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.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
How to Write a Post?
The first time I blogged, I wasn't sure how I was supposed to write a post. Was I supposed to be objective? That didn't seem right, because I knew that most blogs tended to be personal. I, however, did not want my blog to turn into a journal. I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that anyone could read about what was happening in my life. (I can't even bring myself to putting a status message on Facebook.) I figured that I would write my blog in a semi-formal way. I would relay some type of information, and give my opinion on it.
As I have been writing this blog for the past two months, I have realized that there is no wrong way to write a blog. I can write it anyway I want, because it's mine. It's my little piece of this huge cyber universe.
Through my blog, I can make my own mark on the web. How big of a mark am I leaving? Probably not big. I doubt anyone besides my professor is reading this blog, but I'm fine with that. I don't write it for others; I write it for me.
Therefore, I need to be happy with how I write this blog. And right now, I am happy with it.
As I have been writing this blog for the past two months, I have realized that there is no wrong way to write a blog. I can write it anyway I want, because it's mine. It's my little piece of this huge cyber universe.
Through my blog, I can make my own mark on the web. How big of a mark am I leaving? Probably not big. I doubt anyone besides my professor is reading this blog, but I'm fine with that. I don't write it for others; I write it for me.
Therefore, I need to be happy with how I write this blog. And right now, I am happy with it.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Corporations Trying to Silence Dissenters
Google defines a news organization as a news outlet with two or more employees. Under this definition the content produced by a one-man operation would not show up in Google's news section. That is wrong. One-man operations can and have produced important news pieces.
George Seldes, the creator and staff of In Fact, was one of the first to bring the public's attention to the dangers of smoking in the 1940s. At the time, all major publications were aware of the dangers of smoking, but failed to make that information public, because it would hurt their advertisement revenue. (Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars each year in advertising in newspapers.) Since Seldes would not accept any advertisements in his newsletter, he had no pressure to keep the story silent. The fact that smoking can cause cancer, heart disease and even death is an important news piece. But if Google's definition was in place in the 1940s, Seldes' pieces on smoking would never have been made available to the public.
Today, there is Glenn Greenwald, the author of the blog Unclaimed Territory. Greenwald writes about political and legal issues on his blog. His comments about the separation of power and the Patriot Act have been mentioned in the New York Times and the Washington Post. If mainstream publications accept Greenwald's writings to be newsworthy, why can't Google?
I think Google recognizes the importance of the content produced by one-man operations more than most. It sees that their writings can be damaging and effect change. Rather than let those individuals challenge the powers that be, Google silences them by not allowing their work to show up in Google's search results. According to the book, The Search, Google processes over half of all the searches on the Internet. Therefore, if Google doesn't display the work of these dissenters, the public won't know about their work.
The more voices available, the better. It helps to expand the public's knowledge and debate. People are capable of choosing what they want to listen to. They don't need Google or any other corporation to choose for them.
George Seldes, the creator and staff of In Fact, was one of the first to bring the public's attention to the dangers of smoking in the 1940s. At the time, all major publications were aware of the dangers of smoking, but failed to make that information public, because it would hurt their advertisement revenue. (Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars each year in advertising in newspapers.) Since Seldes would not accept any advertisements in his newsletter, he had no pressure to keep the story silent. The fact that smoking can cause cancer, heart disease and even death is an important news piece. But if Google's definition was in place in the 1940s, Seldes' pieces on smoking would never have been made available to the public.
Today, there is Glenn Greenwald, the author of the blog Unclaimed Territory. Greenwald writes about political and legal issues on his blog. His comments about the separation of power and the Patriot Act have been mentioned in the New York Times and the Washington Post. If mainstream publications accept Greenwald's writings to be newsworthy, why can't Google?
I think Google recognizes the importance of the content produced by one-man operations more than most. It sees that their writings can be damaging and effect change. Rather than let those individuals challenge the powers that be, Google silences them by not allowing their work to show up in Google's search results. According to the book, The Search, Google processes over half of all the searches on the Internet. Therefore, if Google doesn't display the work of these dissenters, the public won't know about their work.
The more voices available, the better. It helps to expand the public's knowledge and debate. People are capable of choosing what they want to listen to. They don't need Google or any other corporation to choose for them.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
My Own Encounter with Corporate Media
Right now I'm looking for an internship for this summer. I applied to several places, and I got called by the New Jersey Herald. The person I spoke to asked me when I could start working and if I would be able to get school credit for the internship. I thought, Great! I got an internship. Not so fast.
