As of this afternoon the court upheld a 1981 law banning public radio/television stations from "from transmitting paid advertisements on behalf of political candidates, issues of public importance or interest and for-profit entities."
As I read this news on Reuters I thought: shouldn't this have been a no-brainer? Political smear campaigns are already polluting political elections on every other facet of media, shouldn't public broadcasting stations stand independent of these negative political tactics?
I had not learned until this year that political ads were banned in most other countries. Banned. And while some may argue this breaches the first amendment, I would argue that barring political ads would help our country.
Enough of these smear campaigns. Let voters go out to rallies, go online, find real, factual information for themselves and then make an educated vote.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
PostSecret
PostSecret is currently the largest advertisement-free blog in the world. Frank Warren is the founder and mastermind behind the website which is updated every Sunday with secrets (submitted via postcard) from around the world. All submitted secrets are completely anonymous and range from comedic to breathtakingly serious.
The site originally started off as an art exhibit in 2004 by founder Frank Warren and in 2007 he decided to experiment with making these secrets even more public. Warren started a blog on the popular site BlogSpot in 2007 and has been an international hit ever since. Warren has countless best-selling books full of these secrets and goes on tours across the world to share the secrets he has collected over the years. The site always displays the visitor count at the bottom of the page and the site has reached over 640 million people.
Warren has expanded PostSecret to all social media platforms and highly encourages user participation. Occasionally Warren will get a secret that he can not decode or translate and he throws it up on the PostSecret Facebook page and asks for the help of his followers.
PostSecret has always been one of my favorite blogs because of the raw honesty of the project as well as Warrens commitment to working with The National Suicide Prevention Hotline. So, go on and check out PostSecret every Sunday morning just like I do, send in a secret a two, maybe one day you'll see your very own postcard at the top of the page.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
America Needs a Press Council
In class on Thursday we talked a little bit about how media can manipulate messages. Cutting and editing clips to make a soundbite which properly depicts the message the media is trying to get across has almost become commonplace in news outlets (unfortunately mainstream media are not the only guilty parties).
The big example of the day was a video of US Dept of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod at a NAACP speaking engagement. A website called biggovernment.com ran a clip from the speech and the lack of context made it out to seem as though Sherrod was a racist and deliberately helped white farmers to a lesser extent. This manipulative video caught on and as other news outlets ran the story Sherrod was eventually fired from her position only to be asked back when all the details were pieced together. Sherrod declined the offer.
Sherrod is not the only victim of this media manipulation. Stories are twisted to fit political agendas all the time which begs the question in my mind: where is the retribution? Even in smaller missteps by media such as misprints or inaccurate numbers there is no official punishment set in place. While some news stations do abide by the ethical principle of retractions just as many news stations do not.
During my time in Australia I took a journalism course called Press and Society. For my final paper I explored the Gillard government's attempt at media reform laws. These laws had a bunch of different proposals but I thought the most logical was the idea of an Australian Press Council that had legitimate power to punish the media for a failure of ethics or accuracy. Like in America, the majority of news outlets are owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which in turn leaves Australia with many of the same problems as America. Their media is highly concentrated and intensely infiltrated by vested interests.
The Australian Press Council as it functions now (the media reform package was shot down in late march) acts as a more symbolic body. The APC can send out letters of disapproval or suggestions of how to address discrepancies in reporting but in actuality they have no real power to enforce any kind of action. Perhaps even more ironically the Press Council is funded mainly by the papers that it has been created to monitor, putting the APC in a sticky situation. If the APC was to fire out harsh crackdowns (despite the fact that they would not have any real legitimacy) they could risk losing funding and potentially shut down for good. So, the ever-growing conundrum of a media without regulation lives on in Australia.
The same issue rings loud and clear all the way on the other side of the world. While there has been no real solid proposal for media regulation in America to my knowledge I think this is something that needs to be legitimately addressed. A lot of the argument against media regulation in Australia centered around the reluctance of both journalists and citizens to have government oversight into the press. However, the Gillard government repeatedly assured that this new Press Council would be elected democratically and be free of government attachments.
