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.

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...)

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

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.

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?"

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.)