Finding inspiration close to home

For a lot of these posts, I've been blogging on readings that have been assigned because they've been assigned, but also because they have sparked some motivation to discuss the content in the blog. I feel that I've learned a lot from the writers and I feel that I can, to a certain degree, assess the strengths and weaknesses of other outlets.

I've blogged a lot about politics because they're pretty important to me; so important in fact, that politics is my second major. BUT, there's something else that's even more important to me. Swimming. I've been swimming competitively for 13 years and for 12 of those years I've waited for a swimming website to pop up. About a year ago, SwimSwam, which was founded in 2012, started gaining ground in the swimming world, becoming more popular (at least among my friends), than the USA Swimming owned magazine, Splash.

cartoonstock.com

SwimSwam is owned by the Universal Sports Network, though it seems like an independent outlet. SwimSwam is like Buzzfeed for swimmers. The website features swimming news divided by level and country, a specific college swimming section with links to each division's pages, sections for training news and advice, lifestyle news and advice, a video section and more. The website, unlike Splash, has a big reach. Since Splash is only sent to USA registered swimmers, it has a pretty limited audience in the swimming world. SwimSwam is online and includes articles for swimmers of every level and ability. It's page features advertising (only on swimming related products) and the articles are written in a very casual way, making the website seem personal. It's affective in keeping it's audience as it posts daily, and posts get shared on multiple outlets, including Facebook and Twitter. Plus, the writers from SwimSwam are friendly faces in the swimming world.

I'm impressed by this website because even though it has a corporate partner, it doesn't feel like a corporate website. The writers are from all different backgrounds with several different degrees, yet they still do the job. The website meets a need and the swimming world loves it.

Finding your space in the world's biggest library

The internet is the library of the world. It's difficult to think of something that isn't on the internet. Literally everything imaginable is online! We already know that some of the most ridiculous things out there are on the internet, things that no one (seemingly in their right mind) could think of, and we know that some of the most basic information is out there. 

"The Internet in One Picture"

On the internet, you can find the news and you can find commentary on the news and you can find fake news and you can find predictions about future news.

On the internet you can find websites that solve the problems on your math homework and you can maybe even find your math homework scanned onto some database, just in case you let your workbook at home. 

On the internet you can control your bank account, pay your mortgage, check your stocks, create a grocery list and even, supposedly, find the love of your life. 

It seems like there is no need for anyone to create a new outlet, since one probably exists for whatever it is you might be thinking of creating. Have no fear, if your idea is good enough and you have a plan to make it happen, Adam Westbrook thinks, and I agree, that there is a space for you in that online world. Sure, your startup might start as just a drop in a pond, but if it fulfills some of Westbrook's criteria, your startup could be a star. This is his checklist for creating a startup:

News start-up checklist

1. Is it a new idea?

2. Does it have a defined target audience?

3. Does it provide niche (i.e. hyperlocal) content?

4. Does it satisfy a desire that is not being fulfilled by someone else?

5. Or does it do something better (faster, cheaper, more effectively) than someone else?

6. Does it actually have income potential, or will it rely on funding?

7. Does it use the power of crowd-sourcing/community?

8. Would it be fulfilling for journalists to work for?

9. Does it publish/exist on more than one platform?

10. If it has content, is it sharable?

11. Does it require a lot of money to run?

12. Does it have boot-strapping potential?

13. Does it scale?

14. Does it fulfill a public service?

15. Is it a legally sound idea? What about copyright?

16. Would it appeal to venture capitalists, angel investors?

17. And…does it have a cool name?

    The internet has more than 1 billion websites.  That's one website for every 7 people. If there are that many websites, there can't possible be room for another, right? 

    
    
    Wrong. As we learned from our guest speaker, William Jacobson, founder of Legal Insurrection, many of the sites out there are actually dead; no one maintains or uses them anymore. 
    
    
    We also know, just through our research experience as students, that not every website is credible and satisfying to use. Not every website targets a specific niche, or does it well. This is where a startup has room to grow. 
    