While it is hard to guarantee such strings-attached representatives it is undoubtable in my mind that there needs to be some sort of penalty for missteps by the media. When the mainstream media today is largely functioning as an arm of the government there should be some form of outside ombudsmen to make sure innocent people like Shirley Sherrod are not painted to be something they are not by way of savvy video-editing and sneaky omissions of fact. And that if this kind of unethical behavior flies under the radar that it is addressed quickly in a highly visible retraction/formal apology to the parties affected.
The big example of the day was a video of US Dept of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod at a NAACP speaking engagement. A website called biggovernment.com ran a clip from the speech and the lack of context made it out to seem as though Sherrod was a racist and deliberately helped white farmers to a lesser extent. This manipulative video caught on and as other news outlets ran the story Sherrod was eventually fired from her position only to be asked back when all the details were pieced together. Sherrod declined the offer.
Sherrod is not the only victim of this media manipulation. Stories are twisted to fit political agendas all the time which begs the question in my mind: where is the retribution? Even in smaller missteps by media such as misprints or inaccurate numbers there is no official punishment set in place. While some news stations do abide by the ethical principle of retractions just as many news stations do not.
During my time in Australia I took a journalism course called Press and Society. For my final paper I explored the Gillard government's attempt at media reform laws. These laws had a bunch of different proposals but I thought the most logical was the idea of an Australian Press Council that had legitimate power to punish the media for a failure of ethics or accuracy. Like in America, the majority of news outlets are owned by the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which in turn leaves Australia with many of the same problems as America. Their media is highly concentrated and intensely infiltrated by vested interests.
The Australian Press Council as it functions now (the media reform package was shot down in late march) acts as a more symbolic body. The APC can send out letters of disapproval or suggestions of how to address discrepancies in reporting but in actuality they have no real power to enforce any kind of action. Perhaps even more ironically the Press Council is funded mainly by the papers that it has been created to monitor, putting the APC in a sticky situation. If the APC was to fire out harsh crackdowns (despite the fact that they would not have any real legitimacy) they could risk losing funding and potentially shut down for good. So, the ever-growing conundrum of a media without regulation lives on in Australia.
The same issue rings loud and clear all the way on the other side of the world. While there has been no real solid proposal for media regulation in America to my knowledge I think this is something that needs to be legitimately addressed. A lot of the argument against media regulation in Australia centered around the reluctance of both journalists and citizens to have government oversight into the press. However, the Gillard government repeatedly assured that this new Press Council would be elected democratically and be free of government attachments.
While it is hard to guarantee such strings-attached representatives it is undoubtable in my mind that there needs to be some sort of penalty for missteps by the media. When the mainstream media today is largely functioning as an arm of the government there should be some form of outside ombudsmen to make sure innocent people like Shirley Sherrod are not painted to be something they are not by way of savvy video-editing and sneaky omissions of fact. And that if this kind of unethical behavior flies under the radar that it is addressed quickly in a highly visible retraction/formal apology to the parties affected.
You Could be the Next Fantasy Football
Reading this blog post about entrepreneurial journalism by Jeff Jarvis really got me thinking about the idea of originality today. It's not uncommon to hear the concept that "nothing is original nowadays" but how true does this statement ring? This article was full of new markets that were just waiting to be filled by entrepreneurs such as these young journalism kids.
Professor Mead Loop spoke in my journalism ethics a month ago about the Fantasy Football section of journalism. This is a legitimate (not to mention well-paying) subdivision of sports journalism that did not exist ten years ago. Credible news organizations such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have writers designated to cover this beat of journalism.
Up and coming journalists (like us) should be on the look-out for markets like fantasy football. These unfulfilled bubbles in the market are where opportunities lie in the future of journalism. Who knows? Ten years from now we could be covering one of the hottest beats for the NY times, perhaps a beat that we have no idea even exists today.