When I called to set up a meeting to meet with the managing editor, I was told that the internship would have to be approved by the corporation that owns the paper. That corporation is located in Illinois! The corporation is not sure that it wants non-paid interns due to legal reasons. It's worried about being sued. Yet the New Jersey Herald can't pay me either, because its losing money. It's a catch-22.
I was told that I would find out if the internship was approved of on the week of March 15-21. That week has come and gone with no phone call. I'm guessing my chances of getting that internship is slim.
It's just frustrating, because I just want some work experience. It would be nice to get some compensation for my work, but that is not my major concern. I need to have some "real-word" media experience before I graduate from Ithaca College. I'm planning to graduate next year, so this summer is the last chance to get an internship.
It keeps getting closer and closer to the end of the school year, and I still have not secured an internship. I'm going to have to scramble to send in my application to a few indy media news outlets. In those cases I won't have to deal with corporate media. Thank goodness!
When I called to set up a meeting to meet with the managing editor, I was told that the internship would have to be approved by the corporation that owns the paper. That corporation is located in Illinois! The corporation is not sure that it wants non-paid interns due to legal reasons. It's worried about being sued. Yet the New Jersey Herald can't pay me either, because its losing money. It's a catch-22.
I was told that I would find out if the internship was approved of on the week of March 15-21. That week has come and gone with no phone call. I'm guessing my chances of getting that internship is slim.
It's just frustrating, because I just want some work experience. It would be nice to get some compensation for my work, but that is not my major concern. I need to have some "real-word" media experience before I graduate from Ithaca College. I'm planning to graduate next year, so this summer is the last chance to get an internship.
It keeps getting closer and closer to the end of the school year, and I still have not secured an internship. I'm going to have to scramble to send in my application to a few indy media news outlets. In those cases I won't have to deal with corporate media. Thank goodness!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Are Bloggers Journalists?
Mark Bunster, the author of the blog Loaded Orygun, was asked by Lake Oswego city councilors to leave the executive session held in July 2008. Under Oregon law, members of the press are allowed to sit in on executive sessions. The fact that Bunster was asked to leave indicates that Lake Oswego does not think that bloggers are journalists. But is that true?
People have different opinions on this topic. Personally, I think bloggers are journalists. They act in very much the same way journalists do. First, they find information either by searching the Internet, attending events, or talking to people. Then they publish their work for the public to read. Lastly, they often attribute the information in their blog post by linking to the site where they found the information.
People usually claim that bloggers are not journalists, because they are not objective. Bloggers usually let their ideas and beliefs slip into their writings. That is true. However, it is often overlooked that professional journalists are also not completely objective. They will often frame stories based on their beliefs.
Like professional journalists, bloggers present newsworthy material. No one could dispute the fact that Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post have broken big news stories. These stories have helped to inform the public.
Therefore, in my mind, bloggers are journalists.
People have different opinions on this topic. Personally, I think bloggers are journalists. They act in very much the same way journalists do. First, they find information either by searching the Internet, attending events, or talking to people. Then they publish their work for the public to read. Lastly, they often attribute the information in their blog post by linking to the site where they found the information.
People usually claim that bloggers are not journalists, because they are not objective. Bloggers usually let their ideas and beliefs slip into their writings. That is true. However, it is often overlooked that professional journalists are also not completely objective. They will often frame stories based on their beliefs.
Like professional journalists, bloggers present newsworthy material. No one could dispute the fact that Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post have broken big news stories. These stories have helped to inform the public.
Therefore, in my mind, bloggers are journalists.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Mark Finkelstein Gives Lecture
Mark Finkelstein, a contributing editor at NewsBusters and producer of rightANGLE TV, came to my independent media class on Tuesday, March 17. One thing he mentioned struck me as interesting. He said that on the Internet anyone can be discovered.
I know that this is possible. One just has to look at the following Glenn Greenwald's blog has and the popularity of the Drudge Report. But I view their success as the exceptions, not the norm. Most blogs have few, if any followers. So how does one go from unknown to "discovered?"
