The
top three proposed media outlets were “You, Me & Brie,” “Share Your Obit,”
and “Comedy Hub,” in that order. “You, Me & Brie” was the top proposed
project because of its feasibility in reaching and providing for its target
audience. Realistically, cheese-makers and wineries do not have a centralized
source to promote their product, and this website does precisely that. Although
morbid, “Share Your Obit” also has much potential because, once again, it fills
a hole in the market. As long as it keeps things positive and allows viewers to
commemorate their loved ones happily, then it will be able to obtain a large
following. “Comedy Hub” also has the potential to succeed because, although it
certainly will have its fair share of competitors, it is an established market
with a tangible audience right now. As the blog’s founder pointed out in her
pitch, “college students, twenty-something’s at work, and your dad” are always
looking up funny videos on YouTube, why not make things even simpler by having
it all on one site? The only concern I have is that, unlike the first
aforementioned proposals, “Comedy Hub” will have to have a large staff and,
moreover, already has competition.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Check... It Off The Search Results
I really appreciated Adam Westbrook's "check-list," because, in light of many conversations I've had with colleagues, it has become more and more apparent to me that journalism needs to sell in more ways than one. It's not just about being accurate anymore (because, with the ability to link, theoretically, it's tough to not at least fake being accurate). It's about being flashy, selling your brand, and having a purpose. No one is going to read an article just because it is factual: there needs to be something that captures the attention of the ADD-rampant masses.
...which is why I decided to look up other "chceck lists" that come up when you "Google search" "journalism checklist." And here's.... what I found (accuracy on accuracy on lack of making your article sell). Maybe that is why journalism is a "poor man's profession"....
1. Santa Barbara College-- breaks down checklists by specific field (investigative, sports, etc.)
2. Business Journalism-- more like an English class outline than a checklist; focuses on grammar
3. Stuff Journalists Like-- Really liked this one--focuses on the reality of being a journalist-- but more of a satire than a "checklist." (highly reccomend a read)
4. Poynter-- EXCELLENT start--talking about importance of checklists though anectdotal example of Captain Sully Sullerberg's co-pilot-- but then it's the same grammar outline as #2
5. The Ethical Journalism Initiative-- nice focus on checklists to have when you enter a new newsroom.. but mostly about the news environment (and remember we're trying to see beyond that!)
6. The Buttry Diary-- LOVE it. Excellent analysis by indy blogger about how linking sources might have saved the Mant'e Teo Girlfriend Affair. But not a checklist. Wah.
7. Columbia Journalism Review-- Again, focus on the importance of checklists. Not an actual one.
8. Accuracy Checklist-- The same outline. Again. Can't tell if I feel like a broken record or a Buzzfeed article.
...which is why I decided to look up other "chceck lists" that come up when you "Google search" "journalism checklist." And here's.... what I found (accuracy on accuracy on lack of making your article sell). Maybe that is why journalism is a "poor man's profession"....
1. Santa Barbara College-- breaks down checklists by specific field (investigative, sports, etc.)
2. Business Journalism-- more like an English class outline than a checklist; focuses on grammar
3. Stuff Journalists Like-- Really liked this one--focuses on the reality of being a journalist-- but more of a satire than a "checklist." (highly reccomend a read)
4. Poynter-- EXCELLENT start--talking about importance of checklists though anectdotal example of Captain Sully Sullerberg's co-pilot-- but then it's the same grammar outline as #2
5. The Ethical Journalism Initiative-- nice focus on checklists to have when you enter a new newsroom.. but mostly about the news environment (and remember we're trying to see beyond that!)
6. The Buttry Diary-- LOVE it. Excellent analysis by indy blogger about how linking sources might have saved the Mant'e Teo Girlfriend Affair. But not a checklist. Wah.
7. Columbia Journalism Review-- Again, focus on the importance of checklists. Not an actual one.
8. Accuracy Checklist-- The same outline. Again. Can't tell if I feel like a broken record or a Buzzfeed article.
PBS: Where ESPN Rejects Hang Out
In a very timely state of affairs, I am currently watching perhaps the most groundbreaking "Frontline" report PBS has run in the last year or so: "League of Denial," which depitcs the eventual unravelling of evidence that the NFL was covering up the possibility of traumatizing and life-threatening head injuries constantly exposed to its players.
But what makes this all the more ironic (and relevant to this class) is that, in the case of League of Denial, ESPN originally had agreed to back the documentary. However, for unkown reasons, the company backed out (although its two lead reporters, the Fairneau brothers, on the case did not) and PBS jumped in to support the documentary.
What many are speculating is whether or not the NFL said to ESPN, "if you run this, you won't be able to broadcast any more of our games," showcasing the monopoly and politics that goes on behind the scenes in sports and in television today. Which is also what makes the fact that PBS--a network which, as pointed out in this week's reading, only 2% of the American population watches--was the one that took the doc on all the more amusing. Because although Jerrod Star argues that PBS hasn't done a very good job of educating like it intends to do (and which is part of why it has failed), it does a good job of both educating and selling here-- although clearly not on the level as ESPN might have been had they run the program. Whether it was because of the people involved in this film or not, it got people tuning into PBS--so perhaps what PBS should be trying to do is to break/investigate more cases in the field of popular culture in order to gain "popularity" with the public. After all, doesn't "Public Broadcasting" scream "give the people what they want" in a democracy?
But what makes this all the more ironic (and relevant to this class) is that, in the case of League of Denial, ESPN originally had agreed to back the documentary. However, for unkown reasons, the company backed out (although its two lead reporters, the Fairneau brothers, on the case did not) and PBS jumped in to support the documentary.
What many are speculating is whether or not the NFL said to ESPN, "if you run this, you won't be able to broadcast any more of our games," showcasing the monopoly and politics that goes on behind the scenes in sports and in television today. Which is also what makes the fact that PBS--a network which, as pointed out in this week's reading, only 2% of the American population watches--was the one that took the doc on all the more amusing. Because although Jerrod Star argues that PBS hasn't done a very good job of educating like it intends to do (and which is part of why it has failed), it does a good job of both educating and selling here-- although clearly not on the level as ESPN might have been had they run the program. Whether it was because of the people involved in this film or not, it got people tuning into PBS--so perhaps what PBS should be trying to do is to break/investigate more cases in the field of popular culture in order to gain "popularity" with the public. After all, doesn't "Public Broadcasting" scream "give the people what they want" in a democracy?
Monday, November 18, 2013
Planning for Project... Through Previous Internships
As I begin to start preparing to create and pitch my own Independent Media outlet, I am finding it most beneficial to review the previous media groups I have been a part of --even if they may not be independent in nature. Having interned as both a journalism intern and also a marketing and social media intern, I have come to understand what needs to be incorporated into a website to gain an audience's attention but also can inform.
Taking things chronologically, my first internship was with the New Jersey Jackals Baseball Team. A semi-pro team (the "second chance league" if you may), the Jackals defy the odds each year and continue to bring in thousands of fans--even though their ability to draw people in is not through their website or advertising. I was primarily in charge of the social media pages, but it was during the summer of 2012 when I worked there that we made the most strides in that department. The reason for this: I was constantly tweeting back and Facebook'ing back fans, players, and playes' families. I saw first-hand what creating a relationship with your target audience can do: create a sense of belonging and a personal relationship between the consumers and the creators.
