During the end of our Independent Media class at Ithaca College, we were instructed to devise our own independent media outlet - whatever kind of media we prefer - and propose our own business plan. The students, at first, were naturally daunted by this seemingly simple task. Devising a budget and a solid business plan however, is precisely why many of the journalism majors chose this major in the first place: no math classes. The students pressed on, however, and devised some pretty ingenious plans for independent media outlets of all varieties.
There were two, however, that truly stood out in my opinion. Inside the Ballot Box by Evan Popp was a simply marvelous idea. He devised a website that would cater those all American citizens who want to vote, but don't know how. His website would provide easy to follow directions and links to resources that help people learn and apply to be a part of the voting process. As a new voter, I was recently prevented from voting in the primary due to my lack of knowledge about the process. I definitely see the need for a website like this, as there are wide gaps of knowledge about this issue and it would be able to help a lot of different people.
The other proposal that stuck out to me was The Travel Journal by Faith Meckley. Although I am not too crazy about the name, the idea of a website dedicated to adventure and those that take the world by storm makes me excited. There are so many beautiful places in the world, and a website that goes in depth about those places and gives information about how to get there really appeals to my demographic. I think it's a great idea and I would love to see the result.
Both of these proposals were inspiring and very fundable. I am excited to see what becomes of these ideas in the future.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Acorn vs Chiquita
After learning about the Acorn scandal in our Independent Media class, I soon became enraged with the way our system works. I didn't understand how a group of teenagers using mediocre video editing techniques were able to bring down an organization that was able to help millions of people; while organizations like Chiquita fund paramilitary operatives and destroy the lives of millions were somehow able to get away from the brunt of the media.
The only difference between the two instances is the face that O'Keefe used illegal methods to create a scandal about Acorn, while the Chiquita scandal was a real event that used illegal methods to uncover. As a result, the court tossed out the Chiquita lawsuit, because the evidence that was obtained was illegal. Chiquita to this day remains intact and profitable, while Acorn was completely demolished by the slanderous video that circulated all over mainstream media. The only media outlets that even remotely covered the Chiquita scandal were independent media outlets like Wired and The Nation.
What a terrible precedent to set for not only the media but for a nation looking to establish it's own morals. Public organizations designed to help people in ruins while massive corporations remain in power with little no to no consequences. Something, somewhere is failing.
What are we teaching the children of the future generations with court cases like this? That if you have enough money and power, the end justifies the means? Or that if you don't have the money and resources, that you won't be able to take on those who do?
Something needs to change.
The only difference between the two instances is the face that O'Keefe used illegal methods to create a scandal about Acorn, while the Chiquita scandal was a real event that used illegal methods to uncover. As a result, the court tossed out the Chiquita lawsuit, because the evidence that was obtained was illegal. Chiquita to this day remains intact and profitable, while Acorn was completely demolished by the slanderous video that circulated all over mainstream media. The only media outlets that even remotely covered the Chiquita scandal were independent media outlets like Wired and The Nation.
What a terrible precedent to set for not only the media but for a nation looking to establish it's own morals. Public organizations designed to help people in ruins while massive corporations remain in power with little no to no consequences. Something, somewhere is failing.
What are we teaching the children of the future generations with court cases like this? That if you have enough money and power, the end justifies the means? Or that if you don't have the money and resources, that you won't be able to take on those who do?
Something needs to change.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Integrity is the new objectivity
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "objectivity" is: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.
Okay... But what does that mean? My mother has always told me that I am a walking emotion; that it is impossible for me to go through life without feeling emotionally effected by what is around me.
My journalism professors, since my first day of journalism school, informed me that objectivity is the most important ingredient for a great journalist. Am I in the wrong field? Should I quit now and resign myself to life of science fiction novel writing? If I care too much about the stories that I write, does that make what I am writing about wrong?
I talked to my father about it of course. He's always the person to go to for advice about writing, reading, or just anything that doesn't involve too many tears. He replied to me with a question:
"Well, why is objectivity so important to you anyway?"
I thought about this. I thought long and hard. Why was it so important to me? Why would I want to spend my life writing about topics that I am emotionally detached from? I believe that the issues in life are more that just facts and numbers, and need to be captured and represented as such.
"I think you can approach things with passion without being involved", Aaron Edwards, who currently works at Buzzfeed, answered the same question for me. "It depends on what type of journalist you want to be." he said.