I'm sure producing good content plays a role in getting discovered. People won't waste their time reading content that is either poorly written or researched. The content cannot only be well reported, but something that is appealing to people. Most blogs are about the daily lives of the writer. Unless the life of the blogger is unusual, the blog will not appeal to the public.
I think the blogger must be passionate about what he or she is writing about. If the blogger is not interested in what he or she is writing about, why will others find it interesting? Simple. They won't. Often it is the passion of the writer that get his or her readers passionate about the topic.
Lastly, I think the blogger must be patient. Success never comes quickly; it takes years of work. If the blogger is passionate about what he or she is doing, this won't be an issue. A passionate blogger will not see what he or she is doing as work, but rather as a fun hobby. For those bloggers who see what they do as another job, they will probably stop blogging before they get a following. Yet for those who stick it out, they can develop a fan base.
I think it's pretty cool that someone could have fans and not even know it. Who doesn't want to have fans? Everyone wants to be admired or seen as important by someone else. The Internet makes that easier. Ah...the beauty of the Internet.
I know that this is possible. One just has to look at the following Glenn Greenwald's blog has and the popularity of the Drudge Report. But I view their success as the exceptions, not the norm. Most blogs have few, if any followers. So how does one go from unknown to "discovered?"
I'm sure producing good content plays a role in getting discovered. People won't waste their time reading content that is either poorly written or researched. The content cannot only be well reported, but something that is appealing to people. Most blogs are about the daily lives of the writer. Unless the life of the blogger is unusual, the blog will not appeal to the public.
I think the blogger must be passionate about what he or she is writing about. If the blogger is not interested in what he or she is writing about, why will others find it interesting? Simple. They won't. Often it is the passion of the writer that get his or her readers passionate about the topic.
Lastly, I think the blogger must be patient. Success never comes quickly; it takes years of work. If the blogger is passionate about what he or she is doing, this won't be an issue. A passionate blogger will not see what he or she is doing as work, but rather as a fun hobby. For those bloggers who see what they do as another job, they will probably stop blogging before they get a following. Yet for those who stick it out, they can develop a fan base.
I think it's pretty cool that someone could have fans and not even know it. Who doesn't want to have fans? Everyone wants to be admired or seen as important by someone else. The Internet makes that easier. Ah...the beauty of the Internet.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Humor of I Can Has Cheezburger?
I Can Has Cheezburger? is a blog that posts funny pictures of cats with even funnier captions. My favorite post today is a picture of a black cat with the caption: "In basement...nobody hear u scream." If you look closely, you can see a black and white cat in the corner of the picture with its mouth wide open. When I saw this post, I got a good laugh out of it. Not everyone gets the humor, so I will attempt to explain it.
I have a dog named Sandy, and he does some weird things. For example, after he finishes eating, he rubs his face on the furnisher. I have always wondered why he does that. Is he trying to clean his face? Or is it something else? What is going on in that mind of his? I Can Has Cheezburger? tries to get into the mind of people's pets. The captions are supposed to be the thoughts of the pet.
The captions are never in perfect English, because animals don't understand much English. They only know certain commands, like "sit," "heal," and of course "cookie!" Since their English is not that good, their thoughts in English won't be that good either. I think the imperfect English only adds to the humor.
The captions generally focus on food, which pet owners know their pet seems to be obsessed with. Whenever you have food, your pet will beg for it. Your pet will beg with such intensity as if you have never feed him or her. You know that is not the case. So you wonder, Does my pet have a bottomless pit? Maybe... Or maybe my pet just really likes food that's not in the form of kibble? I can't blame him or her. The kibble doesn't look that tasty.
People care what their pets are thinking, because they see them as members of their family. Pets are seen as people with their own personalities, habits and quirks. However, they often do things that most people wouldn't dare do, because they have no concept of decorum. It is those antics that brighten our day.
Whenever I'm having a bad day, I sometimes go to the site to get a good laugh in. I have found laughing always makes me less stressful. It was as if Sandy was with me at that moment, and not hundreds of miles away.
I have a dog named Sandy, and he does some weird things. For example, after he finishes eating, he rubs his face on the furnisher. I have always wondered why he does that. Is he trying to clean his face? Or is it something else? What is going on in that mind of his? I Can Has Cheezburger? tries to get into the mind of people's pets. The captions are supposed to be the thoughts of the pet.
