Access for Bloggers: A Question of Legitimacy

Journalists exist to gather information and disseminate it to the public, and a key part of doing their job lies in getting access to sources and events for that information. Unfortunately, in many cases, bloggers are not able to get access to important events and meetings for that information, as they are not considered journalists, thus not only making their job more difficult, but signifying that they have a long way to go before they can prove themselves legitimate sources of news.

To some degree, the wariness of considering just any blogger a journalist is warranted. Bloggers often start publication without a formal education on the principles of professional journalism, if not the belief that such principles are outdated or misaimed. At best, they are effective alternative journalists that can provide stories and insights that the mainstream media would not, but at worst, they regurgitate the news with their own partisan spin on it. Unfortunately, such distinctions are not always clear-cut, and the people in charge of regulating access to events that are restricted to the people involved in them and members of the press thus have no official way of determining whether they are the better or worse kind of blogger, and would likely exclude all journalists except those from particularly noteworthy online outlets like The Huffington Post. Attempting to judge based on quality is a better idea, but invites subjective judgment, and will leave some excluded bloggers crying foul and claiming that they were excluded while lower quality ones were allowed access. Finally, allowing everyone access may work for things like school board meetings, but there are some instances where it would only be practical to only allow press representatives in, and that could not be used for every occasion.

However, there still needs to be a way for bloggers to be recognized as journalists. Bloggers may not be officially trained or have the backing of reputed organizations, but they still have the ability to produce timely and insightful journalism, and cannot all be dismissed as ordinary citizens with websites. They can act as a check on the mainstream press and potentially correct them whenever they make mistakes by investigating the stories on their own. Limiting access limits the number of people who report on a story, and if only a few people do it, misconceptions and lies are more likely to circulate.

There should be a way for bloggers to register their websites with an organization after proving that they are able to report well, and be allowed the same degree of access to events as members of the mainstream press so long as they continue reporting and adhere to professional standards of conduct. This would thus enable them to have the same freedom that members of the mainstream press do, and give them reason to abide by professional codes of conduct. Journalists have rights and responsibilities in their search for their truth, and bloggers who play the part should be acknowledged as real journalists and be given both.

Censorship on Google: A Troubling Way to Keep Information Out of the Public Eye

The Internet provides more content than any previous medium has, and search engines are essential to sort through the content to find what the user wants. Unfortunately, by helping filter the sites, they limit our awareness, and we end up finding only what the search engine deems relevant to our queries. This capacity can be abused to limit access to certain information, and prevent it from reaching the public eye, as Yahoo and Google have done.

While Fox News may well have a political ax to grind in exposing Matthew Lee's anti-UN articles, possibly hoping to discredit the UN, the idea of his articles not appearing on Google News because of their tilt is troubling. While it may seem as though they were only suppressed on one site, Google News is supposed to be a repository for the day's news online, and the story's absence is especially noticeable given his stories' previous popularity. Google's citing his site as a "one-man" operation despite the volunteers taht work for it seems to be at best a faulty application of standards, and at worst, an impromptu justification for delisting him.

There is also the case of Guo Quan, a dissident Chinese blogger whose blog was removed from Google and Yahoo's search results in China. In doing so, Yahoo and Google prevent people from even gaining awareness of these issues, as people searching about the Communist Party would not be able to see his work. The reasons given are even less justified than those in Lee's case, since Google justifies this by acting under Chinese law and for the interest of doing business in China, which suggests that Google willingly upholds China's censorship policy merely to retain access to China.

This type of censorship is especially troubling, as while under more traditional forms of censorship, people might be able to notice what the government is not talking about, removing it from the search engines severely hinders people from even gaining awareness that the issues are out there, much less finding them by searching. Even if people are still able to access those websites, often by way of a special browser window that enables them to search and surf without restrictions, those people will be a minority, usually only those who are already aware of the degree of censorship or what is being censored, thus limiting the spread of the information and allowing the misconceptions to continue being seen as legitimate and true. The Internet should be more than a large repository of information, but should also be accessible, and by helping keep news that they or those they have connections with out of browsers' sight, Google and Yahoo are detracting from the Internet's purpose as the "information superhighway."

Revenue Streams For Independent Media: A Look at Advantages and Disadvantages

Independent media often struggle with finding a way to keep themselves funded, especially when they are less popular and less likely to have a large amount of money on hand than mainstream news media. They often seek money through three ways- advertising, fees or donations, and try to search for a fourth.

Requiring people to pay for access to the publication is the most reliable way of raising money, as it results in the publication not being beholden to any individual or organization. While the publication would need to constantly work to expand its reader base, that is a goal it should already be following, assuming that it is doing so by articles that convince people that it is an interesting and informative publication. While any of the articles that happened to offend individuals or groups of people would result in the magazine losing viewers and money, the effect would only be proportional to the number of people offended, thus lowering the risk for publishing a controversial article. While this stream of revenue potentially results in the publication pandering to readers, publishers can avoid this by staying with the style that enabled the publication to initially gain popularity.

