Net neutrality is a principle that states that cable and phone companies should not censor information that travels along their lines. But these large companies are not following the principle.
In September 2007, Verizon didn't allow a pro-choice group to send a text-message campaign over its mobile network. Comcast didn't allow members of the public to upload content from BitTorrent in October 2007. AT&T has bleeped out lyrics from songs that were anti-Bush.
These large cable and phone companies don't like the Net Neutrality principle. They want to control the content that passes through their lines. They would also like to charge people different amounts for Internet service, according to Landel Hobbs, Chief Operating Officer or Time Warner Cable, here: http://a.longreply.com/109511.
We must not allow these companies get what they want. If we do, information will be controlled by large companies. Any information that they disagree with will not get to the public.
The only way for democracy to function is if the public is knowledgeable. How can the public be knowledgeable, if large companies control all the information? Simply put, it can't.
So lets protect democracy by making Net neutrality a law.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
YouTube Stars
YouTube has been able to make ordinary people stars. For example, the Numa Numa guy, "Leave Brittney Alone!" guy, dancing Matt and countless others. The star that sticks out in my mind is the guy who made the muffins video.
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tcR19y7GPM. A friend of mine showed it to me almost two years ago. She showed it to me, because a lot of people were talking about it. I didn't and still don't see what all the hype was about.
Can someone explain it to me? Thanks.
Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tcR19y7GPM. A friend of mine showed it to me almost two years ago. She showed it to me, because a lot of people were talking about it. I didn't and still don't see what all the hype was about.
Can someone explain it to me? Thanks.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Accuracy of the Drudge Report
I am amazed by how many people think that The Drudge Report is an accurate news source. On a number of occasions it has published lies.
On Jan. 1, 1999, it told the public that Bill Clinton may have fathered a boy named Danny Williams, and Matt Drudge believed the claim to be true. A DNA test proved that Clinton wasn't the father of Danny. The next day, Drudge posted this comment: "And while the elite media will bark that it was wrong to report the DNA chase that was unfolding behind the scenes--until after it was all over, of course--DRUDGE REPORT readers of all stripes have come to expect details on events rocking and shocking those unfortunate souls who rise to power."
In 2004, the Drudge Report claimed that Senator John Kerry, a presidential candidate at the time, had a "mystery relationship" with a young "intern." The intern in question was Alexandra Polier. On Feb. 16, 2004, Polier announced publicly that the story was "completely false."
On April 1, 2007, Drudge posted this on his web site: "During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct ‘outrageous,’ saying, ‘here you have two United States Senators in Baghdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."
Yet by viewing the video of the press conference on YouTube.com, anyone can see that Drudge’s claim is false. Ware never heckled McCain; he didn’t even speak during the press conference. Despite being mistaken, Drudge never posted a correction to his claim.
On Jan. 29, 2009, Drudge posted an AP article, which he entitled, “Hill Republicans: Stimulus Gives Cash to Illegals.” The article had the following quote from an anonymous source: “[t]he $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.” Later that day AP issued a revised version of that article, because it was found that the quote by the “top Republican congressional official” was false. According to mediamatters.org, it took Drudge four hours after the correction to be made for him to change the headline and post the revised version of the AP article.
As you can see, the Drudge Report has been wrong many times in the past. This does not surprise me after I read the following quote by Matt Drudge: "Screw journalism! The whole thing is a fraud anyway." Drudge clearly doesn't care about journalism or telling the truth. So people need to stop trusting him.
On Jan. 1, 1999, it told the public that Bill Clinton may have fathered a boy named Danny Williams, and Matt Drudge believed the claim to be true. A DNA test proved that Clinton wasn't the father of Danny. The next day, Drudge posted this comment: "And while the elite media will bark that it was wrong to report the DNA chase that was unfolding behind the scenes--until after it was all over, of course--DRUDGE REPORT readers of all stripes have come to expect details on events rocking and shocking those unfortunate souls who rise to power."
In 2004, the Drudge Report claimed that Senator John Kerry, a presidential candidate at the time, had a "mystery relationship" with a young "intern." The intern in question was Alexandra Polier. On Feb. 16, 2004, Polier announced publicly that the story was "completely false."
On April 1, 2007, Drudge posted this on his web site: "During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct ‘outrageous,’ saying, ‘here you have two United States Senators in Baghdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."
Yet by viewing the video of the press conference on YouTube.com, anyone can see that Drudge’s claim is false. Ware never heckled McCain; he didn’t even speak during the press conference. Despite being mistaken, Drudge never posted a correction to his claim.
On Jan. 29, 2009, Drudge posted an AP article, which he entitled, “Hill Republicans: Stimulus Gives Cash to Illegals.” The article had the following quote from an anonymous source: “[t]he $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.” Later that day AP issued a revised version of that article, because it was found that the quote by the “top Republican congressional official” was false. According to mediamatters.org, it took Drudge four hours after the correction to be made for him to change the headline and post the revised version of the AP article.