Obviously, the Jackals are a hyperlocal example of outreach and reaching one's target audience. Fortunately, my next internship, in London with ESPN America, was part of the international, media conglomerate that is ESPN. However, ESPN America (before it was collapsed this past summer) maintained its own website--although in a much more primitive form than its American counterpart. The webmaster had created it through WordPress (like many start-up websites) and it focused primarily on saying when games would be broadcast and featuring the schedule of shows/games. Obviously, checking the website every day is not every fan's cup of tea, so my direct boss made a large push back in 2010 to utilize the Facebook page for ESPN America to its full capcity to the point where it superseeded the role of the website. All the graphics I would make each day for that night's game schedule were all posted to the Facebook page before anywere else, quite simply because that's where the most people would be seeing it. I also saw social media and connecting with one's audience from a statistical standpoint at this internship by constantly reviewing our EdgRank scores and stats and how many likes/comments/shares we received on certain graphics as opposed to others.
Then, this summer, I struck a balance between an international conglomerate and a local sports team when I worked for the New York Red Bulls Soccer Team. Designed like the other Major League Soccer Website, this website does a very good job of incorporating the information about the team, videos and photos, and, its primary purpose, a place for fans to purchase tickets for upcoming games. Although, as a Fan Services Intern, my job was to focus on PR and ticket sales, I pushed for our website to model itself like its rivals on the West Coast like the Seattle Sounders, featuring a more interactive, editorial section that narrates exactly what happened in games and gives fans a different perspective than simply a press release can do. Furthermore, although the Red Bull franchise differs from other MLS teams in that it doesn't like promoting its promotions, I learned through observing these other teams just how promotion via editorial and video can create a sense of a "club" among supporters and the organization.
As I reflect on all these experiences, I am reminded of various outreach and engagement practices that I feel will be benefiical in constructing my website.
Taking things chronologically, my first internship was with the New Jersey Jackals Baseball Team. A semi-pro team (the "second chance league" if you may), the Jackals defy the odds each year and continue to bring in thousands of fans--even though their ability to draw people in is not through their website or advertising. I was primarily in charge of the social media pages, but it was during the summer of 2012 when I worked there that we made the most strides in that department. The reason for this: I was constantly tweeting back and Facebook'ing back fans, players, and playes' families. I saw first-hand what creating a relationship with your target audience can do: create a sense of belonging and a personal relationship between the consumers and the creators.
Obviously, the Jackals are a hyperlocal example of outreach and reaching one's target audience. Fortunately, my next internship, in London with ESPN America, was part of the international, media conglomerate that is ESPN. However, ESPN America (before it was collapsed this past summer) maintained its own website--although in a much more primitive form than its American counterpart. The webmaster had created it through WordPress (like many start-up websites) and it focused primarily on saying when games would be broadcast and featuring the schedule of shows/games. Obviously, checking the website every day is not every fan's cup of tea, so my direct boss made a large push back in 2010 to utilize the Facebook page for ESPN America to its full capcity to the point where it superseeded the role of the website. All the graphics I would make each day for that night's game schedule were all posted to the Facebook page before anywere else, quite simply because that's where the most people would be seeing it. I also saw social media and connecting with one's audience from a statistical standpoint at this internship by constantly reviewing our EdgRank scores and stats and how many likes/comments/shares we received on certain graphics as opposed to others.
Then, this summer, I struck a balance between an international conglomerate and a local sports team when I worked for the New York Red Bulls Soccer Team. Designed like the other Major League Soccer Website, this website does a very good job of incorporating the information about the team, videos and photos, and, its primary purpose, a place for fans to purchase tickets for upcoming games. Although, as a Fan Services Intern, my job was to focus on PR and ticket sales, I pushed for our website to model itself like its rivals on the West Coast like the Seattle Sounders, featuring a more interactive, editorial section that narrates exactly what happened in games and gives fans a different perspective than simply a press release can do. Furthermore, although the Red Bull franchise differs from other MLS teams in that it doesn't like promoting its promotions, I learned through observing these other teams just how promotion via editorial and video can create a sense of a "club" among supporters and the organization.
As I reflect on all these experiences, I am reminded of various outreach and engagement practices that I feel will be benefiical in constructing my website.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Indy Media and... Cortaca?
I begin this entry with a bit of an apology.
I knew that my blogging this weekend would be limited due to the 55th Annual Cortaca Jug Game--although my lack of free time was not due to the festivities but because of my involvement with ICTV's broadcast of the event (now officially the most viewed, college televised event by college students EVER).
Which is why my "game plan" was to write an entry about being involved with ICTV, talking about how a student media outlet (essentially an "indepenednet media outlet" when you think about it) was able to garner over 10,000 viewers from around the world and how a small byline in a Sports Illustrated story in 1991 has inspired the phenomena that is the Cortaca Jug.
...but then I happened to stumble upon this link that several folks were sharing in Facebook. As CNY Central first reported (and which--fun fact--I was the confirmation of such an event when the evening news anchor/producer, a friend of mine, called me to ask what the hell happened) that riots erupted at SUNY Cortland following the school's victory in the Cortaca Jug game. By far and large, it's been the same, one picture of Clayton Street being shown by news outlets nationwide (seriously, this made Good Morning America). But "BroBible" is the first to showcase all the pictures from the insanity that was SUNY Cortland Saturday afternoon.
As opposed to focusing on the animals that were Cortland students, though, I'd like to discuss the concept of "BroBible," a site where fans can contribute, and editors will post and list what the fans submit. Similar to Barstool, (which also featured some Ithaca College students this weekend) these sites are certainly not for informing, but create a "fun," interactive environment for viewers--boosting the site's popularity. I feel that for me this actually was vital to see this concept first hand as we begin to work on our own, indy media outlet pitches.
Monday, November 11, 2013
There's Journalists, There's Citizen Journalists... and then There's Sarah Palin
Obviously, this week's readings focus on the ethics involved with citizen journalism and independent reporting.
However, I'd like to begin with first discussing the tweet that I just happened to see in my Twitter feed earlier tonight: Sarah Palin was declaring a "Chris Christie 2016" campaign set in stone on her latest appearance on FOX News.
See although she may be a political figure and a celebrity in her own right (and therefore not a "citizen journalist"), I see not much difference between Palin's sudden legitimacy as a political news source (not to mention her astronomical rise to celebrity status the last six years) and the rise in the field of citizen journalism by writers like 61-year old, Huffington Post contributor Mayhill Fowler. Neither has a journalism degree (ok, technically Palin does...) and neither spent their previous life as a muckraking reporter, investigating new stories; moreover, neither was ever a source on both reporting and politics until a few years ago. Suddenly, they are an authority for, in both cases, simply being a part of one event, Palin her candidacy in 2008 for Vice President, and Fowler for her reporting at the DNC.
Certainly, Sarah Palin has spent more than just the last six years in the realm of politics. But the quick transition for politicians in the 21st century to celebrity reporters takes just as much time as it does for a citizen journalist to strike it big: just one try. That is the immediacy of our society and the entertainment value we hold to such high prestige right there.... and it's directly in conflict, in many ways, with the ethics of foundational, solid reporting.
However, I'd like to begin with first discussing the tweet that I just happened to see in my Twitter feed earlier tonight: Sarah Palin was declaring a "Chris Christie 2016" campaign set in stone on her latest appearance on FOX News.
See although she may be a political figure and a celebrity in her own right (and therefore not a "citizen journalist"), I see not much difference between Palin's sudden legitimacy as a political news source (not to mention her astronomical rise to celebrity status the last six years) and the rise in the field of citizen journalism by writers like 61-year old, Huffington Post contributor Mayhill Fowler. Neither has a journalism degree (ok, technically Palin does...) and neither spent their previous life as a muckraking reporter, investigating new stories; moreover, neither was ever a source on both reporting and politics until a few years ago. Suddenly, they are an authority for, in both cases, simply being a part of one event, Palin her candidacy in 2008 for Vice President, and Fowler for her reporting at the DNC.