    
    Not every website is set up to be financially sound. This is where one start up can be more successful than another. 
    
    
    Not every website has a cool name. This is where a startup has potential to drive an audience.
    
    
    Not every website is legal. This is where a startup has room to last.
    
    
    I could keep going, but I think you get the picture.
    
    
    When I was creating my idea for a startup, I wanted to create something that would have a national impact. I wanted to create a directory of sources... turns out that already exists. It's a website wiki page called SourceWatch and it's pretty successful. When I found out about this site, I was a little upset. I had my heart set on creating the directory the way I wanted to, but I still can.
    
    
    There are niches not met by SoureWatch. It's kind of difficult to find a specific source and the page isn't very appealing, at least to me. Furthermore, it is on a national spectrum, so someone from NYC might have to go through a bunch of pages to find the source they're looking for. I can find a niche and create a local version of source watch, which might be more impactful to the community.
    
    
    Impact. That's what's important and that's why I wanted to be a journalist; to make an impact and bring about change. If I can make a difference, even if it's a tiny one, my startup will have served a purpose. 

The reality of net neutrality

One night last year, my friends and I were sitting around the kitchen table playing Cards Against Humanity. The theme card was, "what's the biggest problem in America?" My friend, thinking the card said, "what's the biggest problem in Ithaca?" shouted out "WIFI!!"

We all laughed, but turns out, the internet is actually one of the most controversial issues of the past few years. It's no secret that the internet is something that is used by all advanced societies. The US is one of those, but our internet speed is not even in the top 30 in the world, and we are a nation where internet giants like Google, YouTube, Microsoft and Facebook were founded, so how can it be that our internet is so slow?

A The Week article explains the way in which the internet providers have monopolized the industry. Basically, there is no competition among providers like Time Warner Cable and Comcast, so what's happening is that these companies feel very little pressure to make improvements to their services.

When I was reading this, I found myself thinking about an article on the potential of Apple to move forward with their technology. Though I can't find the article as I read it a few years ago, it's analysis of Apple as a company capable of producing much more advanced products, seems like what's happening with the internet providers.

Right now, there is little motivation for internet providers to invest in the expensive improvements necessary to speed up internet and download speed. The providers can keep increasing their prices without improving their technology because there is no one else.

http://other98.com/internet-memes-vs-the-fccs-plan-for-net-neutrality/

This calls to mind the question of whether or not internet should be considered a public utility, as Obama pledged to make it, according to a New York Daily News article criticizing chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler's, efforts to limit net neutrality. On Feb. 26, 2015, the FCC approved net neutrality rules with much support from Wheeler.

While I was impressed with the decision made by the FCC, I was more impressed by the public's strong reaction to Wheeler's initial proposal, which called for a more expensive, fast lane of broadband internet which could only be used by 1% of the population.

A Common Dreams article discusses what happened when the public learned about the FCC's goals to limit net neutrality. The article describes public outrage, causing hundreds of thousands of comments to the FCC's website, causing the website to crash.

In my opinion, this is a spectacular example of the media to public relations. In great times of need, like when such a controversial proposal starts to come to fruition, the people will take action. This is why the media is important. The media is there not to carry out an action, but to cause a reaction. In this case, the media got the message to the people about what the FCC was trying to do, and it caused a complete policy change.

No one knows the extent of the impact this change in policy has.

Secrets are no fun

Journalism, as I've mentioned in previous posts, is a field that has completely expanded in every imaginable way. The number of platforms by which media share information has grown, the number of people being reached by journalists has grown, the type of information disseminated has expanded and along with all of those changes has come a growth in actual journalists.

Today, a journalism degree and an AP Style book isn't necessarily required to be a journalist. Many outlets have turned to, or at least utilize, to some extent, citizen journalists. Some of these journalists, like Mayhill Fowler, have shared information that has caused an uproar.

In Fowler's case, this uproar was both at the content she shared and the way she apprehended it. In a Los Angelos Times article, Fowler's exposure of some not so campaign friendly comments were discussed.

