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.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
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)