posts today on the site. They aren't particularly long or in depth, but they deliver the news and add some opinion, but not so much that it will drastically turn anyone off.
That constant update of information of the day's hottest topics is what you need to do in order to build and maintain an audience with so many option on the internet. Sure, "anyone" can do it, but they need to have the dedication and work ethic to make it really successful.
What Jacobson also does well with this site is getting the advertising space in without it being overwhelming. There is a clear column where you can keep your eyes to see all of the content, so you are not bombarded by ads.
Likewise, the "donate" section is extremely visible and easy to navigate. You can do it all right on the site and can chose your own amount to donate.
The layout is welcoming, the content strong, and has many options to go to other featured sites within Legal Insurrection. It is a great model to use for others trying to be successful as well.
As of 2:10 on a Saturday afternoon, there are already 4 new posts today on the site. They aren't particularly long or in depth, but they deliver the news and add some opinion, but not so much that it will drastically turn anyone off.
That constant update of information of the day's hottest topics is what you need to do in order to build and maintain an audience with so many option on the internet. Sure, "anyone" can do it, but they need to have the dedication and work ethic to make it really successful.
What Jacobson also does well with this site is getting the advertising space in without it being overwhelming. There is a clear column where you can keep your eyes to see all of the content, so you are not bombarded by ads.
Likewise, the "donate" section is extremely visible and easy to navigate. You can do it all right on the site and can chose your own amount to donate.
The layout is welcoming, the content strong, and has many options to go to other featured sites within Legal Insurrection. It is a great model to use for others trying to be successful as well.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Independent Media Center
I was curious about how the mainstream media viewed independent media, so I did a basic Google search on independent media to see if any articles had been written about it (which would have surprised me).
Instead, what I found was the website for the Independent Media Center.
It is an organization comprised of many independent media outlets and journalists to cover issues not getting enough attention around the world. It is translated into eight different languages.
There are no advertisements, exept for a small one toward the bottom of the page. The "support us" button is difficult to find as well. However, the site explains how you can volunteer, and also what the money you are donating will go to. Hopefully that makes people feel better about helping the cause.
There is a list on the left sidebar of separate cities you can look at the news from. None of these include U.S. cities, which emphasizes the fact that this site has an international focus.
They make use of multimedia, with a video channel and contributions beyond just text. However, the site is a little dark-looking, and possibly not the most welcoming looking site to get some of this information.
Instead, what I found was the website for the Independent Media Center.
It is an organization comprised of many independent media outlets and journalists to cover issues not getting enough attention around the world. It is translated into eight different languages.
There are no advertisements, exept for a small one toward the bottom of the page. The "support us" button is difficult to find as well. However, the site explains how you can volunteer, and also what the money you are donating will go to. Hopefully that makes people feel better about helping the cause.
There is a list on the left sidebar of separate cities you can look at the news from. None of these include U.S. cities, which emphasizes the fact that this site has an international focus.
They make use of multimedia, with a video channel and contributions beyond just text. However, the site is a little dark-looking, and possibly not the most welcoming looking site to get some of this information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)