The captions are never in perfect English, because animals don't understand much English. They only know certain commands, like "sit," "heal," and of course "cookie!" Since their English is not that good, their thoughts in English won't be that good either. I think the imperfect English only adds to the humor.
The captions generally focus on food, which pet owners know their pet seems to be obsessed with. Whenever you have food, your pet will beg for it. Your pet will beg with such intensity as if you have never feed him or her. You know that is not the case. So you wonder, Does my pet have a bottomless pit? Maybe... Or maybe my pet just really likes food that's not in the form of kibble? I can't blame him or her. The kibble doesn't look that tasty.
People care what their pets are thinking, because they see them as members of their family. Pets are seen as people with their own personalities, habits and quirks. However, they often do things that most people wouldn't dare do, because they have no concept of decorum. It is those antics that brighten our day.
Whenever I'm having a bad day, I sometimes go to the site to get a good laugh in. I have found laughing always makes me less stressful. It was as if Sandy was with me at that moment, and not hundreds of miles away.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Early Pamphleteers and Independent Media Today: Not so Different
If anyone is interested in learning about the beginning of independent media, I strongly encourage you to read Rodger Streitmatter's Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America.
I just finished reading chapter 3 in it, and found it to be interesting. The chapter dealt with the publications in the mid-1850s promoting equal treatment and rights for women. It focused on one publication in particular: The Revolution.
While reading it, I noticed that Elizabeth Cady Stanton's and Susan Brownell Anthony's publication The Revolution had several things in common with independent media today.
First, it covered an issue--women's rights--that was ignored by mainstream press. Today, independent media is reporting on issues not being covered by the mainstream press, like the imprisonment of Egyptian bloggers.
Second, it was criticized by mainstream press as not being a legitimate publication. Today, many professional journalists knock-down independent media, because not all the news it produces is by trained professionals, but rather by citizens.
Lastly, it had a forum where citizens could comment on the issues the paper covered--similar to a letters to the editor section. Today, independent media outlets have a comment section at bottom of each article they produce, so readers can respond to it. This allows readers to share their own experiences and contribute their thoughts on the topic. It basically creates a discussion.
Early pamphleteers and independent media are very brave to go against the ideas of those in power. But change can only happen when those in power are challenged.
I just finished reading chapter 3 in it, and found it to be interesting. The chapter dealt with the publications in the mid-1850s promoting equal treatment and rights for women. It focused on one publication in particular: The Revolution.
While reading it, I noticed that Elizabeth Cady Stanton's and Susan Brownell Anthony's publication The Revolution had several things in common with independent media today.
First, it covered an issue--women's rights--that was ignored by mainstream press. Today, independent media is reporting on issues not being covered by the mainstream press, like the imprisonment of Egyptian bloggers.
Second, it was criticized by mainstream press as not being a legitimate publication. Today, many professional journalists knock-down independent media, because not all the news it produces is by trained professionals, but rather by citizens.
Lastly, it had a forum where citizens could comment on the issues the paper covered--similar to a letters to the editor section. Today, independent media outlets have a comment section at bottom of each article they produce, so readers can respond to it. This allows readers to share their own experiences and contribute their thoughts on the topic. It basically creates a discussion.
Early pamphleteers and independent media are very brave to go against the ideas of those in power. But change can only happen when those in power are challenged.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Blogging Outside of the United States
My Independent Media class today showed me how much I take for granted my freedom of speech. I have always been free to say what I think, but there are many others in this world that are not able to do so.
Here are just a few places where freedom of speech is not allowed: Iran, China and Egypt.
Right now, there is a situation in Egypt where a blogger named Philip Rizkl is being jailed for criticising the Egyptian government for not fully opening the border between Rafah and Gaza. For more information about this situation check out: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/ 02/10/egypt-more-activists-and-bloggers-arrested/. Sadly, this is not a unique situation in Egypt.
In Egypt, people are not allowed to criticize the government publicly. Many are turning to the Internet to voice their objections, but they must do so very carefully. The government monitors the Internet, and anyone caught blogging against the government, can be put in jail for years. In jail, these bloggers are beaten and tortured. Despite knowing the punishment for getting caught, many people continue to blog.
Those bloggers are so brave. They are risking their lives to promote freedom. I hope that their efforts are successful, because I believe that everyone has the right to say what's on their mind and to share knowledge with one another.