Fowler attended one of Obama's campaign events, recorded Obama making some kind of demeaning comments about mid-westerners, and published them in an article on Huffington Post, which Fowler was writing for as a citizen journalist.

The problem was that Fowler has been a campaign donor for Obama. The event was also supposed to be press free, though in the article Fowler says there were others there taking video, and YouTube can prove it. People were saying that since it was a no press event, Fowler should not have published the information.

The thing is, if you are a public figure running for the office of the presidency of the United States, you need to be held accountable for every word out of your mouth. I've said it before and I'll say it again; the role of the media is to hold the government accountable and be a voice that helps keep the people informed. That means that ANYTHING the government says or does, so long as it is not a viable issue of national security, can be disseminated to the people.

link to picture

Public officials, ESPECIALLY those running for the highest possible political position in America, and one of the highest in the world, do not get to pick and choose who gets to hear certain things.

We already know this happens enough, thanks to websites like WikiLeaks and journalists like Edward Snowden, who exposed the government's best kept secrets.

How is the media supposed to be a check on the government if politicians hide their true selves from the people?

In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether Obama thought there were journalists there or not; anything he says or does is fair game for the media to share. I think, in that regard, Fowler did no wrong.

I also think that it shouldn't matter if Fowler was a supporter of Obama. Clearly she was not afraid to shed a negative light on him. As long as a reporter, like Fowler is upfront in her relationship to the person their reporting on, there is no harm in being a contributing member of society in a political race.

Some people say that journalists should not act in the political spectrum for fear of losing their objectivity. This was actually an idea shared with me in one of my introductory journalism classes. The thing is, objectivity is not really the name of the game anymore. Transparency is.

Journalism: a thriving field in disguise

I've said it before, but I'll say it again; I'm tired of people telling me that journalism is a dying field. The same people that say this to me are the people spending their nights watching Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show or clicking through YouTube videos; some of them featuring commentary about the news. So, to those people, I say "open your eyes and ears! Those videos you are watching? That's journalism!!" And guess what; it's not going anywhere.

When I talk to people about this, they say newspapers are losing their following to the rapid technological advancements of todays era. I'm not going to completely disagree with that, but that doesn't mean journalism is disappearing. In fact, in the case of journalists like Michael Buckley of the show, "What the Buck?", journalism is reaching more than 100 million eyes. How many print papers can do that?

How many people have the time to sit down and watch an hour long newscast just to hear about one story that might peak their interest? You can probably go on YouTube and find a five minute clip of just that story. Furthermore, a New York Times article from last year states that Americans are canceling or not renewing their cable source in exchange for internet packages and it's programs like Netflix and Hulu.

A New York Times article points out that YouTube stars can make just as much as the average reporter and television/radio star, thanks to the viewership and partnership with advertisers and companies interested in supporting such successful journalism.

The article brings up some criticisms of this newfound journalism. My own grandparents are among those critics; they say that the people "reporting" on YouTube are too amateur; that audiences don't want their news from some  college kid sitting in front of a piece of fabric in their bedroom.
         * Today's generations are proving my grandparents wrong... Buckley's audience is mostly under
            35.
         * Yes. Some of these videos may be amateur at first, but they won't have as big of a following
            as the more professional broadcasters. The bigger a YouTube star becomes, the more
            resources they might have and the more professional they may become.

Another one of the objections is that these YouTube stars are objective. They're not fair and balanced, like (obviously) right leaning Fox News claims to be.

Click to see source

To that objection I say, you're right. BUT, is that a problem? The face of journalism is changing. No one can be completely objective. Perhaps there would be more trust given to journalists if readers did not expect journalists could be completely void of bias. It is acceptable for an outlet to take a side, and as long as they fairly present both sides of the argument, it's okay for writers to be openly biased; it's impossible not to be. So, isn't it better to be open with your readers? Is transparency better than objectivity? 

I would argue, and it seems that many contemporary (and let's not forget extremely successful) journalists would agree, that transparency IS more important than "objectivity," so long as the reporting is giving the complete picture. 