Advertising has long been a supplemental source of income for publications, but potentially opens the publication to conflicts of interest. Advertisers can bring in significant amounts of money to the publication, but often only continue featuring their ads if they have favorable coverage. They often realize that the publications need the money they pay for their ads than they need the exposure the advertising contract gives, and thus use their leverage to force the publications to suppress stories that portray them in a negative light. This results in the publishers realizing that while they may lose viewers if they compromise their principles, the advertisers have greater sway, and thus censor their reporting and betray their ideals to stay in business. Advertisements can be helpful as a supplemental source of revenue, but they should not be an independent media publication's only source, or even its main source. Independent media not only must stay financially solvent, but remain independent from outside influences, and cannot rely on a single source of revenue.

Donations is a slightly better source of funds than advertising, but it shares many of the same flaws. With donations, viewers can determine the amount they pay by how much they can or are willing to pay, thus enabling the publication to be affordable to those who might not be able to pay the subscription fee. Unfortunately, by this system, "free riders" can pay nothing, or the minimum amount for the subscription, thus depriving the publication access to revenue. Large donors have a similar degree of influence as large advertisers, and can jeopardize the publication's financial health if they withdraw their donations. Donations are a good way for viewers to voluntarily support a publication's continued existence, but are too unreliable to be a sole source of revenue.

While the best way to fund an independent publication would depend on its content, audience and market, independent publications should mainly rely on subscription fees, and supplement it with small advertisers who would not likely appear in their reporting. While donations might be ideal for online independent news sites, which do not often require visitors to pay, they are otherwise not as steady a source of revneue as subscription payments and, like advertising, vulnerable to conflicts of interest. No matter what a publication's mission is or what its principles are, it must continue to stay true to those principles, and setting up their revenue so that no single well-conceived journalistic decision is unaffordable is necessary to provide its consumers the best possible journalism.

Mark Finkelstein

I found Mark Finkelstein's presentation on Tuesday to be an interesting discussion on blogging the news. His presentation went more into how he blogs about the news than last time, and I found the discussion on the way his website gained hits important information for those who are planning to establish their own websites. His noting that some of his hits came from anti-semitic "wacko" sites was a fascinating detail, especially given that I had spent part of my internship at The Ithaca Journal last semester creating spreadsheets based on data about where traffic to the website came from. It was interesting to hear about him making money from his blog, but it would have been worthwhile for him to note that he works as a landlord, and that not all bloggers can post on their sites for a living.

I wholeheartedly agreed with Finkelstein's advice to write outside of class. In addition to my work for The Ithacan, I am considering writing a blog on living in Ithaca, per former Ithaca College professor Michael Scully's advice at last semester's job search workshop. The blog would serve as a way of hosting my writing, provide links to some of my articles, and enable me to continue writing while I am searching for a job.

However, I still disagree with his opinions on the political bias. While the story on Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend was a clear case of wasting news resources on a story with no news value, it does not necessarily reflect liberal bias on the media's part. It is more due to the news media seeing the Palin story as what Project Censored terms "junk food news"- news that does little to inform the public, but is popular among news consumers, particularly most celebrity news. While Finkelstein admits that he is a conservative republican, he was not as willing to concede the possibility of the media being influenced by conservative biases or conservative influences. While I may not agree with this part of his ideals, or his blogging to expose only the liberal tilt of the mainstream media, I personally found his talk informative and a good look how to blog full-time.

Margaret Sanger's Journalism: Expanding Awareness About Birth Control

Journalism's first and foremost duty is to provide people with information, and an important part of that duty is finding otherwise obscure but important events and issues and bringing them to the public's attention. Margaret Sanger striving to perform that task for birth control

Not knowing about safe alternatives to illegal abortions had a great cost for women. Sadie Sachs became ill from blood poisoning after having an illegal abortion, and after her doctor refused to tell her about ways to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, died after having another abortion. Sanger's own mother died from chronic tuberculosis, having lost much of her strength after 11 births and seven miscarriages. As Sachs and Sanger's mother were not the only victims, spreading information about birth control was critical for preserving the lives and health of women who did not want to become mothers.

While many people sought to keep information about contraceptives away from working-class women, Sanger persisted and often managed to turn it to her advantage. When the authorities shut down her speaking appointments, she resisted, and while she was often arrested, she managed to get a greater audience and spread more awareness of the issues than she would have otherwise. She was willing to continue publishing until a warrant was issued for her arrest and she had to flee abroad. New ideas often encounter considerable resistance, and Sanger's perseverance enabled her to spread awareness to reach many more people.

The Internet presents many new opportunities for this kind of journalism. The lack of gatekeepers prevents people like Anthony Comstock from censoring this journalism or taking action against the producers, although it also lessens the possibility of oversight over such journalism. The Internet has a worldwide audience, which enables more people in more places to hear about obscure issues, making it a topic of discussion more easily. The Internet's capacity for two-way communication enables users to share their thoughts and spread the information, thus ensuring that the people who initially bring up the issue are not the only ones disseminating the information.