Here are just a few places where freedom of speech is not allowed: Iran, China and Egypt.
Right now, there is a situation in Egypt where a blogger named Philip Rizkl is being jailed for criticising the Egyptian government for not fully opening the border between Rafah and Gaza. For more information about this situation check out: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/ 02/10/egypt-more-activists-and-bloggers-arrested/. Sadly, this is not a unique situation in Egypt.
In Egypt, people are not allowed to criticize the government publicly. Many are turning to the Internet to voice their objections, but they must do so very carefully. The government monitors the Internet, and anyone caught blogging against the government, can be put in jail for years. In jail, these bloggers are beaten and tortured. Despite knowing the punishment for getting caught, many people continue to blog.
Those bloggers are so brave. They are risking their lives to promote freedom. I hope that their efforts are successful, because I believe that everyone has the right to say what's on their mind and to share knowledge with one another.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Matt Taibbi Comes to Ithaca College
Taibbi, a political writer for Rolling Stone, focused his lecture on what is wrong with mainstream media. According to him, there are three things wrong with it today.
First, it forces its writers to be serious when covering all events. Life's events are not always serious; they can be funny, heartbreaking, silly and shocking at the same time. Newspapers and magazines failing to capture this are not representing reality, which is their basic goal.
Second, editors are deciding what stories should been written. Reporters should be the ones deciding that. This would ensure that what is being reported is more truthful, because reporters won't be framing the story in such a way to please their editor. They would be free to write about what they uncovered.
Third, mainstream media makes many of its decisions based on profits. It's concerned about making as much money as possible. It doesn't want to offend its advertisers, because that is where a majority of its income comes from. Therefore, newspapers want to remain as objective as possible. This forces reporters to mute their opinions and feelings on subject matters. Reporters are not using their voice when they are writing an article; they are using their boss' voice.
How can journalism produced in this manner be truthful? It can't.
This is disheartening to me because I am being told that my job is to expose the truth. How am I supposed to do my job when the business doesn't always want me to expose the truth? Am I supposed to compromise my beliefs and morals to please my employer? Do I have a greater obligation to my boss than to myself? I hope not.
I feel that I must be true to myself first and foremost, because I am the one who has to live with the decisions I have made. If this costs me a job or two, then so be it.
First, it forces its writers to be serious when covering all events. Life's events are not always serious; they can be funny, heartbreaking, silly and shocking at the same time. Newspapers and magazines failing to capture this are not representing reality, which is their basic goal.
Second, editors are deciding what stories should been written. Reporters should be the ones deciding that. This would ensure that what is being reported is more truthful, because reporters won't be framing the story in such a way to please their editor. They would be free to write about what they uncovered.
Third, mainstream media makes many of its decisions based on profits. It's concerned about making as much money as possible. It doesn't want to offend its advertisers, because that is where a majority of its income comes from. Therefore, newspapers want to remain as objective as possible. This forces reporters to mute their opinions and feelings on subject matters. Reporters are not using their voice when they are writing an article; they are using their boss' voice.
How can journalism produced in this manner be truthful? It can't.
This is disheartening to me because I am being told that my job is to expose the truth. How am I supposed to do my job when the business doesn't always want me to expose the truth? Am I supposed to compromise my beliefs and morals to please my employer? Do I have a greater obligation to my boss than to myself? I hope not.
I feel that I must be true to myself first and foremost, because I am the one who has to live with the decisions I have made. If this costs me a job or two, then so be it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
New Forms of Journalism
We have all heard about how newspapers are laying off parts of their staffs or are closing due to financial difficulties. Hearing these things make people believe that journalism is dying. According to Dianne Lynch, Dean of the Park School at Ithaca College, journalism is not dying; it morphing into something different.
People get their news from the Internet nowadays. And why not? It's free, updated quickly and often it breaks stories before mainstream media can. Every morning I use the Internet to find out about the latest developments in the world. I tend go to traditional online news sources for that information, like the Washington Post and the New York Times. But there are so many other news sources available online.
They are, but not limited to: Everyblock, Apture, Talking Points Memo, Twitter, Democracy Now!, Wikipedia and blogs. These web sites prove that information is no longer controlled by a small group of people. Instead information is controlled by anyone who has a computer and something to say.