Professor Mead Loop spoke in my journalism ethics a month ago about the Fantasy Football section of journalism. This is a legitimate (not to mention well-paying) subdivision of sports journalism that did not exist ten years ago. Credible news organizations such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have writers designated to cover this beat of journalism.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Comedy and News: The New 'It' Couple.
One of our very own Ithaca College students has hit it big! Huffington-Post blog big that is. This afternoon Ithaca College junior, Cain Azar, was featured on the Huffington Post for one of his vlogging videos regarding safe-sex practices.
This video might take a funny tone about the issue but this is yet another example of vloggers using their following on YouTube as leverage to discuss important issues. This particular video from Cain is very reminiscent of fellow vlogger Philly D. who used his comical tone to discuss the real issue of pepper-spraying during peaceful demonstrations.
Perhaps comedy is the way to catch the attention of people today. I can't even count the number of times that kids in my intro politics classes have said that The Daily Show or The Colbert Report were their main source of news (often followed by a hesitant giggle). And really, what is wrong with that? A lot of the issues being faced today are hard, oftentimes even depressing so why not take these issues, report on them but give them a funny twist so that people are being informed without feeling like they want to jump off a bridge? I say power to satirical news-tellers, they are modernizing the packaging of news one snarky comment at a time.
This video might take a funny tone about the issue but this is yet another example of vloggers using their following on YouTube as leverage to discuss important issues. This particular video from Cain is very reminiscent of fellow vlogger Philly D. who used his comical tone to discuss the real issue of pepper-spraying during peaceful demonstrations.
Perhaps comedy is the way to catch the attention of people today. I can't even count the number of times that kids in my intro politics classes have said that The Daily Show or The Colbert Report were their main source of news (often followed by a hesitant giggle). And really, what is wrong with that? A lot of the issues being faced today are hard, oftentimes even depressing so why not take these issues, report on them but give them a funny twist so that people are being informed without feeling like they want to jump off a bridge? I say power to satirical news-tellers, they are modernizing the packaging of news one snarky comment at a time.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Brave New Films: A Catalyst for Change
At the screening of two Brave New Film documentaries this Friday I started getting irritated by the amount of empty seats in the auditorium. I kept thinking back to when Dave Franco and Christopher Mintz-Plasse came to campus. It was a madhouse. People lined up for tickets to get into the presentation at 6 am, the auditorium was jam-packed.
I guess it might sound a little bit dramatic but I was getting furious that the auditorium was not filled for these documentaries. Who really deserves to be revered? A couple of guys who star in movies about drinking and smoking or a man who dedicates his life to unearthing the truth about real hard-hitting issues?
My emotions aside, I could not believe how informative and disturbing the drones documentary truly was. I thought I had a somewhat solid grasp on how drones were used by the US air force but I was considerably far off. When the former air-force member mentioned that drone cameras are capable of seeing a soccer ball, I was blown away. I had always thought that the visibility of objects on drone cameras were weak at best. In my head this explained (but did not justify) the high number of casualties.
The fact that we use drones at our own discretion is deplorable. It sounds cliche but one thing is undoubtedly true: violence breeds more violence. We are single-handedly fueling the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad by killing and maiming innocent civilians.
Kids. School teachers. Tribal leaders. All targeted with no legitimate reason. There needs to be an end to this. We are digging ourselves in a hole so deep that finding our way out might just prove impossible.
Brave New Films is such an inspiring Indy Media organization. Their documentaries (from what I've seen) strike a brilliant balance between factual and emotional testimonies to the horrors of largely ignored issues.
This is a personal opinion but I think there is a revolution brewing. Something that is a long-time in the making and I think indy media sites like Brave News Films are beginning to become a catalyst for change. Something needs to change. We are at a boiling point and its only a matter of time before Americans reach their final straw and something tips the pot.