The mainstream media often fail to explore aspects of certain issues, like solutions to the economic crisis that have not been up for consideration in Congress, or fail to report others, like soldiers testifying in Winter Soldier sessions and the acts that many of those soldiers committed or witnessed. While it behooves the mainstream media to become more proactive in searching out the stories that matter, spreading awareness of obscure issues should not solely be up to them, as ordinary people with access to the proper information can and should help shed light on lesser known issues. As the Internet presents a platform to people with unprecedented accessibility and audience, and Sanger was able to make a considerable impact without that source, the time is right for citizen journalists to educate others about the issues that matter.

The Liberator: Courage Absent from Today's Press

While reading about The Liberator and other abolitionist publications, I had known that abolitionists faced considerable and often violent resistance to expressing their beliefs. Such bravery and persistence often stands in stark contrast to the modern day press, which often abandons the principles it is supposed to hold and backs down from publishing important stories under the slightest hint of pressure.

Garrison was repeatedly threatened with death, and once was nearly killed by a lynch mob for the stories he wrote. The corporate news media often do not apply the same scrutiny to conservatives that they do to liberals in order to avoid being associated with the "liberal media". Garrison put forward his strongly anti-slavery opinions without any hesitation or regret, and welcomed being criticized in an opposing paper's editorial page. By contrast, President Rochon apologized for Emily McNeill's article on the Israeli-Palestinian article, which did nothing more than explore a lesser-known side of the issue.

The difference between the Liberator and modern media in how they respond to attacks on what they publish is a matter of intentions. The Liberator primarily existed to end slavery, and thus, if it had compromised its principles out of fear or desire to ensure profit, it would have gone against the very reason it was created. By contrast, the mainstream press are often owned by companies that expect profit out of them, and thus are willing to put pressure on them to censor stories that would alienate advertisers too often to be merely for the outlet's survival. As a result, editors often confuse the decisions that are necessary to stay in business with the ones they do to avoid taking a risk on a principled stand. They are essentially no longer doing true journalism, but doing business, and have betrayed their principles out of fear of survival.

Keeping to one's journalistic principles requires keeping sight of them, and this can be a difficult task when competing needs come into play. The nonprofit press is less constrained by financial and advertising-related burdens than the mainstream press is, but they are still not free of ethical dilemmas and difficult decisions. It is ultimately up to the journalists themselves and the people in charge of them to remember why they are producing articles, and the Liberator provides a good example of the resolve that modern journalists should show.

Matt Taibbi: An Interesting Look at Alternative Journalism

I found Matt Taibbi's lecture on journalism to be an interesting look into alternate ways of getting into and writing journalism, which I had not considered doing in my more conventional entry into the profession, as well as the current nature of the mainstream and alternate press. Although I sometimes disagreed with his points, I found his talk to be informative, comprehensive and humorous.

While Taibbi was able to become a reporter without having studied journalism or worked for student media in college, I personally believe that an undergraduate degree in journalism can be very useful for journalists. Journalism students can learn the theory, professional skills and ethics of reporting in a classroom setting without being forced to learn on the job while being judged by their bosses. In this way, they can avoid some of Taibbi's early mistakes, such as not realizing what tone "hard news" outlets require leads to be. They can also realize far earlier whether journalism is an ideal career for them after getting some experience in the industry via internships, their coursework and student media.

Then again, if Taibbi had pursued this path, he may have internalized the values of objective journalism, and most likely would not have written as he did. I found his humorous writing style to be an intriguing way of pursuing journalism, and found his reactions to some of the press's flaws and absurdities amusing. One example is when he conveyed the viewers' shock that the "Great Democrat" displayed in a portrait was Boris Yeltsin by comparing it to the wedding of a death row inmate and cocktail waitress. Bits of writing like those are amusing ways of conveying the story, albeit ones not suitable for "hard news" media, and not ones that I would regularly use.

Taibbi brought up some highly concerning anecdotes about his reporting in Russia. He mentioned reporters who made fictitious man on the street interviews with the same person, knowing that their editors could never fact-check them, showing that they were wiling to break a fundamental journalistic taboo against fabrication to save time.

Taibbi's mentioning people internalizing the poor journalistic integrity of media outlets raises one of my primary concerns as a journalist to mind. While I recognize that it is natural and often necessary to question and re-evaluate one's principles, as I have done over time in the past, I sometimes fear that the pressures of the news industry, as well as employers who place profit before journalism, will slowly erode my resolve and ultimately leave me unable to make principled decisions.

Matt Taibbi's event was interesting because it helped me to look at the way the press works and the way we do journalism differently while still being humorously conveyed and containing much of his career story in it. Throughout my time at Ithaca College, much of the way I perceived journalism and the media has been redefined, and Taibbi's speech, by showing me a way of journalism I had not considered before, thus had its unique impact on my perceptions.