Certainly, Sarah Palin has spent more than just the last six years in the realm of politics. But the quick transition for politicians in the 21st century to celebrity reporters takes just as much time as it does for a citizen journalist to strike it big: just one try. That is the immediacy of our society and the entertainment value we hold to such high prestige right there.... and it's directly in conflict, in many ways, with the ethics of foundational, solid reporting.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Move Over, Palin: The YouTube'ization of Chris Christie
I must admit, I have a terrible tendency of using our "Indy Media" class as a springboard for my own research/idea creation--thus, if it ever appears that I'm more engrossed in my iPad/computer than the class discussion, do not be alarmed: it's actually because I'm searching for an idea sparked through our discussion.
For me today, this "spark" came through Lisa Donovan's sketch about the 2008 election and her portrayal of Sarah Palin. With today being Election Day, and with an especially important election going on in my home state of New Jersey, I began thinking about the portrayal of our political leaders on YouTube: are the first hits for searches on YouTube for these political figures parodies or actual video?
Today, almost every famous figure from politics to television to sports having their own website, Twitter, and what have you; so it came as little surprise to me that a search for New Jersey's incumbent governor Chris Christie on YouTube ranked his own YouTube page first. It slightly surprised me that Chris Christie's own videos were the second and fourth things listed--although it definitely didn't surprise me that his interview with David Letterman (uploaded by Christie himself) was fourth. To be honest, the first page of "hits" for a "Chris Christie search" proved to be legitimate sources, from ABC to FOX News to, well, an interview with Jimmy Fallon. The one hit that did surprise me, though, was the commercial currently being run on television in New Jersey depicting former NBA star Shaquille O'Neal endorsing Christie for re-election. It didn't surprise me that the Shaq commercial was one of the top hits--I expected it to be one--but it was surprising that the clip wasn't uploaded through the Christie Administration: the commercial was featured in a "Young Turks" report. Until our class discussion, I had never even heard of this group before--believing the only people who actually could become mainstays on YouTube and make money were the "What the Buck?" and "cat lady" type. I already had a newfound appreciation for the group after we watched clips of their organization and its development in class, but the fact that they are ranked by a search engine right up there with the ABC's, NBC's, and C-SPAN's of the world proves just how far YouTube channels can take an organization.
For me today, this "spark" came through Lisa Donovan's sketch about the 2008 election and her portrayal of Sarah Palin. With today being Election Day, and with an especially important election going on in my home state of New Jersey, I began thinking about the portrayal of our political leaders on YouTube: are the first hits for searches on YouTube for these political figures parodies or actual video?
Today, almost every famous figure from politics to television to sports having their own website, Twitter, and what have you; so it came as little surprise to me that a search for New Jersey's incumbent governor Chris Christie on YouTube ranked his own YouTube page first. It slightly surprised me that Chris Christie's own videos were the second and fourth things listed--although it definitely didn't surprise me that his interview with David Letterman (uploaded by Christie himself) was fourth. To be honest, the first page of "hits" for a "Chris Christie search" proved to be legitimate sources, from ABC to FOX News to, well, an interview with Jimmy Fallon. The one hit that did surprise me, though, was the commercial currently being run on television in New Jersey depicting former NBA star Shaquille O'Neal endorsing Christie for re-election. It didn't surprise me that the Shaq commercial was one of the top hits--I expected it to be one--but it was surprising that the clip wasn't uploaded through the Christie Administration: the commercial was featured in a "Young Turks" report. Until our class discussion, I had never even heard of this group before--believing the only people who actually could become mainstays on YouTube and make money were the "What the Buck?" and "cat lady" type. I already had a newfound appreciation for the group after we watched clips of their organization and its development in class, but the fact that they are ranked by a search engine right up there with the ABC's, NBC's, and C-SPAN's of the world proves just how far YouTube channels can take an organization.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
NSA: It's Everywhere....
For the last several weeks on the ICTV political talk show "On The Hill," we have been debating the NSA's role in the Edward Snowden case as well as the recent announcement that the United States is also tapping into the phone calls of European leaders including Angela Merkel. However, what we have not discussed is the censoring of journalists by the American government among others.
In theory, censorship of independent journalists really shouldn't sound that foreign--even in America. What was a new concept for me, however, was just how closely Google is now tied to the American government. The fact that "Inner City Press" was removed from being a "hit" on Google is absolutely insane. A company that prides itself in such terrific corporate responsibility as well as a dedication to its users would not possibly have done something like that (in my opinion at least)... unless an even more powerful force intervened. And considering Google's enormity in the 21st century, there is only one answer to that question: the U.S. Government.
But again, in theory, the censorship of Google and the "hits" possible through it in China doesn't sound foreign. This can't help but make one wonder just how similar the United States' media policy ACTUALLY is to a nation with an extremely powerful central government. Then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise either: when Google'ing the word "censorship," the second "option" to complete the requested search is "censorship in China."
An interesting example of censorship in the 21st century not examined in our weekly readings, and imperative to understanding this concept in the context of this decade, is censorship in the Middle East. The Arab Spring certainly was a source of much censorship--and entire, Internet shutdown--but, paradoxically, it was a Google executive who was behind the Facebook mobilization in Egypt in early 2011.
Although things may have "simmered" down in the Middle East today, CNN looks at how censorship is still plaguing the birth place of the Middle East: Tunisia.
In theory, censorship of independent journalists really shouldn't sound that foreign--even in America. What was a new concept for me, however, was just how closely Google is now tied to the American government. The fact that "Inner City Press" was removed from being a "hit" on Google is absolutely insane. A company that prides itself in such terrific corporate responsibility as well as a dedication to its users would not possibly have done something like that (in my opinion at least)... unless an even more powerful force intervened. And considering Google's enormity in the 21st century, there is only one answer to that question: the U.S. Government.
But again, in theory, the censorship of Google and the "hits" possible through it in China doesn't sound foreign. This can't help but make one wonder just how similar the United States' media policy ACTUALLY is to a nation with an extremely powerful central government. Then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise either: when Google'ing the word "censorship," the second "option" to complete the requested search is "censorship in China."
An interesting example of censorship in the 21st century not examined in our weekly readings, and imperative to understanding this concept in the context of this decade, is censorship in the Middle East. The Arab Spring certainly was a source of much censorship--and entire, Internet shutdown--but, paradoxically, it was a Google executive who was behind the Facebook mobilization in Egypt in early 2011.
Although things may have "simmered" down in the Middle East today, CNN looks at how censorship is still plaguing the birth place of the Middle East: Tunisia.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
An Ally in the 14850 At Last!!!
...ok, so maybe Cornell University's, special zip code puts professor and blogger William Jacobson in a different grouping than those of us on the South Hill... but you get the picture.
Throughout my schooling, both in the stereotypical land of higher education as well as during my elementary and high school years, I was always the odd man out when it came to politics. Although I don't align myself with everything the Republican Party stands for (especially at the federal level), I have always seen myself--like Jacobson--as a progressive conservative, particularly in terms of economics. I've always derived my political status from my parents' position as the owners of their own business--and my mother's position as a general dentist: I have always been a fan of privatization and allowing people to build themselves, and their business, as they so wish and based on their own merits. Socially, I am more moderate, and I am technically a registered independent, but, as a resident of New Jersey, I am an avid supporter (and former intern/employee) of the Republican Party of New Jersey and the Christie Administration.
