I stayed up until around 3 a.m. the morning of November 9. My phone buzzed all night with notifications of which candidate won each state's electoral votes. And when I finally got the last notification that said who won the election, I turned off my phone. My boyfriend and I went for a walk in the pouring rain with no umbrella.
With a president-elect that has normalized the harassment of journalists, it's going to be increasingly difficult to report on the government. One of the president-elect's first actions was not inviting the press to cover his meeting with current President Barack Obama. Censoring and banning certain types of journalism begins slowly and quietly; the end sneaks up quickly, and we could very well see our First Amendment Rights being called into question or even revoked regularly.
Who's to blame?
The mainstream media had plenty of control in the election's results. While the president-elect received countless waves of bad press, he still received far more press than any other candidate combined. Bad press is still press, and mainstream media catered to a circus show and not an election.
But what now?
Independent media has a more important role than ever. We're entering an era that will likely trigger protests, violence and corruption across every form of legislation. Since mainstream media cannot be trusted with treating politics like politics and not reality TV, it's up to independent news to take the reins.
Dare to investigate. Dare to back up every minuscule fact. Dare to cause a commotion in activism. Dare to cover stories that will get you in trouble. The lives of every person on this planet will be affected by the 2016 election — we as journalists need to help in every way possible.
It's easy to walk through the pouring rain and feel sad, but times of grieving need to be limited. It's time to stand up and take action.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
The Dark Side of the Internet
As I've mentioned in several of my posts on this blog, the internet has been one of the best tools for independent media: anyone can publish, readers can find new works easily, it's accessible to most people in the world, etc. But what's often overlooked are the subtle censorships brought upon by the internet.
Take journalist Matthew Lee as an example. In 2008, he was exposing corruption and wrongdoings in the United Nations on his founded publication Inner City Press. Lee had the platform of his own website to publish his findings freely — something he most likely could not have brought to a mainstream outlet. The internet allowed him to freely publish stories surrounding the issue, which frequently appeared on Google News where any user of Google could find his stories.
Until Lee received an email from Google:
"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."
Google completely erased Lee from their map — likely because the United Nations didn't like what he was publishing.
It's frightening to think that even the seemingly freest and safest medium to publish content may also be censored by higher conglomerates. Censorship is easier when it's on TV or in print — but going out of the way to censor freely published content? That takes effort, and it's chilling to know such precautions have been taken and likely will be taken in the future.
Take journalist Matthew Lee as an example. In 2008, he was exposing corruption and wrongdoings in the United Nations on his founded publication Inner City Press. Lee had the platform of his own website to publish his findings freely — something he most likely could not have brought to a mainstream outlet. The internet allowed him to freely publish stories surrounding the issue, which frequently appeared on Google News where any user of Google could find his stories.
Until Lee received an email from Google:
"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."
Google completely erased Lee from their map — likely because the United Nations didn't like what he was publishing.
It's frightening to think that even the seemingly freest and safest medium to publish content may also be censored by higher conglomerates. Censorship is easier when it's on TV or in print — but going out of the way to censor freely published content? That takes effort, and it's chilling to know such precautions have been taken and likely will be taken in the future.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Where Can the Money Come From?
In journalism, "nonprofit" organizations are expensive — which begs the question of if nonprofits can even exist in the field of journalism.
According to a 2009 Slate article, most nonprofits get their funding from handouts and philanthropists until the money runs dry. From 2005 to 2012, it's been estimated that $250 million dollars has been donated to independent news outlets. With the decline in quality of mainstream journalism, it makes perfect sense that philanthropists have been tossing their money to independent media: how else would important stories concerning others reach the public?
And without these philanthropists, will journalism be able to survive?
I'm not sure. Mainstream media has been having a difficult time of understanding what proper news is for centuries because of their source of funding. It's nearly impossible to write a story about the corruption at Disney when your publication itself is owned by Disney. Biting the hand that feeds you will likely lead to a cut in funding, which then causes the indirect censorship of mainstream media.