The most amazing thing about these news sources is that they are generating profits. Lynch told my class how a relative of hers writes a blog about food and exercise and makes $60,000 a year. I couldn't believe it. Her relative is making a good income on writing about things that everyone does on a daily basis. I can only hope that I will make that much money one day.
There is money to be made on the Internet. Those who embrace it will be the winners, and those who don't will be the losers.
People get their news from the Internet nowadays. And why not? It's free, updated quickly and often it breaks stories before mainstream media can. Every morning I use the Internet to find out about the latest developments in the world. I tend go to traditional online news sources for that information, like the Washington Post and the New York Times. But there are so many other news sources available online.
They are, but not limited to: Everyblock, Apture, Talking Points Memo, Twitter, Democracy Now!, Wikipedia and blogs. These web sites prove that information is no longer controlled by a small group of people. Instead information is controlled by anyone who has a computer and something to say.
The most amazing thing about these news sources is that they are generating profits. Lynch told my class how a relative of hers writes a blog about food and exercise and makes $60,000 a year. I couldn't believe it. Her relative is making a good income on writing about things that everyone does on a daily basis. I can only hope that I will make that much money one day.
There is money to be made on the Internet. Those who embrace it will be the winners, and those who don't will be the losers.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Media Monopoly
I just read an article entitled "Upstart Paper Cracks Irving Media Monoply." This article can be found at: www.chrisarsenault.ca/feature.upstart_paper_cracks_irving_media_ monopoly.html. It got me thinking about how a few companies own a majority of the media. How did that happen? Why was it allowed to happen? Because companies having control of the media is not good for society. These companies are not concerned about informing the public; they are only concerned about making a profit.
Owing part of the media helps these companies make money, because they can use the media to get public support for their other business ventures. According to the article, the Irving Company has done just that. In its HERE Magazine, a story ran about the benefits of natural gas. At the time of the story, the company was planning to build a natural gas facility. The company was essentially trying to sway the public’s opinion with that article. The news is not a tool to manipulate the opinions of the public; it is an avenue to inform the public.
One of the main pillars of journalism is that it is independent. This is supposed to keep the news honest. The news should not have an agenda. It is meant to inform the public of events and be critical of the government and business. The news cannot do its job when it is controlled by a company.
I understand why companies would want to control the media. Being able to control knowledge and information is a very powerful thing. It can inform the public of things only they want the public to know about, and frame information in a way that is beneficial to them. It’s logical that a company would not want to share that power with others. Having less competition in the media field is good for those companies, but it is bad for the public.
It limits the number of news sources for the public. If those companies fail to report on an event, people won’t know about it unless they were directly involved in it. People should not be limited in their knowledge, because they have a right to know what is happening in their society. Luckily for the public, the Internet exists.
On the Internet, people can find out about everything and anything. There is no shortage of information, and that information can be obtained quickly and easily by anyone. No one company controls the Internet. Instead it is controlled by millions of people who have different areas of expertise, interests and beliefs. This diversity helps to keep the Internet independent. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Owing part of the media helps these companies make money, because they can use the media to get public support for their other business ventures. According to the article, the Irving Company has done just that. In its HERE Magazine, a story ran about the benefits of natural gas. At the time of the story, the company was planning to build a natural gas facility. The company was essentially trying to sway the public’s opinion with that article. The news is not a tool to manipulate the opinions of the public; it is an avenue to inform the public.
One of the main pillars of journalism is that it is independent. This is supposed to keep the news honest. The news should not have an agenda. It is meant to inform the public of events and be critical of the government and business. The news cannot do its job when it is controlled by a company.
I understand why companies would want to control the media. Being able to control knowledge and information is a very powerful thing. It can inform the public of things only they want the public to know about, and frame information in a way that is beneficial to them. It’s logical that a company would not want to share that power with others. Having less competition in the media field is good for those companies, but it is bad for the public.
It limits the number of news sources for the public. If those companies fail to report on an event, people won’t know about it unless they were directly involved in it. People should not be limited in their knowledge, because they have a right to know what is happening in their society. Luckily for the public, the Internet exists.
On the Internet, people can find out about everything and anything. There is no shortage of information, and that information can be obtained quickly and easily by anyone. No one company controls the Internet. Instead it is controlled by millions of people who have different areas of expertise, interests and beliefs. This diversity helps to keep the Internet independent. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