For whatever the reason, it just so happened many of my classmates did not share the same views as me. Thus, it was common in my International Studies honors program in high school for me and the other two, more right-leaning students to be isolated and mocked by most of the class for being the three "odd-balls." I found the opportunity to debate and be the "devil's advocate" in class exciting, and it allowed me to further my speech and debate skills. But, at the same time, after a constant uphill battle from the same students year in and year out, by senior year, I had taken to just stating my opinion, letting them respond, and sitting quiet. Even when my teachers told me my retort back to my classmates' opinion was valid, I just didn't feel like being that kid left out at the lunch room table discussion any more. Which is partially why when I came to Ithaca College, I tried my best to keep my political views quiet; contributing on political news shows on ICTV, but always using my blessed disclaimer that my parents did insist when I was 18 that I register as an independent.
..and which is also why I loved having Jacobson come speak to our class today. Although I am more of a "multimedia" journalist, I applaud his decision to take his views to the written, online word for all to see. As a female sports journalist by trade, I of all people should know a thing or two about fighting the uphill battle and ignoring criticism, but, for whatever the reason, I've kind of been a bit nervous to do that in the realm of politics. But Jacobson's encouragement both inspired me to not be a "closet conservative" when I am in Ithaca and also reminded me of my favorite politician of our time, Governor Chris Christie. Like Christie, Jacobson admitted the federal, Republican Party is not always right, nor is FOX News; FOX is simply the only channel that is "right leaning." But also, like Christie, Jacobson is a Republican because his individual values (and honest opinons, at that rate) most align with that party. That's the point I took away most from his presentation: being honest and presenting a logical argument which has always been something I love about a (let's be frank here) overweight governor who wants to just cut the dead weight and get to the core of an issue.
And I know, like Mr. Jacobson, there will be those who disagree with me about both Christie and Jacobson's approach and what Jacobson was getting at in our discussion. But the important part is that I now feel a little bit more comfortable in blogging and publicly stating my views in the 14850.
P.S. As I mentioned in class... it was quite fitting Jacobson spoke on the aniversary of Hurricane Sandy, an event that (besides his recent endorsement by Shaquille O'Neill) has defined Chris Christie's legacy. I'm also a big fan of his Twitter... his tweets over the last 24 hours are definitely worth a look-see (as is rumors that he may not stay all four years in New Jersey even if he wins re-election this November...)
Throughout my schooling, both in the stereotypical land of higher education as well as during my elementary and high school years, I was always the odd man out when it came to politics. Although I don't align myself with everything the Republican Party stands for (especially at the federal level), I have always seen myself--like Jacobson--as a progressive conservative, particularly in terms of economics. I've always derived my political status from my parents' position as the owners of their own business--and my mother's position as a general dentist: I have always been a fan of privatization and allowing people to build themselves, and their business, as they so wish and based on their own merits. Socially, I am more moderate, and I am technically a registered independent, but, as a resident of New Jersey, I am an avid supporter (and former intern/employee) of the Republican Party of New Jersey and the Christie Administration.
For whatever the reason, it just so happened many of my classmates did not share the same views as me. Thus, it was common in my International Studies honors program in high school for me and the other two, more right-leaning students to be isolated and mocked by most of the class for being the three "odd-balls." I found the opportunity to debate and be the "devil's advocate" in class exciting, and it allowed me to further my speech and debate skills. But, at the same time, after a constant uphill battle from the same students year in and year out, by senior year, I had taken to just stating my opinion, letting them respond, and sitting quiet. Even when my teachers told me my retort back to my classmates' opinion was valid, I just didn't feel like being that kid left out at the lunch room table discussion any more. Which is partially why when I came to Ithaca College, I tried my best to keep my political views quiet; contributing on political news shows on ICTV, but always using my blessed disclaimer that my parents did insist when I was 18 that I register as an independent.
..and which is also why I loved having Jacobson come speak to our class today. Although I am more of a "multimedia" journalist, I applaud his decision to take his views to the written, online word for all to see. As a female sports journalist by trade, I of all people should know a thing or two about fighting the uphill battle and ignoring criticism, but, for whatever the reason, I've kind of been a bit nervous to do that in the realm of politics. But Jacobson's encouragement both inspired me to not be a "closet conservative" when I am in Ithaca and also reminded me of my favorite politician of our time, Governor Chris Christie. Like Christie, Jacobson admitted the federal, Republican Party is not always right, nor is FOX News; FOX is simply the only channel that is "right leaning." But also, like Christie, Jacobson is a Republican because his individual values (and honest opinons, at that rate) most align with that party. That's the point I took away most from his presentation: being honest and presenting a logical argument which has always been something I love about a (let's be frank here) overweight governor who wants to just cut the dead weight and get to the core of an issue.
And I know, like Mr. Jacobson, there will be those who disagree with me about both Christie and Jacobson's approach and what Jacobson was getting at in our discussion. But the important part is that I now feel a little bit more comfortable in blogging and publicly stating my views in the 14850.
P.S. As I mentioned in class... it was quite fitting Jacobson spoke on the aniversary of Hurricane Sandy, an event that (besides his recent endorsement by Shaquille O'Neill) has defined Chris Christie's legacy. I'm also a big fan of his Twitter... his tweets over the last 24 hours are definitely worth a look-see (as is rumors that he may not stay all four years in New Jersey even if he wins re-election this November...)
Monday, October 28, 2013
A Newfound Finding on The New Republic
Although not neccessarily an independent media outlet, "The New Republic" has always framed ideas in a different way than even its fellow, liberal periodicals. From writers to the chief editors themselves, the paper has challenged and criticized current presidencies as well as uncovered both human interest stories as well as "muckraked stories."
I've always known about "The New Republic" and acknowledged its existence, having read it once or twice. But in my News Editing class earlier this week, we watched the film "Shattered Glass" starring Hayden Christensen and detailing the demise of once-acclaimed "New Republic" writer Stephen Glass. In 1998, Glass, then 24, was a rising star in the field: his humorous but seemingly "investigative" stories engaged readers and he himself gained a following both of readers and co-workers. However, when competitor "Forbes'" online magazine found several of Glass' sources in his article "Hacker Heaven" to be illegitimate--and, moreover, fabricated--Glass' world comes crashing down. Recently appointed editor of "New Republic," Chuck Lane, faces the task of dealing with Glass while not tarnishing the reputation of the magazine. In the end, Glass admits to fabricating or partially fabricating 27 out of the 41 pieces he wrote for the magazine.
The bigger story for the sake of our Indy Media class, however, is the work of "Forbes" and in particular writer Adam Penenberg who debunked Glass' "hacker prodigy" character and story. This was a breakthrough for online media, as an online form of media was able to use THE INTERNET in addition to calling up sources themselves in proving a mainstay magazine wrong. Suddenly, even a publication with a readership of over 80,000 could be brought down (for the record, "The New Republic" now has a circulation of about 50,000). Moreover, this incident prompted more fact checking among publications--and fact checking in terms of how the Internet and new media sources are used. For one of the major points Penenberg had against Glass was that the website for "Jukt Micronics" was simply a webpage--not a website for a major, tech corporation (it would eventually turn out that this page--which was only viewable for those with an AOL account--was made by either Glass or his college-aged brother who attended Stanford).