Donations are key to helping independent media thrive. While they're difficult to come by, ever cent does help to produce real journalism. Where would The Intercept be without the help of the former CEO of eBay?
According to a 2009 Slate article, most nonprofits get their funding from handouts and philanthropists until the money runs dry. From 2005 to 2012, it's been estimated that $250 million dollars has been donated to independent news outlets. With the decline in quality of mainstream journalism, it makes perfect sense that philanthropists have been tossing their money to independent media: how else would important stories concerning others reach the public?
And without these philanthropists, will journalism be able to survive?
I'm not sure. Mainstream media has been having a difficult time of understanding what proper news is for centuries because of their source of funding. It's nearly impossible to write a story about the corruption at Disney when your publication itself is owned by Disney. Biting the hand that feeds you will likely lead to a cut in funding, which then causes the indirect censorship of mainstream media.
Donations are key to helping independent media thrive. While they're difficult to come by, ever cent does help to produce real journalism. Where would The Intercept be without the help of the former CEO of eBay?
YouTube Journalism
I've been an avid viewer of YouTube videos far longer than I have been a journalist.
And no, I'm not just talking about silly cat videos. I began following channels like The Vlogbrothers, Five Awesome Girls, Wheezy Waiter and Ze Frank before being a YouTuber was actually a feasible job and form of income. I loved coming home after school and watching people sit in front of their web cams as they talked about something compelling, meaningless or just about their day. In 2008, it was a new form of media that was more personal than television; middle-school-aged me was all about it.
Fast forward about five or six years. YouTube, used as a news platform? College-aged me was (and still is) all about it.
I found The Young Turks sometime around 2012 or 2013 as a "recommended video" on my YouTube homepage. At the time, I was subscribed and familiar with other YouTube news channels like Sxephil and SourceFed as a way to get my news quickly and humorously — but I never thought of YouTube as a place to get serious and complicated news until I found The Young Turks.
And YouTube should be taken seriously, as expressed in a fairly recent Independent article. Serious news is coming from a serious journalist who will not be taken seriously by a mainstream outlet. And when mainstream will not accept you (he was also on MSNBC before his executives told him to tone down his reporting), the next step is to self-publish and produce content — which is exactly what The Young Turks did. Sitting at over 3 million subscribers, their actions appear to be working.
It's great to see an outlet grow up with you. While YouTube is still a place for silly vlogs and cat videos, it's also a place for serious journalism and hard-hitting reporting. YouTube is an excellent medium for everything that isn't quite fit for TV or movies. It's nice to see it can offer both compelling content and fluffy content.
And no, I'm not just talking about silly cat videos. I began following channels like The Vlogbrothers, Five Awesome Girls, Wheezy Waiter and Ze Frank before being a YouTuber was actually a feasible job and form of income. I loved coming home after school and watching people sit in front of their web cams as they talked about something compelling, meaningless or just about their day. In 2008, it was a new form of media that was more personal than television; middle-school-aged me was all about it.
Fast forward about five or six years. YouTube, used as a news platform? College-aged me was (and still is) all about it.
I found The Young Turks sometime around 2012 or 2013 as a "recommended video" on my YouTube homepage. At the time, I was subscribed and familiar with other YouTube news channels like Sxephil and SourceFed as a way to get my news quickly and humorously — but I never thought of YouTube as a place to get serious and complicated news until I found The Young Turks.
And YouTube should be taken seriously, as expressed in a fairly recent Independent article. Serious news is coming from a serious journalist who will not be taken seriously by a mainstream outlet. And when mainstream will not accept you (he was also on MSNBC before his executives told him to tone down his reporting), the next step is to self-publish and produce content — which is exactly what The Young Turks did. Sitting at over 3 million subscribers, their actions appear to be working.