So it all came back to me. What I wanted. How I felt about it.
After reading the blog post "Transparency is the New Objectivity", it really made me think about this whole dilemma a different way. This idea of transparency allowing us as journalists to be objective through fact made me feel completely different. If I provide links and facts for all of my data, claims and ideas, that will show the integrity of my writing. The readers and audiences will be able to verify for themselves that my articles are based in fact, separate from my own feelings - even though I do have plenty of feelings about the topic.
"So it's important to remain loyal to that factual platform" my dad said. "That way your readers won't need to worry about your objectivity because you have established your integrity."
So I believe, that after all, transparency allows us to establish our integrity as journalists, which then allows the readers to objectively read our articles.
So after all, is integrity not a kind of objectivity?
Okay... But what does that mean? My mother has always told me that I am a walking emotion; that it is impossible for me to go through life without feeling emotionally effected by what is around me.
My journalism professors, since my first day of journalism school, informed me that objectivity is the most important ingredient for a great journalist. Am I in the wrong field? Should I quit now and resign myself to life of science fiction novel writing? If I care too much about the stories that I write, does that make what I am writing about wrong?
I talked to my father about it of course. He's always the person to go to for advice about writing, reading, or just anything that doesn't involve too many tears. He replied to me with a question:
"Well, why is objectivity so important to you anyway?"
I thought about this. I thought long and hard. Why was it so important to me? Why would I want to spend my life writing about topics that I am emotionally detached from? I believe that the issues in life are more that just facts and numbers, and need to be captured and represented as such.
"I think you can approach things with passion without being involved", Aaron Edwards, who currently works at Buzzfeed, answered the same question for me. "It depends on what type of journalist you want to be." he said.
So it all came back to me. What I wanted. How I felt about it.
After reading the blog post "Transparency is the New Objectivity", it really made me think about this whole dilemma a different way. This idea of transparency allowing us as journalists to be objective through fact made me feel completely different. If I provide links and facts for all of my data, claims and ideas, that will show the integrity of my writing. The readers and audiences will be able to verify for themselves that my articles are based in fact, separate from my own feelings - even though I do have plenty of feelings about the topic.
"So it's important to remain loyal to that factual platform" my dad said. "That way your readers won't need to worry about your objectivity because you have established your integrity."
So I believe, that after all, transparency allows us to establish our integrity as journalists, which then allows the readers to objectively read our articles.
So after all, is integrity not a kind of objectivity?
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Zach Ford's visit and the brainstorm it ensued.
The guest speaker Zach Ford came to discuss his personal success within the independent media industry. Being a heterosexual white female, I had never really given much consideration towards the LGBTQ community other than the fact that I supported their rights and their pursuits to happiness. I understand, however, that as a community LGBTQ 's voice is growing stronger.
Zach, like so many other internet writers, started his writing career accidentally. He used his blog as a venting method, writing about the court trials occurring in California at the time. This strikes me as interesting. All of these people who end up launching serious independent careers or platforms over the internet start out simple because of a hobby; something that they are actively interested in and want to engage others about. Hobbies also require a lot of time on someone's hands, but that's a different story altogether.
Another thing Zach Ford said that really resonated with me was that he noticed that all of the other LGBTQ outlets that he was following at the time never really seem to be covering the events in a way that accurately represented the other members of the community. "It was a lot more about the G than anything else." Zach Ford said referring to gay community that was dominating at the time.
This is a common theme that we have been studying in our independent media course: independent media filling in the gaps of mainstream, conglomerate news. Ford told us that within months he was getting noticed by the Freedom to Marry organization and found himself within elite 'bloggisphere' of the topic, even though he does not consider himself a blogger anymore.
"I consider myself an educator above anything else." he told our class. I found myself reflecting upon this. He, like so many others who have flourished within independent media, is passionate about educating the audiences; to help them understand a different viewpoint that has never been presented.
When asked about objectivity, Ford responded : "it's bullshit". He discussed the idea of "objectivity vs. neutrality", or the idea of not taking a side, but still not being neutral about a certain topic or opinion. His example of this was the Huffington Post, when reporting on Donald Trump, will always have Trump disclaimers.
"objectivity takes away our level of expertise." Ford added.
These things get my thoughts churning...
More posts soon to come.