The story of Stephen Glass both proved that independent periodicals can be brought down and online journalism has the same potential as its print counterpart. For me too, on a side note, it proves that the "wealth" of "educated periodicals" is highly concentrated and populated with Ivy League grads and law students.... and not those who went to the quote-un-quote top "journalism schools" in the country. As independent media continues to grow, it will be interesting to see if these Ivy Leagues will continue to be suppliers to a new age of journalism--because after all, Chris Hughes, the current editor of "The New Republic" went to Harvard and was one of the co-founders of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg...
For more on the film, check out the trailer and you can also check out the article which inspired the film and details the complete demise of Glass (written by my personal favorite journalist/member of the "Ivy League elite," H.G. Bissinger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/bissinger199809
I've always known about "The New Republic" and acknowledged its existence, having read it once or twice. But in my News Editing class earlier this week, we watched the film "Shattered Glass" starring Hayden Christensen and detailing the demise of once-acclaimed "New Republic" writer Stephen Glass. In 1998, Glass, then 24, was a rising star in the field: his humorous but seemingly "investigative" stories engaged readers and he himself gained a following both of readers and co-workers. However, when competitor "Forbes'" online magazine found several of Glass' sources in his article "Hacker Heaven" to be illegitimate--and, moreover, fabricated--Glass' world comes crashing down. Recently appointed editor of "New Republic," Chuck Lane, faces the task of dealing with Glass while not tarnishing the reputation of the magazine. In the end, Glass admits to fabricating or partially fabricating 27 out of the 41 pieces he wrote for the magazine.
The bigger story for the sake of our Indy Media class, however, is the work of "Forbes" and in particular writer Adam Penenberg who debunked Glass' "hacker prodigy" character and story. This was a breakthrough for online media, as an online form of media was able to use THE INTERNET in addition to calling up sources themselves in proving a mainstay magazine wrong. Suddenly, even a publication with a readership of over 80,000 could be brought down (for the record, "The New Republic" now has a circulation of about 50,000). Moreover, this incident prompted more fact checking among publications--and fact checking in terms of how the Internet and new media sources are used. For one of the major points Penenberg had against Glass was that the website for "Jukt Micronics" was simply a webpage--not a website for a major, tech corporation (it would eventually turn out that this page--which was only viewable for those with an AOL account--was made by either Glass or his college-aged brother who attended Stanford).
The story of Stephen Glass both proved that independent periodicals can be brought down and online journalism has the same potential as its print counterpart. For me too, on a side note, it proves that the "wealth" of "educated periodicals" is highly concentrated and populated with Ivy League grads and law students.... and not those who went to the quote-un-quote top "journalism schools" in the country. As independent media continues to grow, it will be interesting to see if these Ivy Leagues will continue to be suppliers to a new age of journalism--because after all, Chris Hughes, the current editor of "The New Republic" went to Harvard and was one of the co-founders of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg...
For more on the film, check out the trailer and you can also check out the article which inspired the film and details the complete demise of Glass (written by my personal favorite journalist/member of the "Ivy League elite," H.G. Bissinger)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/bissinger199809
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Show Me the Money! (or..Where Is It?)
As I've said time and time again, I am an avid supporter of alternative media--and I mean that in all forms of the term. Independent blogging is not only tremendous in lending a different perspective, but also in uncovering grassroots stories that might not otherwise get coverage. In the same way, alternative albeit still large corporations are also important in developing a holistic view of a subject matter (think Al Jazeera to CNN and FOX Sports 1 to ESPN).
But at the end of the day, our culture has become inherently lazy, and it makes a lot more sense for most 21st century human beings to simply hit that "Favorites" or "Suggested" tab and go to the CNN, ESPN, and Yahoo!'s of the world purely because it's easier. In turn, these alternative media groups struggle in terms of funding and advertising--and many subsequently cease to exist.
I know our first reading is about Josh Marshall and "Talking Points"--which has succeeded has an independent outlet--and the second a slideshow of other successful indy groups/apps, but, unfortunately, Marshall's speech came in 2008 before his platform doubled and even tripled in popularity.
Instead, in keeping with this topic, I'd like to discuss Glen Greenwald's announcement this week that he will be launching an all-new, independent media outlet ala the lines of Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post.
No one knows for sure how Greenwald will fare in this business venture; he could very well end up like the FOX Sports 1's of the world, a competitor but eternally behind "the worldwide leader in sports." Or his platform could end up like Al Jazeera, a very successful website but which is just coming to the United States this year.
Personally, though, for all the reservations I have about independent media's financial success, I think Greenwald's platform will succeed--although whether it will surpass Huffington or be an "Al Jazeera" to HuffPost remains to be seen. The reason: he's Glen Greenwald. He's an already established figure with an active following. People will log on just because he's known to be an authority on media already. But the issue is (and I promise, this will be my last FOX Sports comparison!) that he needs to deliver from the get-go. FOX Sports 1 built up the hype about its new platform this summer. It was bringing in former pro athletes as commentators--and we're taking Donovan McNabb and Andy Roddick here. But Roddick struggled early on in his reporting repitoire. They brought in Regis Philbin to host a game show on a sports network and the ratings still are not nearly at the level of a "Wheel of Fortune" or "Jeopardy." And so people went back to ESPN.
If Glen Greenwald wants to make the money to sustain his product for years to come--which he definitely has the potential to do--he needs to keep that niche audience he has entertained and engaged. If he can do that, he'll gain the advertising revenue he needs to keep this thing going. But it's going to be these next few, opening months of the platform that will determine if the dollars... make sense.
But at the end of the day, our culture has become inherently lazy, and it makes a lot more sense for most 21st century human beings to simply hit that "Favorites" or "Suggested" tab and go to the CNN, ESPN, and Yahoo!'s of the world purely because it's easier. In turn, these alternative media groups struggle in terms of funding and advertising--and many subsequently cease to exist.
I know our first reading is about Josh Marshall and "Talking Points"--which has succeeded has an independent outlet--and the second a slideshow of other successful indy groups/apps, but, unfortunately, Marshall's speech came in 2008 before his platform doubled and even tripled in popularity.
Instead, in keeping with this topic, I'd like to discuss Glen Greenwald's announcement this week that he will be launching an all-new, independent media outlet ala the lines of Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post.
No one knows for sure how Greenwald will fare in this business venture; he could very well end up like the FOX Sports 1's of the world, a competitor but eternally behind "the worldwide leader in sports." Or his platform could end up like Al Jazeera, a very successful website but which is just coming to the United States this year.
Personally, though, for all the reservations I have about independent media's financial success, I think Greenwald's platform will succeed--although whether it will surpass Huffington or be an "Al Jazeera" to HuffPost remains to be seen. The reason: he's Glen Greenwald. He's an already established figure with an active following. People will log on just because he's known to be an authority on media already. But the issue is (and I promise, this will be my last FOX Sports comparison!) that he needs to deliver from the get-go. FOX Sports 1 built up the hype about its new platform this summer. It was bringing in former pro athletes as commentators--and we're taking Donovan McNabb and Andy Roddick here. But Roddick struggled early on in his reporting repitoire. They brought in Regis Philbin to host a game show on a sports network and the ratings still are not nearly at the level of a "Wheel of Fortune" or "Jeopardy." And so people went back to ESPN.
If Glen Greenwald wants to make the money to sustain his product for years to come--which he definitely has the potential to do--he needs to keep that niche audience he has entertained and engaged. If he can do that, he'll gain the advertising revenue he needs to keep this thing going. But it's going to be these next few, opening months of the platform that will determine if the dollars... make sense.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Just Stand Up!
