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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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)