As you can see, the Drudge Report has been wrong many times in the past. This does not surprise me after I read the following quote by Matt Drudge: "Screw journalism! The whole thing is a fraud anyway." Drudge clearly doesn't care about journalism or telling the truth. So people need to stop trusting him.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Amanda Michel Speaks About Citizen Journalism
Amanda Michel spoke to my class via skype about her previous job at Off the Bus. (She now works for ProPublica.) She sees many advantages to having citizen journalists.
First, citizen journalists are able to find out information that professional journalists can't. For example, Mayhill Fowler was able to gain access to an Obama event that was closed off to mainstream journalists. At the event she heard Obama say that people in small Midwest and Pennsylvania towns are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy" as result of job losses. Mayhill made Obama's comment public by posting an article on Off the Bus.
Second, the number of citizens willing to report on what they hear and see is making gathering information on complex and vast topics easier. Right now, Michel is working on how the stimulus package is affecting cities and towns across the nation. She wouldn't be able to gather all that information with just a couple professional journalists at her disposal. She needs hundreds if not thousands of people doing research on the topic. That's where citizen journalists come in.
Third, citizen journalists are passionate about what they report on. Often citizen journalists write about events that affect them. Michel told the class a story of a citizen journalists for the Huffington Post getting VIP tickets to an Obama event. His seat was in a mud pit. He was confused, so he started to ask the other people in the pit if they had VIP tickets. What he found out was that VIP tickets were given to known non-Obama supporters in order to fill the venue. Being affected by an event makes a reporter do a better job in reporting it, because he or she cares about it.
But there is a downside to citizen journalism. Citizen journalists don't know the ethics of journalism well. When a citizen journalist does something ethically questionable, he or she is often criticized. Mayhill knows this all to well. At the Obama event she did not reveal that she was a citizen journalist for Off the Bus. If she had, she may not have been able to get into the event. By not being upfront about her identity she got a good story. There is no clear right decision she should have made.
That is fitting, because life is never black and white. It's mostly up to an individual to decide what is right and wrong, because it is him or her that has to live with the consequences. Mayhill did what she believed to be right. Others--including me--might not agree, but we are not Mayhill.
First, citizen journalists are able to find out information that professional journalists can't. For example, Mayhill Fowler was able to gain access to an Obama event that was closed off to mainstream journalists. At the event she heard Obama say that people in small Midwest and Pennsylvania towns are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy" as result of job losses. Mayhill made Obama's comment public by posting an article on Off the Bus.
Second, the number of citizens willing to report on what they hear and see is making gathering information on complex and vast topics easier. Right now, Michel is working on how the stimulus package is affecting cities and towns across the nation. She wouldn't be able to gather all that information with just a couple professional journalists at her disposal. She needs hundreds if not thousands of people doing research on the topic. That's where citizen journalists come in.
Third, citizen journalists are passionate about what they report on. Often citizen journalists write about events that affect them. Michel told the class a story of a citizen journalists for the Huffington Post getting VIP tickets to an Obama event. His seat was in a mud pit. He was confused, so he started to ask the other people in the pit if they had VIP tickets. What he found out was that VIP tickets were given to known non-Obama supporters in order to fill the venue. Being affected by an event makes a reporter do a better job in reporting it, because he or she cares about it.
But there is a downside to citizen journalism. Citizen journalists don't know the ethics of journalism well. When a citizen journalist does something ethically questionable, he or she is often criticized. Mayhill knows this all to well. At the Obama event she did not reveal that she was a citizen journalist for Off the Bus. If she had, she may not have been able to get into the event. By not being upfront about her identity she got a good story. There is no clear right decision she should have made.
That is fitting, because life is never black and white. It's mostly up to an individual to decide what is right and wrong, because it is him or her that has to live with the consequences. Mayhill did what she believed to be right. Others--including me--might not agree, but we are not Mayhill.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Shield Law for Bloggers?
I just found an article about Texas passing a shield law that could cover some bloggers. The article is here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8336/texas-sheild-law-passes-opportunity-open-for-substantial-blogs.
A shield law allows journalists to not name their sources. Bloggers are not covered by the shield law, because they are often not seen as journalists. Bloggers disagree. They see themselves as journalists, and therefore, believe they should be covered by the shield law. In Texas, bloggers might get their way.
According to Texas House bill 670, a journalist is: "...a person, including a parent, subsidiary, division, or affiliate of a person, who for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain, gathers, compiles, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, processes, or publishes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium or communication service provider..."
Under that definition of a journalist, a blogger could be considered a journalist if he of she reports information for a living. If a blogger is seen as a journalist under Texan law, then he or she is protected by the shield law.
Bloggers should get any legal protection professional journalists do, because they are performing the same function in society. Both are informing the public.
A shield law allows journalists to not name their sources. Bloggers are not covered by the shield law, because they are often not seen as journalists. Bloggers disagree. They see themselves as journalists, and therefore, believe they should be covered by the shield law. In Texas, bloggers might get their way.