Zach, like so many other internet writers, started his writing career accidentally. He used his blog as a venting method, writing about the court trials occurring in California at the time. This strikes me as interesting. All of these people who end up launching serious independent careers or platforms over the internet start out simple because of a hobby; something that they are actively interested in and want to engage others about. Hobbies also require a lot of time on someone's hands, but that's a different story altogether.
Another thing Zach Ford said that really resonated with me was that he noticed that all of the other LGBTQ outlets that he was following at the time never really seem to be covering the events in a way that accurately represented the other members of the community. "It was a lot more about the G than anything else." Zach Ford said referring to gay community that was dominating at the time.
This is a common theme that we have been studying in our independent media course: independent media filling in the gaps of mainstream, conglomerate news. Ford told us that within months he was getting noticed by the Freedom to Marry organization and found himself within elite 'bloggisphere' of the topic, even though he does not consider himself a blogger anymore.
"I consider myself an educator above anything else." he told our class. I found myself reflecting upon this. He, like so many others who have flourished within independent media, is passionate about educating the audiences; to help them understand a different viewpoint that has never been presented.
When asked about objectivity, Ford responded : "it's bullshit". He discussed the idea of "objectivity vs. neutrality", or the idea of not taking a side, but still not being neutral about a certain topic or opinion. His example of this was the Huffington Post, when reporting on Donald Trump, will always have Trump disclaimers.
"objectivity takes away our level of expertise." Ford added.
These things get my thoughts churning...
More posts soon to come.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
The YouTube Generation
The class discussions that we had today about Youtube and their rise in 2005 onward. I had never given much thought to Youtube or what Youtube was or how Youtube got started. I just remember Youtube from my own experiences. 2005 just so happened to be a time were I was developping into my own preteen years, much like the internet was. I had moved past the CD Magic School Bus and Carmen San Diego video games and was moving towards the more expansive territories of the internet.
To me Youtube was a treasure trove; an encyclopedia, entertainment station, music hub, a how to guide for just about anything, and a way for ordinary people to be famous. I learned how to apply my make-up, not from my mother, but from the original Youtube Make-Up Gurus like Michelle Phan, JuicyStar07, AllThatGlitters21, and Bubzbeauty. All of these women proceeded to gain not only international fame and recognition from their Youtube channels, but proceeded to launch their own fashion, cosmetic and even created their own brands simply from their Youtube channels.
Even celebrities, like Justin Bieber, have roots in Youtube; using the ease and access to large numbers of people to get themselves recognition. Comedians like Fred and Shane Dawson that started uploading videos as simple hobbies, launched entire television series due to their tremendous followings on the internet.
I think the most intriguing affect that these original Youtubers had is they created a community. Thousands of people from all over the world upload their videos to Youtube. Typing in a simple search about any topic reveals a plethora of videos that can take hours to sift through. People have engaged the original Youtube stars and have followed suite, eager to start their own Youtube adventures.
But as I think about this now... I can't imagine media presented to me in any other way. The short five to seven minute clips seem so natural to me. It's the way the entire media industry is turning to as well. People are looking to make themselves a brand instead of becoming a part of something bigger.
It seems that we are a part of a Youtube Generation that is ever looking for media and videos to consume and inform. I learned cooking and nutrition, not from my parents or in school, but from Youtube health channels. People I know have been able to take their cars apart and fix them because of informational videos on Youtube. It's being implemented in classrooms, and in some ways, is more effective than the actual teacher (depending on the teacher of course). In what other ways is Youtube going to revolutionize me and my generation? I can't help but wonder.
To me Youtube was a treasure trove; an encyclopedia, entertainment station, music hub, a how to guide for just about anything, and a way for ordinary people to be famous. I learned how to apply my make-up, not from my mother, but from the original Youtube Make-Up Gurus like Michelle Phan, JuicyStar07, AllThatGlitters21, and Bubzbeauty. All of these women proceeded to gain not only international fame and recognition from their Youtube channels, but proceeded to launch their own fashion, cosmetic and even created their own brands simply from their Youtube channels.
Even celebrities, like Justin Bieber, have roots in Youtube; using the ease and access to large numbers of people to get themselves recognition. Comedians like Fred and Shane Dawson that started uploading videos as simple hobbies, launched entire television series due to their tremendous followings on the internet.
I think the most intriguing affect that these original Youtubers had is they created a community. Thousands of people from all over the world upload their videos to Youtube. Typing in a simple search about any topic reveals a plethora of videos that can take hours to sift through. People have engaged the original Youtube stars and have followed suite, eager to start their own Youtube adventures.