A whistle in the Dark

It's no secret that whistle blowing journalism holds a not so warm place in the hearts of some government corporations, especially those being written about in the whistle blowing outlets.

It's also no secret that many whistle blowing outlets are only small dots compared to the giant conglomerate organizations they face; organizations with the power to squash these little, but loud news outlets.

This process of squashing the metaphorical mosquito of whistle blowing organizations is exactly what happened with Inner City Press, a small news organization doing investigative reporting from the "United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City."

According to a Fox news article, Matthew Lee, webmaster and primary reporter of Inner City Press, found himself at the mercy (or lack thereof) of Google and presumable the UN, when Inner City's stories stopped appearing on Google after Lee received a letter from the website saying that Lee's website could no longer be published on Google news.

As is the case with many forms of censorship, Google had multiple "justified" reasons for prohibiting Inner City's stories; according to Google's rules, a website cannot be considered a news outlet unless it publicly lists multiple employees.

Google does not list this stipulation in it's rules and regulations. Furthermore, once Lee pointed out that this censorship was wrong, he was told that his stories would be permitted, but it might take a few weeks. After a few weeks? The stories were not showing up anymore, which, according to Google, was a technical error, one that took the world's most powerful web giant, an unspecified amount of time to fix.

Lee said in the article that he believes a UN organization encouraged Google to stop Lee's stories from being published as they were tarnishing the UN as they exposed internal corruption.

There is no confirmation of that, but there is no proof that that isn't the case.

Click for image link

This situation presents so many problems; problems that are not limited to this one instance; problems that, if not powerfully objected to by the people, will continue to happen and then the entire initial goal of journalism will be moot.

The point of journalism, and I have mentioned this in other posts, is to hold the government accountable. If governments are able to stop that from happening, then they are preventing the people from being knowledgable and that is not okay.. especially in democratic states. Furthermore, websites like Google should not be encouraging the government censorship as it only sends a bigger message.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that a little organization can do to stop powerhouses like Google and the government unless they get a big enough following behind them.

Media moves forward while government tries to move backward

The point of the media is to hold the government accountable and to disseminate information to those who can not, for whatever reason, experience an event or meeting in person. The media is supposed to keep the people informed. If the media is not informed, how are the people supposed to be?

That is why what Lake Oswego City counsel members attempted to do in 2008, was so wrong. According to an article in The Oregonian, when blogger, Mark Bunster of the political blog, Loaded Orygun, tried to attend a counsel meeting as a member of the press, he was turned away. This sparked a controversy, causing the city to consider setting clear definitions as to who is and who is not considered true media, meaning they would be deciding who could and could not attend meetings.

Some proponents of the law claimed  that if you let just any old blogger into the meetings, than you might as well just let everyone in, so instead suggested that media organizations, in order to be approved, must be "institutionalized" and "well established." There are a few issues with that suggestion.

In order to become "well established," an organization must start somewhere, but if groups are limiting their ability to attend and report events, how is a media organization to gain any credibility in reporting on those subjects. Without that credibility, the organization cannot be "well established."

Secondly, who is to decide which media organizations are well established? That is a subjective description. This is an objection mentioned in the article as it was raised by the president of Open Oregon.

The article says that Oregon is just one of a few states to allow press to sit in on legislative meetings. The fact that the state has that openness is great! Now they need to stop attempting to move backward. The legislature that allows those "open" meetings is from the 1970s, so of course it did not plan for bloggers and the rise of the internet era. Instead of regressing and shutting out these new forms of media, the state should set a precedent and allow newer media, like bloggers, to attend these meetings so long as they follow the same rules as "approved" media.

2013 California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, was encouraging the same kind of regression as she tried several times to pass a bill limiting (basically removing) the protection given to certain types of media, specifically Wikileaks and "non-salaried journalists," according to an article on commondreams.org.

"The government shouldn't be controlling the media. What it gives, it can take away," said Judson Randall to the Oregonian.