According to Texas House bill 670, a journalist is: "...a person, including a parent, subsidiary, division, or affiliate of a person, who for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain, gathers, compiles, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, processes, or publishes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium or communication service provider..."
Under that definition of a journalist, a blogger could be considered a journalist if he of she reports information for a living. If a blogger is seen as a journalist under Texan law, then he or she is protected by the shield law.
Bloggers should get any legal protection professional journalists do, because they are performing the same function in society. Both are informing the public.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Speeches by Izzy Award Winners
I was able to hear the speeches made by Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald at the State Theatre on Tuesday night on WEOS.org. WEOS broadcasted the Izzy Award between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. today.
Jeremy Stone, son of I.F. "Izzy" Stone, made a short speech at the beginning of the ceremony. He believes that Goodman and Greenwald possess the journalistic qualities of I.F. Stone. (I can't agree more.) Goodman started her own media outlet--Democracy Now!--just like I.F. Stone started his own newsletter--I.F. Stone Weekly. She accepts no money from corporations or the government, and neither did I.F. Stone in order to preserve his independence. Lastly, Goodman gives a voice to the voiceless just like I.F. Stone did. Greenwald reads government documents closely, and I.F. Stone is famously known for that. Greenwald is always challenging the government and questioning what it does, and I.F. Stone did the same.
After that lovely opening, Greenwald took to the stage. The remark he made that most hit me was how the term independent journalism is redundant. Journalism is supposed to be independent. Its purpose is to tell the facts and nothing else. But today's journalism doesn't do that. Instead reporters allows corporations and the government to control what they write. Why? Because mainstream reporters see it as their role to uphold today's institutions and "maintain the status quo," instead of challenging institutions and creating change in society. Mainstream reporters failure to do their job have lead to the creation of independent journalism.
Afterwards, Goodman gave her speech. Her main point was that the media needs to express all points of the spectrum. Right now, the media only express one point of view instead of all of them. Any mainstream reporter who tries to express the other side of the story is silenced. For example, Phil Donahue had a show on MSNBC, and he was against the Iraq War. His show was the top rated show for MSNBC, but it was cancelled on the eve of the invasion of the Iraq War, because it went against the media's pro-war campaign. This was allowed to happen, because corporations control the media. Corporations aren't concerned about telling the facts; they are concerned about making money. Those who stand for the values of journalism must take back the media.
I believe Greenwald and Goodman exemplify what is good about journalism. They are concerned about telling the truth, challenging the powers that be, and telling all sides of a story. They won't let anyone or anything compromise their values and beliefs. I can only hope to be as good of a journalist as them one day.
Jeremy Stone, son of I.F. "Izzy" Stone, made a short speech at the beginning of the ceremony. He believes that Goodman and Greenwald possess the journalistic qualities of I.F. Stone. (I can't agree more.) Goodman started her own media outlet--Democracy Now!--just like I.F. Stone started his own newsletter--I.F. Stone Weekly. She accepts no money from corporations or the government, and neither did I.F. Stone in order to preserve his independence. Lastly, Goodman gives a voice to the voiceless just like I.F. Stone did. Greenwald reads government documents closely, and I.F. Stone is famously known for that. Greenwald is always challenging the government and questioning what it does, and I.F. Stone did the same.
After that lovely opening, Greenwald took to the stage. The remark he made that most hit me was how the term independent journalism is redundant. Journalism is supposed to be independent. Its purpose is to tell the facts and nothing else. But today's journalism doesn't do that. Instead reporters allows corporations and the government to control what they write. Why? Because mainstream reporters see it as their role to uphold today's institutions and "maintain the status quo," instead of challenging institutions and creating change in society. Mainstream reporters failure to do their job have lead to the creation of independent journalism.
Afterwards, Goodman gave her speech. Her main point was that the media needs to express all points of the spectrum. Right now, the media only express one point of view instead of all of them. Any mainstream reporter who tries to express the other side of the story is silenced. For example, Phil Donahue had a show on MSNBC, and he was against the Iraq War. His show was the top rated show for MSNBC, but it was cancelled on the eve of the invasion of the Iraq War, because it went against the media's pro-war campaign. This was allowed to happen, because corporations control the media. Corporations aren't concerned about telling the facts; they are concerned about making money. Those who stand for the values of journalism must take back the media.
I believe Greenwald and Goodman exemplify what is good about journalism. They are concerned about telling the truth, challenging the powers that be, and telling all sides of a story. They won't let anyone or anything compromise their values and beliefs. I can only hope to be as good of a journalist as them one day.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Izzy Award
The Park Center for Independent Media is presenting its first annual Izzy Award. This year's winners are Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory. Both award winners will be at the State Theatre tonight at 7 p.m. I won't be able to attend since I'm copy-editing for the Ithacan tonight, but I promise I will report on it once the taping of the event is made public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