It's great to see an outlet grow up with you. While YouTube is still a place for silly vlogs and cat videos, it's also a place for serious journalism and hard-hitting reporting. YouTube is an excellent medium for everything that isn't quite fit for TV or movies. It's nice to see it can offer both compelling content and fluffy content.
The Oregon Trail of Bloggers
Laws about journalists and privileges given to journalists have become increasingly murky with the use of the internet. Citizen journalism has become more prominent because of the internet, and allowing anyone the power to be a journalist has become a concern among government legislation.
Back in 2008 in Lake Oswego, Oregon, a blogger was asked to leave a City Council meeting because they were not a qualified journalist. Mark Bunster, who runs Loaded Orygun (a blog that was much more active at the time in question), identified as a journalist who published on a political blogging platform. At the time, however, the city did not have a formal policy on bloggers. This encounter with Bunster stirred controversy in Oregon about whether a policy should be in place, and it questioned the definition was of "journalist."
There is no concrete definition to this word and there is no concrete answer to "is a blogger a journalist?" It depends on the circumstances and depends on the quality of work produced by the blogger in question.
According to the American Press Institute, anyone can perform journalistic acts, but not everyone can be a journalist. At the end, it boils down to critical thinking and analysis: "The journalist places the public good above all else and uses certain methods – the foundation of which is a discipline of verification – to gather and assess what he or she finds." If a blogger goes out to a city council meeting with the intention of reporting to the public and to benefit the greater good, they are a journalist. If they attend a press conference merely to take some photos and listen in on important information without critically analyzing it, they are not a journalist.
Bloggers should not be automatically excluded from being called a journalist – their blog itself should be questioned first.
Back in 2008 in Lake Oswego, Oregon, a blogger was asked to leave a City Council meeting because they were not a qualified journalist. Mark Bunster, who runs Loaded Orygun (a blog that was much more active at the time in question), identified as a journalist who published on a political blogging platform. At the time, however, the city did not have a formal policy on bloggers. This encounter with Bunster stirred controversy in Oregon about whether a policy should be in place, and it questioned the definition was of "journalist."
There is no concrete definition to this word and there is no concrete answer to "is a blogger a journalist?" It depends on the circumstances and depends on the quality of work produced by the blogger in question.
According to the American Press Institute, anyone can perform journalistic acts, but not everyone can be a journalist. At the end, it boils down to critical thinking and analysis: "The journalist places the public good above all else and uses certain methods – the foundation of which is a discipline of verification – to gather and assess what he or she finds." If a blogger goes out to a city council meeting with the intention of reporting to the public and to benefit the greater good, they are a journalist. If they attend a press conference merely to take some photos and listen in on important information without critically analyzing it, they are not a journalist.
Bloggers should not be automatically excluded from being called a journalist – their blog itself should be questioned first.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Overcome the Long Tail
Startups are difficult. Getting your feet off the ground with little funding and backing for a new project presents itslef with many challenges. Can my company survive longer than a couple of weeks on my limited funding? How do I get others to appreciate the work I do? How can I compete with corporations that have seemingly unlimited funding?
A fanbase.
In Kevin Kelly's piece "1,000 True Fans," Kelly discusses the challenges that come with a new company competing with corporations. The "Long Tail" phenomenon lies at the center of these concerns: the idea that companies cannot survive without popularity. A company needs customers to promote their products (or in the media's case, an audience that will buy and support their content) so they can earn an income to continue making content. The best solution offered by Kelly: harboring 1,000 true fans.
Kelly defines a true fan as "someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. ... They can’t wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans." True fans will provide free and enthusiastic advertising, full support — but only if they are given a reason to do so. Being kind to fans in the beginning is a critical step for any startup. Gaining trust in a group that financially supports will help your company climb the Long Tail quickly and efficiently. After all, without fans and content supporters, who can you hope the content is reaching?
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Initials for your Byline?