But as I think about this now... I can't imagine media presented to me in any other way. The short five to seven minute clips seem so natural to me. It's the way the entire media industry is turning to as well. People are looking to make themselves a brand instead of becoming a part of something bigger.
It seems that we are a part of a Youtube Generation that is ever looking for media and videos to consume and inform. I learned cooking and nutrition, not from my parents or in school, but from Youtube health channels. People I know have been able to take their cars apart and fix them because of informational videos on Youtube. It's being implemented in classrooms, and in some ways, is more effective than the actual teacher (depending on the teacher of course). In what other ways is Youtube going to revolutionize me and my generation? I can't help but wonder.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Street Art Journalism?
I was recently reading an article printed by VICE UK , about a journalist named Marcus Barnes who was recently tried in England for "encouraging the commission of criminal damage," due to his magazine called Keep the Faith, frequently containing articles about graffiti artists and their recent art work.
The thing that amazed me about the article was that he wasn't tried for hiding information about graffiti artists, but simply for writing about and "encouraging" it's existence. This was something that I had never heard of before. How could someone be in a criminal trial for simply acknowledging and appreciating the existence of something? Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?
Barnes during the interview describes the thousands of dollars that his court case cost not only him personally, but the taxpayer as well. He was eventually found not guilty of course. The whole idea of this case is absolutely absurd to me personally, but it raised some serious questions.
What kinds of resources are we wasting on restricting the independent press? Barnes told VICE in his interview that his court case cost the taxpayer 28 thousand pounds ( 39 thousand dollars ) every day to keep this court case open. That's a ridiculous amount of resources that could be dedicated to improving healthcare or infrastructure or something useful that everyone can benefit from, instead of attacking an independent journalist that is writing about unpopular artwork. In my opinion anyway.
But the part of this interview that really got my brain churning was the section where Barnes clarifies the difference between "street art" and "graffiti". Although these two things seem virtually the same, there is a crucial difference that separates the two. . Street art is commissioned by community boards and home owner committees; a public work that is approved of by the community. Graffiti is what shows up on the wall that hasn't been agreed on, the stuff that gets put up on walls "without their permission".
Are there "street art journalists"? Journalists who publish articles that are agreed upon, acceptable and uncontroversial. As I ask myself this question, it seems clear to me that we might have an epidemic of "street art journalists". Too many journalists working for large conglomerate news corporations, willing to paint pictures of whatever their owners' decide to commission.
What we need are more "graffiti journalists". The journalists who print articles without consent from those in control. Investigating and exposing areas that aren't a part of the "higher-ups" plans. Journalists who work independently to paint their own picture, even if that picture is ugly, or unwanted.
And it seems clear to me that the government is willing to spend the taxpayers dollar in order to keep graffiti and "graffiti journalists" off the streets and away from the eyes and ears of the people.
Which is precisely the reason we need them.
The thing that amazed me about the article was that he wasn't tried for hiding information about graffiti artists, but simply for writing about and "encouraging" it's existence. This was something that I had never heard of before. How could someone be in a criminal trial for simply acknowledging and appreciating the existence of something? Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?
Barnes during the interview describes the thousands of dollars that his court case cost not only him personally, but the taxpayer as well. He was eventually found not guilty of course. The whole idea of this case is absolutely absurd to me personally, but it raised some serious questions.
What kinds of resources are we wasting on restricting the independent press? Barnes told VICE in his interview that his court case cost the taxpayer 28 thousand pounds ( 39 thousand dollars ) every day to keep this court case open. That's a ridiculous amount of resources that could be dedicated to improving healthcare or infrastructure or something useful that everyone can benefit from, instead of attacking an independent journalist that is writing about unpopular artwork. In my opinion anyway.
But the part of this interview that really got my brain churning was the section where Barnes clarifies the difference between "street art" and "graffiti". Although these two things seem virtually the same, there is a crucial difference that separates the two. . Street art is commissioned by community boards and home owner committees; a public work that is approved of by the community. Graffiti is what shows up on the wall that hasn't been agreed on, the stuff that gets put up on walls "without their permission".
Are there "street art journalists"? Journalists who publish articles that are agreed upon, acceptable and uncontroversial. As I ask myself this question, it seems clear to me that we might have an epidemic of "street art journalists". Too many journalists working for large conglomerate news corporations, willing to paint pictures of whatever their owners' decide to commission.