From Elle Woods in the film "Legally Blonde," to anti-bullying campaigns, to the cancer research-benefit tune by Christina Aguilera, Missy Elliot, and Miley Cyrus among others, popular culture is constantly reinforcing (albeit often hypocritically) why it's important to "just stand up!"
Yet it is actually journalist George Seldes who we should be thanking for entrenching this value in society--especially those of us who call ourselves journalists.
Part of why I have found Seldes so interesting in both our class discussions and readings is because he transcended the independent and mainstream media like no one else. He was perhaps the first writer to do so well independently that the mainstream media had to ask for him back--and more than once. And when they did dismiss him, when they did send law enforcement after Seldes to intimidate him, Seldes turned to his private writing and role as a media critic. It was almost like the mythical creature Medusa: no matter how many heads you cut off, George Seldes had such a wide-range of skills that he could constantly come back, reinvented, better than ever.
More than just his versatility, the fact that Seldes lived through 104 years of international conflict, change, and journalistic growth made his writing all the more authoritative regardless of who he was reporting for. Seldes' reporting career really began on the battlefields of Europe before transitioning to the "witch hunt" for communists in the U.S. following WWII.
Speaking of which, I was shocked (or at least appalled) to find in "Press Critic George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage" that in his 2004 obituary, the New York Times simply said that "In Fact" "ceased publication in 1950," when it really as an official vendetta by both the mainstream media and government that caused Seldes to close up shop. To me, this is discouraging in that the mainstream media continues to this day to be the 6-year-old on the playground, not telling the whole truth because it's not their way or because it will prevent them from "winning" a game. The fact of the matter is that Seldes contributed to mainstream papers WHILE writing independently, and, at this point, the mainstream media has, at least in their eyes, already "won the game;" they shut "In Fact" down. At this point, the Seldes vs. Mainstream Media is decades old, so was it really merited to still carry this grudge? Or could the New York Times have, if only in death, given Seldes one more time to "stand up?"
Yet it is actually journalist George Seldes who we should be thanking for entrenching this value in society--especially those of us who call ourselves journalists.
Part of why I have found Seldes so interesting in both our class discussions and readings is because he transcended the independent and mainstream media like no one else. He was perhaps the first writer to do so well independently that the mainstream media had to ask for him back--and more than once. And when they did dismiss him, when they did send law enforcement after Seldes to intimidate him, Seldes turned to his private writing and role as a media critic. It was almost like the mythical creature Medusa: no matter how many heads you cut off, George Seldes had such a wide-range of skills that he could constantly come back, reinvented, better than ever.
More than just his versatility, the fact that Seldes lived through 104 years of international conflict, change, and journalistic growth made his writing all the more authoritative regardless of who he was reporting for. Seldes' reporting career really began on the battlefields of Europe before transitioning to the "witch hunt" for communists in the U.S. following WWII.
Speaking of which, I was shocked (or at least appalled) to find in "Press Critic George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage" that in his 2004 obituary, the New York Times simply said that "In Fact" "ceased publication in 1950," when it really as an official vendetta by both the mainstream media and government that caused Seldes to close up shop. To me, this is discouraging in that the mainstream media continues to this day to be the 6-year-old on the playground, not telling the whole truth because it's not their way or because it will prevent them from "winning" a game. The fact of the matter is that Seldes contributed to mainstream papers WHILE writing independently, and, at this point, the mainstream media has, at least in their eyes, already "won the game;" they shut "In Fact" down. At this point, the Seldes vs. Mainstream Media is decades old, so was it really merited to still carry this grudge? Or could the New York Times have, if only in death, given Seldes one more time to "stand up?"
But Really, "What is Love?"
Of any reading we've discussed this semester, Chapter Four of Voices of Revolution is the first to actually get me fired up and out of my seat. Yet it wasn't about a social issue or an ethical, moral dilemma in journalism (well, not quite). The story of Victoria Woodhull and the other journalists who fought for women's rights and the equality of marriage through their writing was perfectly crafted by Streitmatter... because it told the story, framed the writers' arguments, and, as mentioned, got me out of my seat and wanting to take a side.
Let it be known I agree with the decision by Woodhull, the Heywood couple, and Moses Harman to challenge traditional gender roles. As much as I try and steer clear of this fact, I would not be able to enter my desired career field (sports journalism) if not for individuals like these who fought for women's equality and "exposed the hypocrisy of the Victorian man"--and Victorian lifestyle itself.
But at the same time, I can't classify Woodhull's approach to journalism as 100% ethical and purely undertaken for journalistic purposes. I am all for "exposing the truth" and being a "pioneer." But if there's anything Woodhull's work was "pioneering," it was tabloid magazine writing. If her article "The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case" was intended to let it be known that Elizabeth Tilton was not the first parishioner to sleep with Rev. Beecher (nor the first woman to cheat on her husband), then why did she have to specifically name Tilton... who's husband Woodhull herself had once slept with? If you ask me, Woodhull's success (and her writing) fed off gossip and the inter-personal relationships of families and couples, relationships that Woodhull hypocritically encourages should do whatever they want free of public scrutiny. If she is allowed to sleep with whomever she wishes--and have no one denounce her--why should Woodhull be allowed to do that to another woman? As a crusader for women, Woodhull is most certainly breaking "girl code" through her journalistic ethics.
Don't get me wrong: Victoria Woodhull was a shrewd businesswoman, a networker, and an innovator. Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly gave people a voice when they might otherwise not be able to speak out--let alone write about it. Her fight to make the most of political opportunities to let her message be known was a fight way ahead of its time. But, as a journalist, I simply can't place the "independent journalist" Victoria Woodhull in the same category as an Upton Sinclair or George Seldes because her work wasn't really that of investigative "journalism." Was Woodhull publishing the stories others feared publishing? Yes. But it was all the information, the stories, the gossip that everyone knew, but only she was brave enough (and had the money) to publish it.
It was Victoria Woodhull's decision to be a "very promiscuous free lover." But it was not her decision whether or not to expose other women's promiscuity when she herself encouraged that women should be able to do as they please--and if these women wanted to keep their private lives quiet, then they should have been entitled to do so. Not everyone was Woodhull, secure enough in herself to love and do as she pleased.
(Worth mentioning, too, is that, after getting away to London with the various bequests and pay-off's of her ex-husbands, Woodhull "became the picture of domestic bliss, dedicating her life to her two grown children." Talk about hypocrisy.)
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Pick Your Poison: Money Control vs. Media Control
In a battle of the lesser of two evils, this week's readings examine how governments control and exploit their people, paying particularly close attention to contemporary governments. The two case studies examined are Tunisia during the Arab Spring (in which the government's monetary stronghold on property ownership was revealed by WikiLeaks) and China.
As mentioned, the Tunisian example focuses on the government's monetary exploitation of the people. As WikiLeaks would soon reveal, President Ben Ali's family did a pretty good job of utilizing their own wealth to buy up property in the country and then sell it off to entrepreneurs for even more money. The United States, as was revealed, even knew about this--although much of the Tunisian population did not.
In contrast to this monopoly on money, the Chinese example focuses on the government's ability to control the media and the perception citizens and foreigners have of a nation. The Xinjiang protests were met with government sanctions on media--but not just any media. Specifically, the Chinese restricted new and social media, restricting phone service, shutting down Twitter and other social networking sites, and "scrubbing" down search engines and the links they provided... and then they allowed more "traditional" forms of media to come in and cover the story, showcasing their "transparency."
