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.
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.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, March 23, 2015
All media face financial pressure
After several weeks of learning about nonprofit media, I'm completely on bored.... At least I was until I read a Slate article about some of the harm associated with nonprofit journalism.
There are a lot of benefits to non-profit media. Outlets are free from major corporate sponsors, which often support and push a specific agenda. This means that with a major news outlet, like Fox or CNN, there's no guarantee that the information and sources presented will be accurate or objective. We have proof of this as it was recently announced that Brian Williams, an NBC Nightly News Anchor, lied in reports about being involved in a helicopter crash.
Furthermore, because many non-profit media outlets are not tied to a corporate agenda and generally address a specific audience, the media outlets can report in a biased manner and are not limited in what they can report... so it seems, though the article claims that this assertion may not be true.
At the same time, since these organizations are nonprofit, they don't have a foolproof way of sustaining funding, so they get sponsored by philanthropists and other organizations.
According to the Slate article, "handouts come with conditions."
Unfortunately, as journalism has progressed in our capitalistic society, the need to make money has sometimes overpowered the need to reach an audience, and, in a nonprofit outlet, reaching a large audience isn't going to them any money; they need to please potential investors. While this shouldn't make an impact on the stories reported, according to the Slate article, it does.
Independent media is such an appealing area because the stories written have been groundbreaking and highly influential. This is both a good and bad thing. The nonprofit outlets have that room to do that kind of muckraking journalism and their sponsors often encourage such reporting, BUT because the sponsors really want the outlets to be publishing impact pieces, outlets will feel pressure to swing their stories in favor of their sponsors desires.
The whole point of being an independent media outlet is to be free from financially based influences. That isn't to say that nonprofit media outlets aren't doing good reporting, or at least better reporting than many corporate media outlets, it's just something to keep in mind.
There are a lot of benefits to non-profit media. Outlets are free from major corporate sponsors, which often support and push a specific agenda. This means that with a major news outlet, like Fox or CNN, there's no guarantee that the information and sources presented will be accurate or objective. We have proof of this as it was recently announced that Brian Williams, an NBC Nightly News Anchor, lied in reports about being involved in a helicopter crash.
Furthermore, because many non-profit media outlets are not tied to a corporate agenda and generally address a specific audience, the media outlets can report in a biased manner and are not limited in what they can report... so it seems, though the article claims that this assertion may not be true.
At the same time, since these organizations are nonprofit, they don't have a foolproof way of sustaining funding, so they get sponsored by philanthropists and other organizations.
According to the Slate article, "handouts come with conditions."
Unfortunately, as journalism has progressed in our capitalistic society, the need to make money has sometimes overpowered the need to reach an audience, and, in a nonprofit outlet, reaching a large audience isn't going to them any money; they need to please potential investors. While this shouldn't make an impact on the stories reported, according to the Slate article, it does.
Independent media is such an appealing area because the stories written have been groundbreaking and highly influential. This is both a good and bad thing. The nonprofit outlets have that room to do that kind of muckraking journalism and their sponsors often encourage such reporting, BUT because the sponsors really want the outlets to be publishing impact pieces, outlets will feel pressure to swing their stories in favor of their sponsors desires.
The whole point of being an independent media outlet is to be free from financially based influences. That isn't to say that nonprofit media outlets aren't doing good reporting, or at least better reporting than many corporate media outlets, it's just something to keep in mind.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
All work and no play? Blogging can save the day.
Blogging? It's just a hobby for people with too much time on their hands.
That's what I thought prior to taking Independent Media and exploring the various outlets through blogs. Then my thoughts changed; blogging definitely has it's place in the world. Bloggers have even been able to change election results.
Up until this week, though, I was convinced that blogging is not for me. It seemed like such a big effort for such little reward. It seemed like something, that while important, would take away from my other commitments like my career.
It turns out that blogging can actually be a career. According to a slideshow on Bloomberg.com, bloggers can actually make a living just by posting pictures and videos of cats, like Eric Nakagawa did with his blog, I Can Has Cheezburger. Nakagawa's site was doing so well that he made blogging his full time job.
Another blogger, Michael Arrington, created TechCrunch.com in 2005, which turned into his full time job in 2006. The site brings in about $200,000 a month. That means the site makes more than $2 million a year. Within a year of starting the site, Arrington was making more than double what the average print journalist makes.
Though not the ground breaking journalism I hope to write, the Perez Hilton blog can serve as a bloggers inspiration as it brings in a revenue of more than $100,000 a month by making fun of the stars in show biz.
These three examples are just a few of the hundreds of successful blogs. By looking at the Bloomberg slideshow, it's clear that blogs on any subject, whether it be cats or politics or technology, can become popular enough to create a living.
What's so astonishing about this is that these writers started these blogs most likely not knowing they would become a career.
These blogs are proof that you can do what you love and not have to compromise your lifestyle; that you can independently reach the minds of millions of people.
Blogging is the perfect platform to do the type of ground breaking journalism I want to do, and have it make a difference.
That's what I thought prior to taking Independent Media and exploring the various outlets through blogs. Then my thoughts changed; blogging definitely has it's place in the world. Bloggers have even been able to change election results.
Up until this week, though, I was convinced that blogging is not for me. It seemed like such a big effort for such little reward. It seemed like something, that while important, would take away from my other commitments like my career.
It turns out that blogging can actually be a career. According to a slideshow on Bloomberg.com, bloggers can actually make a living just by posting pictures and videos of cats, like Eric Nakagawa did with his blog, I Can Has Cheezburger. Nakagawa's site was doing so well that he made blogging his full time job.
Another blogger, Michael Arrington, created TechCrunch.com in 2005, which turned into his full time job in 2006. The site brings in about $200,000 a month. That means the site makes more than $2 million a year. Within a year of starting the site, Arrington was making more than double what the average print journalist makes.
Though not the ground breaking journalism I hope to write, the Perez Hilton blog can serve as a bloggers inspiration as it brings in a revenue of more than $100,000 a month by making fun of the stars in show biz.
These three examples are just a few of the hundreds of successful blogs. By looking at the Bloomberg slideshow, it's clear that blogs on any subject, whether it be cats or politics or technology, can become popular enough to create a living.
What's so astonishing about this is that these writers started these blogs most likely not knowing they would become a career.
These blogs are proof that you can do what you love and not have to compromise your lifestyle; that you can independently reach the minds of millions of people.
Blogging is the perfect platform to do the type of ground breaking journalism I want to do, and have it make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)