In the wake of everything that's happened this past week, this is really not a good time to be a woman in this country — even worse, a woman who's a journalist. Breaking tradition, our president-elect may be the U.S.'s first leader to keep the press out of the White House. It's dangerous to be part of the press.
I've spent time thinking of ways I can protect myself and protect how others perceive my writing. While I don't think I will ever have the chance to be protected if I call myself a journalist, there are small steps I can take to protect myself as a woman. Which led me to a possible solution.
Would it be wise to change my name to "C. L. Citranglo" on my bylines?
Plenty of authors use their first two initials and their last name, but I noticed this was an incredibly rare practice among journalists. I did a quick scan of popular mainstream and independent news sites (NY Times, Huff Post, Truth-Out, Democracy Now!, etc.), and I couldn't find a single journalist who had just initials for a byline (aside from the late I.F. Stone).
I know of a few women in comedy who have done similar things (Ashley Newton made her stage name Lee Newton so she would have an easier time booking comedy gigs; she noted many venues were surprised to learn she's a woman when she shows up), but I was wondering if a similar practice is an acceptable route in journalism. Does this take away transparency on behalf of the journalist and/or the publication? But at the same time, does having a full name on the byline also create a bias for the reader? Especially now since many online publications post a photo of the reporter beside their name.
I can see this becoming a problem depending on the piece. If a male is covering a story on abortion rights, I as a reader may take his writing with a grain of salt as he's not part of the affected group — at the same time, I would fear a woman writing this piece may have a direct bias in her reporting since she may be from the affected group. Not knowing the author's gender or full name may be a solution to this problem, yet it may also make me skeptical as a reader as I question why their name is hidden. And wouldn't it sound odd for me to introduce myself to a source as "C.L."?
While there doesn't appear to be a best solution in any of these scenarios, using just initials does take away the most bias when it comes to gender. It seems a bit awkward in practice, but it does take away any implications from the reader —unless your photo also appears next to your name.
It's a tough time to be a journalist, a tough time to be a woman and an even tougher time to be a woman journalist. Despite all protections and precautions we can take, there may be no escape from discrimination.
I've spent time thinking of ways I can protect myself and protect how others perceive my writing. While I don't think I will ever have the chance to be protected if I call myself a journalist, there are small steps I can take to protect myself as a woman. Which led me to a possible solution.
Would it be wise to change my name to "C. L. Citranglo" on my bylines?
Plenty of authors use their first two initials and their last name, but I noticed this was an incredibly rare practice among journalists. I did a quick scan of popular mainstream and independent news sites (NY Times, Huff Post, Truth-Out, Democracy Now!, etc.), and I couldn't find a single journalist who had just initials for a byline (aside from the late I.F. Stone).
I know of a few women in comedy who have done similar things (Ashley Newton made her stage name Lee Newton so she would have an easier time booking comedy gigs; she noted many venues were surprised to learn she's a woman when she shows up), but I was wondering if a similar practice is an acceptable route in journalism. Does this take away transparency on behalf of the journalist and/or the publication? But at the same time, does having a full name on the byline also create a bias for the reader? Especially now since many online publications post a photo of the reporter beside their name.
I can see this becoming a problem depending on the piece. If a male is covering a story on abortion rights, I as a reader may take his writing with a grain of salt as he's not part of the affected group — at the same time, I would fear a woman writing this piece may have a direct bias in her reporting since she may be from the affected group. Not knowing the author's gender or full name may be a solution to this problem, yet it may also make me skeptical as a reader as I question why their name is hidden. And wouldn't it sound odd for me to introduce myself to a source as "C.L."?
While there doesn't appear to be a best solution in any of these scenarios, using just initials does take away the most bias when it comes to gender. It seems a bit awkward in practice, but it does take away any implications from the reader —unless your photo also appears next to your name.
It's a tough time to be a journalist, a tough time to be a woman and an even tougher time to be a woman journalist. Despite all protections and precautions we can take, there may be no escape from discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)