I'd like to think this is a case of the Chinese trying to set an example for all nations and "cling on" to and "save" these dying media forms, but at the end of the day, that's simply not reality. The truth is that the Chinese used their ability to control the media to give off a certain image and to assert their power--just like the Ben Ali government in Tunisia did with its monopoly over property.
This, in turn, begs the question: what is more effective, to control the land and money or to control the media?
I think to answer this question it is important to remember just how the death of a fruit vendor in Tunisia inspired an entire region to get up and do something--because of the media. Might Mohammed Bouazizi have been disgruntled with the government's monopoly on land? Certainly. But even if he had a ton of money lying around himself, would Bouazizi have been able to get the word out there about this monopoly? Probably not--because the government could have imprisoned or, better yet, simply censored him. Thus, we see that all roads lead back to the media, and, in particular, new media, the type of media that gives viewers a front seat to the action no matter where they are (therefore why the Chinese gave "old" media the "front seat" to the action in Xinjiang and shut down new media--because a newspaper article is not going to be as instantaneous nor paint the picture of a YouTube video).
Which brings this back to the point I found most interesting in Arianna Huffington's piece on this Chinese exploitation. The New York Times Roger Cohen claimed that, after he covered the Iranian protests in Tehran, "to bear witness means being there," a point Huffington highly questions--and with good reason. Because, once again, thanks to new media, EVERYONE can feel like they're there--whether it's an NFL game, the Academy Awards, or protests in China, camera-videos and tweets can, when mass-produced and promoted, make viewers feel like they are there, making them feel emotionally invested thousands of miles away.
From a journalistic perspective, I was more upset that Cohen said this... and then talked about how "we should all be leaving 'chunks' of ourselves everywhere." This has been a practice I have always preached; as someone who enjoys being emotionally invested in the subject of my reporting, I find it 100% true. But I feel you don't need to be there 100% of the time to be 100% invested and to leave your mark on a subject. Just look at Wael Ghonim, the Google exec turned secret-leader of the Arab Spring in Egypt. Wael wasn't even in Egypt much of the time leading up to the protests and, after being arrested, he literally could not be on the streets. Yet he was invested in his subject and sought to promote it--using the medium of his choice, Facebook. Wael left chunks of himself on the streets of Cairo, but, moreover, he clicked the "share" button and taught others to share bits of themselves too in order to combat the government.
I believe a media stronghold is the more threatening "evil" in this situation. And I believe that, simultaneously, it is the job of the media to give other members of the media--whether they are front page news editors or simply a citizen journalist--the power to let this be known.
As mentioned, the Tunisian example focuses on the government's monetary exploitation of the people. As WikiLeaks would soon reveal, President Ben Ali's family did a pretty good job of utilizing their own wealth to buy up property in the country and then sell it off to entrepreneurs for even more money. The United States, as was revealed, even knew about this--although much of the Tunisian population did not.
In contrast to this monopoly on money, the Chinese example focuses on the government's ability to control the media and the perception citizens and foreigners have of a nation. The Xinjiang protests were met with government sanctions on media--but not just any media. Specifically, the Chinese restricted new and social media, restricting phone service, shutting down Twitter and other social networking sites, and "scrubbing" down search engines and the links they provided... and then they allowed more "traditional" forms of media to come in and cover the story, showcasing their "transparency."
I'd like to think this is a case of the Chinese trying to set an example for all nations and "cling on" to and "save" these dying media forms, but at the end of the day, that's simply not reality. The truth is that the Chinese used their ability to control the media to give off a certain image and to assert their power--just like the Ben Ali government in Tunisia did with its monopoly over property.
This, in turn, begs the question: what is more effective, to control the land and money or to control the media?
I think to answer this question it is important to remember just how the death of a fruit vendor in Tunisia inspired an entire region to get up and do something--because of the media. Might Mohammed Bouazizi have been disgruntled with the government's monopoly on land? Certainly. But even if he had a ton of money lying around himself, would Bouazizi have been able to get the word out there about this monopoly? Probably not--because the government could have imprisoned or, better yet, simply censored him. Thus, we see that all roads lead back to the media, and, in particular, new media, the type of media that gives viewers a front seat to the action no matter where they are (therefore why the Chinese gave "old" media the "front seat" to the action in Xinjiang and shut down new media--because a newspaper article is not going to be as instantaneous nor paint the picture of a YouTube video).
Which brings this back to the point I found most interesting in Arianna Huffington's piece on this Chinese exploitation. The New York Times Roger Cohen claimed that, after he covered the Iranian protests in Tehran, "to bear witness means being there," a point Huffington highly questions--and with good reason. Because, once again, thanks to new media, EVERYONE can feel like they're there--whether it's an NFL game, the Academy Awards, or protests in China, camera-videos and tweets can, when mass-produced and promoted, make viewers feel like they are there, making them feel emotionally invested thousands of miles away.
From a journalistic perspective, I was more upset that Cohen said this... and then talked about how "we should all be leaving 'chunks' of ourselves everywhere." This has been a practice I have always preached; as someone who enjoys being emotionally invested in the subject of my reporting, I find it 100% true. But I feel you don't need to be there 100% of the time to be 100% invested and to leave your mark on a subject. Just look at Wael Ghonim, the Google exec turned secret-leader of the Arab Spring in Egypt. Wael wasn't even in Egypt much of the time leading up to the protests and, after being arrested, he literally could not be on the streets. Yet he was invested in his subject and sought to promote it--using the medium of his choice, Facebook. Wael left chunks of himself on the streets of Cairo, but, moreover, he clicked the "share" button and taught others to share bits of themselves too in order to combat the government.
I believe a media stronghold is the more threatening "evil" in this situation. And I believe that, simultaneously, it is the job of the media to give other members of the media--whether they are front page news editors or simply a citizen journalist--the power to let this be known.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
To Fund or Not To Fund: the Complexities of Sustaining Non-Profits
Perhaps the biggest reason why I am hesitant to jump headfirst into the a career track in independent media is the "money" factor. As much as the claims of "reporting for the sake of morality" are preached to me and are certainly something I consider, at the end of the day, a paycheck is vital to survival, especially in the larger field of communications where working 80 hours a week for $20,000 per year is not all that uncommon. And this is coming from someone who wants to be a reporter in Bangor, Maine upon graduation--I've already accepted I'm not going to make more than $30K a year for my first few years out of school. Putting my faith in an independent news outlet that is dependent on a handful of fickle donors? Even riskier endeavor.
I think at the end of the day, though, all media outlets have to start somewhere and certainly having the backing of well-known donors is one way to go. Complimented with sponsored events like the "DreamGirls" revival or concerts and dinners, money can most certainly be raised; more than that, if marketed correctly, the name of the independent media organization can spread, hopefully attracting more donors. At the end of the day, that's where initial revenue must be spent: getting the word out there in order to gain more backers and readers. There's no point in continuously hiring more and more reporters if no one is reading the paper/listening to the show. In my opinion, it's more beneficial to have a small, dedicated group of reporters who can easily accomplish--given contemporary technology--the same amount of work as a group with more people. Saving the money in paying reporters will pay off when advertising brings in more donors and, the "7%" of funding at independent media outlets, consistent membership.
Although not necessarily a contemporary example, let's examine San Francisco's KPFA radio station. It began with a small, dedicated group led by Lew Hill and 39 listeners. But because this dedicated group put out a good product, it gained a dedicated following... who then backed the station when it nearly went under. The station was then able to expand its following, resulting in more funding, which then allowed for them to THEN expand their content and the number of shows they featured.