What we need are more "graffiti journalists". The journalists who print articles without consent from those in control. Investigating and exposing areas that aren't a part of the "higher-ups" plans. Journalists who work independently to paint their own picture, even if that picture is ugly, or unwanted.
And it seems clear to me that the government is willing to spend the taxpayers dollar in order to keep graffiti and "graffiti journalists" off the streets and away from the eyes and ears of the people.
Which is precisely the reason we need them.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Free Internet, Free Press.
As the Web Challenges French Leaders, They Push Back by The New York Times intrigued me.
I have spent a decent amount of time in France and am making plans to return for an internship. So the idea that the internet was presenting challenges to the French politicians seemed like a pertinent thing to me be reading up on.
The quotes in this article were very powerful for me; discussing the idea of the Web bringing about complete transparency. Politicians are resigning because of racist quotes being captured and leaked, Sarkosy himself being scandalized; the insulation that used to surround the politically elite is now being penetrated by the Internet.
It is no secret that this is happening in the United States as well. Mitt Romney's 47% comment that sunk his campaign and the the most recent even being the Hilary Clinton email scandal are just some examples. These are rather minor offenses produced by both political figures, however, offenses that start to dissolve the integrity of those that the public holds in such high esteem.
It should not surprise us that these figures, whom we place on pedestals, are not in fact the ideal human beings we once thought they were. However people still get up in arms about even the slightest scandals; something I must admit I can never completely understand.
But the illusion has been broken, and we can see that it all has been smoke and mirrors; that is the important part, isn't it?
It's what the government and politicians are doing in response to this plethora of information that scares me. The rising surveillance in France and the strength of the American Patriot Act make me fear that this is just the beginning of of government surveillance on the internet.
Documentaries like Terms and Conditions May Apply make me realize that it's the companies that we know, love and trust, like Apple and Google that are partially responsible for stripping us of our privacy.
Corporations and governments, two things that are becoming more and more synonymous, are sifting through our public, private and even strictly personal information via the internet. Many people don't seem to mind this fact although they probably aren't considering this: that this information is not only used to persecute the average individual, but also prosecute journalists and their whistleblowers. This is a truly dangerous precedent.
People are starting to realize this though, and the talk and suspicions are spreading like wildfire, or will if they haven't already. People are starting to realize that they don't want the government in control of everything they are doing online.
Everyone has something to hide. Those who don't are lying. This is why net neutrality is so important. A free internet means a free people and a free press.
Alright alright I'll get off my soap box.
I have spent a decent amount of time in France and am making plans to return for an internship. So the idea that the internet was presenting challenges to the French politicians seemed like a pertinent thing to me be reading up on.
The quotes in this article were very powerful for me; discussing the idea of the Web bringing about complete transparency. Politicians are resigning because of racist quotes being captured and leaked, Sarkosy himself being scandalized; the insulation that used to surround the politically elite is now being penetrated by the Internet.
It is no secret that this is happening in the United States as well. Mitt Romney's 47% comment that sunk his campaign and the the most recent even being the Hilary Clinton email scandal are just some examples. These are rather minor offenses produced by both political figures, however, offenses that start to dissolve the integrity of those that the public holds in such high esteem.
It should not surprise us that these figures, whom we place on pedestals, are not in fact the ideal human beings we once thought they were. However people still get up in arms about even the slightest scandals; something I must admit I can never completely understand.
But the illusion has been broken, and we can see that it all has been smoke and mirrors; that is the important part, isn't it?
It's what the government and politicians are doing in response to this plethora of information that scares me. The rising surveillance in France and the strength of the American Patriot Act make me fear that this is just the beginning of of government surveillance on the internet.
Documentaries like Terms and Conditions May Apply make me realize that it's the companies that we know, love and trust, like Apple and Google that are partially responsible for stripping us of our privacy.
Corporations and governments, two things that are becoming more and more synonymous, are sifting through our public, private and even strictly personal information via the internet. Many people don't seem to mind this fact although they probably aren't considering this: that this information is not only used to persecute the average individual, but also prosecute journalists and their whistleblowers. This is a truly dangerous precedent.
People are starting to realize this though, and the talk and suspicions are spreading like wildfire, or will if they haven't already. People are starting to realize that they don't want the government in control of everything they are doing online.
Everyone has something to hide. Those who don't are lying. This is why net neutrality is so important. A free internet means a free people and a free press.
Alright alright I'll get off my soap box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)