I guess it might sound a little bit dramatic but I was getting furious that the auditorium was not filled for these documentaries. Who really deserves to be revered? A couple of guys who star in movies about drinking and smoking or a man who dedicates his life to unearthing the truth about real hard-hitting issues?
My emotions aside, I could not believe how informative and disturbing the drones documentary truly was. I thought I had a somewhat solid grasp on how drones were used by the US air force but I was considerably far off. When the former air-force member mentioned that drone cameras are capable of seeing a soccer ball, I was blown away. I had always thought that the visibility of objects on drone cameras were weak at best. In my head this explained (but did not justify) the high number of casualties.
The fact that we use drones at our own discretion is deplorable. It sounds cliche but one thing is undoubtedly true: violence breeds more violence. We are single-handedly fueling the fire of anti-American sentiment abroad by killing and maiming innocent civilians.
Kids. School teachers. Tribal leaders. All targeted with no legitimate reason. There needs to be an end to this. We are digging ourselves in a hole so deep that finding our way out might just prove impossible.
Brave New Films is such an inspiring Indy Media organization. Their documentaries (from what I've seen) strike a brilliant balance between factual and emotional testimonies to the horrors of largely ignored issues.
This is a personal opinion but I think there is a revolution brewing. Something that is a long-time in the making and I think indy media sites like Brave News Films are beginning to become a catalyst for change. Something needs to change. We are at a boiling point and its only a matter of time before Americans reach their final straw and something tips the pot.
Whistleblowers: The Real American Heroes
For my Politics Seminar this semester I'm doing a research paper on modern activism in America, essentially examining whether or not activism is dead in America. The screening of War on Whistleblowers really brought this paper to the front of my mind.
During the Vietnam era the release of Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers added fuel to the already burning fire of activism and protests against the war. But do whistle-blowers today have the same affect on protests and political mobilization of the masses? Where has the activism gone on college campuses?
Perhaps the framing of whistleblowers as unpatriotic/betrayers of our country has severely affected the mindset of the American people. According to TheEconomicCollapse.com, the average American citizen tends to consume 153 hours of television a month. Most of these average Americans consume and believe what the mainstream media presents to them. Assuming no further investigation is done in relation to the news outside of what the mainstream media is presenting, most Americans would be more concerned with capturing and jailing whistleblowers oppose to listening to what their leaks said and how it affects their every day life.
In simpler terms: the mainstream media squashes the American spirit of rebellion by framing whistleblowers in a negative light. This undoubtedly plays a major role in activism. Whistleblowers should be commended. They should be acknowledged as bold heroes not framed as criminals that need to flee the country. Releasing important information that is directly pertinent to the lives of American citizens is not treason it is patriotic. Perhaps if we flipped this perception of whistleblowers as evil or bad or wrong then the American people would start listening to what these whistleblowers have to say and consequently get upset enough to do something about it.
During the Vietnam era the release of Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers added fuel to the already burning fire of activism and protests against the war. But do whistle-blowers today have the same affect on protests and political mobilization of the masses? Where has the activism gone on college campuses?
Perhaps the framing of whistleblowers as unpatriotic/betrayers of our country has severely affected the mindset of the American people. According to TheEconomicCollapse.com, the average American citizen tends to consume 153 hours of television a month. Most of these average Americans consume and believe what the mainstream media presents to them. Assuming no further investigation is done in relation to the news outside of what the mainstream media is presenting, most Americans would be more concerned with capturing and jailing whistleblowers oppose to listening to what their leaks said and how it affects their every day life.
In simpler terms: the mainstream media squashes the American spirit of rebellion by framing whistleblowers in a negative light. This undoubtedly plays a major role in activism. Whistleblowers should be commended. They should be acknowledged as bold heroes not framed as criminals that need to flee the country. Releasing important information that is directly pertinent to the lives of American citizens is not treason it is patriotic. Perhaps if we flipped this perception of whistleblowers as evil or bad or wrong then the American people would start listening to what these whistleblowers have to say and consequently get upset enough to do something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)