Like gaining membership, funding is a process--and as much as it is tempting to "cut to the finish line" and get a few, very wealthy backers, as Jodi Enda points out in "Staying Alive," "foundations and rich people can be fickle." In the short term, it is a start. But these people cannot be leaned on forever, unless independent media groups hope to simply move from one project to the next as soon as one fades away.
Two quick asides: first, I disagreed with Enda's point of how "journalists are uncomfortable asking for money." Certainly, journalism has the reputation of being a "noble profession" in which ethics and "doing the right thing" tump monetary rewards, but, at the same time, journalists should never be afraid to ask any question; asking questions is what makes good reporters. With being "noble" also comes being, contrary to what many may believe, pretty street savvy, and, thus, a smart journalist who is good at FRAMING questions, will know how to ask for money without directly "asking for money."
Additionally, I found the number of colleges with "investigative reporting units" to be very intriguing. Personally, I think these institutions are just a way for independent media outlets to arise with full monetary backing, but it definitely is a smart concept to go to the future of journalism as opposed to trying to compete with the "big boys" of CNN, MSNBC, etc. from the get-go.
I think at the end of the day, though, all media outlets have to start somewhere and certainly having the backing of well-known donors is one way to go. Complimented with sponsored events like the "DreamGirls" revival or concerts and dinners, money can most certainly be raised; more than that, if marketed correctly, the name of the independent media organization can spread, hopefully attracting more donors. At the end of the day, that's where initial revenue must be spent: getting the word out there in order to gain more backers and readers. There's no point in continuously hiring more and more reporters if no one is reading the paper/listening to the show. In my opinion, it's more beneficial to have a small, dedicated group of reporters who can easily accomplish--given contemporary technology--the same amount of work as a group with more people. Saving the money in paying reporters will pay off when advertising brings in more donors and, the "7%" of funding at independent media outlets, consistent membership.
Although not necessarily a contemporary example, let's examine San Francisco's KPFA radio station. It began with a small, dedicated group led by Lew Hill and 39 listeners. But because this dedicated group put out a good product, it gained a dedicated following... who then backed the station when it nearly went under. The station was then able to expand its following, resulting in more funding, which then allowed for them to THEN expand their content and the number of shows they featured.
Like gaining membership, funding is a process--and as much as it is tempting to "cut to the finish line" and get a few, very wealthy backers, as Jodi Enda points out in "Staying Alive," "foundations and rich people can be fickle." In the short term, it is a start. But these people cannot be leaned on forever, unless independent media groups hope to simply move from one project to the next as soon as one fades away.
Two quick asides: first, I disagreed with Enda's point of how "journalists are uncomfortable asking for money." Certainly, journalism has the reputation of being a "noble profession" in which ethics and "doing the right thing" tump monetary rewards, but, at the same time, journalists should never be afraid to ask any question; asking questions is what makes good reporters. With being "noble" also comes being, contrary to what many may believe, pretty street savvy, and, thus, a smart journalist who is good at FRAMING questions, will know how to ask for money without directly "asking for money."
Additionally, I found the number of colleges with "investigative reporting units" to be very intriguing. Personally, I think these institutions are just a way for independent media outlets to arise with full monetary backing, but it definitely is a smart concept to go to the future of journalism as opposed to trying to compete with the "big boys" of CNN, MSNBC, etc. from the get-go.
Reflections on Indy Media's Role in 2008 Election
Regardless of who one voted for (or voted at all, for that matter), the 2008 Presidential Election was groundbreaking on multiple levels. As discussed in "Big Election Winner: Indy Media" on CommonDreams.org, certainly the media's role in this election--and in particular, independent media--saw its role change like never before. By this time in history, the Internet was more than just a tool but an extension of American life and day-to-day socializing, and, thus, independent pundits and writers had much easier access than ever before.
However, for me, and in reflecting on this article, I think the biggest thing the media can (and should) take away from the 2008 Presidential Election and the events that have followed it is that "the" media, is no longer the only media--and by that I'm not just talking about the mainstream media. Journalists like Glenn Greenwald were just guys sitting on their couches on many accounts the first time John McCain ran for president in 2000. So, what changed? Once again: the power of the Internet. But, this time, when discussing the ability of the Internet, I'm talking about how Joe the Plumber can go from bum-on-the-street to household name to, better yet, online talk-show host if he really had wanted to. The Internet and accessibility to information and media has made everyone a journalist. Social media and the expansion of YouTube in particular are the biggest reasons behind this. Thus, it's not just the independent media who made a splash and saw an expanded role in 2008: it was anyone and everyone who ever wished to "report" on a ground breaking political event--and you best believe this role is only going to continue to expand in the coming years.
I absolutely applaud independent media outlets that took advantage of these new opportunities in 2008, uncovering dirt about both candidates and ethically reporting on it often, as in the case of the Huffington Post, regardless of which candidate they may or may not have supported. However, muckraking is not a new art form, especially when it comes to presidential elections (see yellow journalism in the late, 19th century). Being able to tweet a report and get retweeted thousands of times regardless of who you are or who you are affiliated with? That's groundbreaking stuff.
Thus, while I certainly appreciate the work of these indy media bloggers during the 2008 Election, I'd like to give even more credit to their counterparts, the creators of blog generators and social media networks. For it was through the work of these individuals that everyone was given a voice.
(on a quick side note: I would have loved to have seen further statistics about how independent media influenced the roles of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during this election, as well as the various other, governmental elections--i.e. Meg Whitman--that occurred in 2008. I read a book, "Notes From the Cracked Ceiling" a few years back that focuses on how the media basically, for lack of a better term, screwed most of these women from the get-go, and would be interested to get an independent media take on it!).
However, for me, and in reflecting on this article, I think the biggest thing the media can (and should) take away from the 2008 Presidential Election and the events that have followed it is that "the" media, is no longer the only media--and by that I'm not just talking about the mainstream media. Journalists like Glenn Greenwald were just guys sitting on their couches on many accounts the first time John McCain ran for president in 2000. So, what changed? Once again: the power of the Internet. But, this time, when discussing the ability of the Internet, I'm talking about how Joe the Plumber can go from bum-on-the-street to household name to, better yet, online talk-show host if he really had wanted to. The Internet and accessibility to information and media has made everyone a journalist. Social media and the expansion of YouTube in particular are the biggest reasons behind this. Thus, it's not just the independent media who made a splash and saw an expanded role in 2008: it was anyone and everyone who ever wished to "report" on a ground breaking political event--and you best believe this role is only going to continue to expand in the coming years.
I absolutely applaud independent media outlets that took advantage of these new opportunities in 2008, uncovering dirt about both candidates and ethically reporting on it often, as in the case of the Huffington Post, regardless of which candidate they may or may not have supported. However, muckraking is not a new art form, especially when it comes to presidential elections (see yellow journalism in the late, 19th century). Being able to tweet a report and get retweeted thousands of times regardless of who you are or who you are affiliated with? That's groundbreaking stuff.
Thus, while I certainly appreciate the work of these indy media bloggers during the 2008 Election, I'd like to give even more credit to their counterparts, the creators of blog generators and social media networks. For it was through the work of these individuals that everyone was given a voice.
(on a quick side note: I would have loved to have seen further statistics about how independent media influenced the roles of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during this election, as well as the various other, governmental elections--i.e. Meg Whitman--that occurred in 2008. I read a book, "Notes From the Cracked Ceiling" a few years back that focuses on how the media basically, for lack of a better term, screwed most of these women from the get-go, and would be interested to get an independent media take on it!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)