The Sorry State of Public Broadcasting

As a child, I remember watching PBS. Whether it was Sesame Street, Wishbone, or Reading Rainbow, PBS was an important part of my early years. Today, public broadcasting in America is the exact opposite of what it claims to be. The goal of public broadcasting should be to serve the public's interests and report on issues that affect society. In reality, though, public broadcasting is a corporate entity that doesn't function to anywhere near its full potential. Why? Because America is a capitalist country.

Even for independent public broadcasting, loyalty lies exclusively in business. Jerold M. Starr, executive director of Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, said in 2001 that "While 75 percent of public broadcast funding comes from the public in one form or another, corporations are the single largest source of underwriting for programs." Starr continues: "Corporations are not big risk-takers when there's perceived controversy." The result of corporate control in public broadcasting is an abundance of safe programs like nature and music shows. What is lost in the process is objective, accurate news that differs from commercial networks.

Another problem with current public broadcasting is that PBS "systematically bans independent productions that receive support from labor or public interest groups." While this move is logical in that it cancels any doubt as to whether interest groups influenced programming, what it more fucked up is just how much capitalism factors into news decisions. Corporations are allowed to sponsor programs that feature their products, as evinced by watching any cable news show. What is sad is that PBS, a publicly-funded news station, is in bed with big business, just like the rest of television news.

America today is free of any independent public broadcasting system. If you watch PBS in the future, watch so with a detective's eye. You'll be surprised at what you'll see when you know who's really pulling the strings. There are puppet-masters in the media, and they are the same figures on Wall Street. They are the ones who almost sacked this country with their unbridled greed. They are the ones who cannot be trusted, especially with matters of national significance. They are capitalists, and damn good ones. They are shadows that must be exposed in light. They are bigger than PBS, and they know it.

I hope PBS will still exist for my children. But until then, I'll continue to oppose big business interfering with publicly-funded news outlets because it's wrong and it's destroying this country. That is how I feel, and that is why I write.

Broadening Broadband (For the Good of America)

Sam Gustin's August 2009 article about America's sub-par broadband Internet infrastructure raised some red flags that until reading I hadn't noticed before. The thrust of Gustin's argument, which he effectively proves through linked evidence, is that America's national broadband system is the worst for a developed country in the industrialized world. In a study done by the Communication Workers of America, the U.S. ranks 28th in terms of broadband Internet speed and coverage. For the greatest country in the world, to not have adequate Internet service is embarrassing; however, it is not surprising for a number of reasons I will explain.

The U.S. is currently the only industrialized country without a national broadband policy. When Barack Obama was elected president, he promised, as part of his economic stimulus package, to spend $7.2 billion on strengthening America's broadband system. While it's encouraging to see a politician work to increase Internet access and service, I don't see huge changes on the horizon. As Gustin writes, "The average U.S. broadband speed has increased by a meager 1.6 megabits per second, from 3.5 mbps in 2007 to 5.1 mbps in 2009." He continues: "At this pace, the U.S. won't catch up to South Korea - the nation with the fastest broadband speed at 20.4 mbps - for 15 years." In short, America is losing the race for supreme Internet service .

Another question that this issue raises is the place that the Internet holds in American society. According to Larry Cohen, president of the Communication Workers of America, "Every American should have affordable access to high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. This is essential to economic growth and will help maintain our global competitiveness." I agree with Cohen's point, but I wonder if the Internet is an important enough entity to warrant such government intervention. Wouldn't it be nice to see the government nationalize Internet access like Obama has recently done for health care? I think that would be an amazing accomplishment every American would support, especially if the government improved on the already successful Internet model.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for such government intervention, but it's obvious that America's broadband system is not up to par with the rest of the world. I hope the future will bring changes to the Internet that everyone, regardless of race or class or intelligence, can enjoy. That would be good for the world and America.

Bill Clinton, Drudged Through the Mud

On January 6, 1999, Internet blogger Matt Drudge, a conservative "journalist," broke a story over his blog that then President Bill Clinton had fathered an illegitimate Arkansas boy. Hot off the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was being attacked in the conservative press as a sexual deviant, and Drudge's story only served as gasoline on a burning fire. While Drudge has run one of the Internet's longest and most successful blogs, he has received criticism because his "news" is clearly biased and often fabricated. I believe this story is no different, and I will explain why.

To begin, Drudge claims that there is a video "confession" that only he and Star Magazine have seen of Clinton's purported offspring. Drudge writes, "What becomes immediately obvious to the viewer watching the videotaped confession is that this clearly not gossip, rumor or anonymous charges being maliciously directed at a politician." This explanation is so ludicrous that it discredits everything Drudge had previously said earlier in the article. Drudge is showing neither objectivity or transparency, as there are no links to this "video." Rather, he is just another cook stirring a pot of Washington political soup that is hard to swallow and bitter to taste.

Another thing I truly don't like about Matt Drudge's blog is that it prides itself on breaking untrue news stories. While these stories often prove to be nothing, they nevertheless have an effect on the media because Drudge himself is a very powerful media member. As one of the first successful bloggers, Drudge owns a very special place in the media. He is the conservative home page for millions who want their "news" delivered in a visually unappealing, hard to verify way. He is a blogger who straddles the line between blogging and journalistic reporting. And for that he has affected news forever.

God help us all...

Transparency = Objectivity (In 2010)

After reading blogger David Weinberger's piece, I must say I'm both surprised and greatly encouraged by this new shift that has affected journalistic standards. In the golden age of print, no journalistic standard was more lauded than objectivity, which was used by journalists to mask their true views. Weinberger writes, "objectivity - even as an unattainable goal - served an important role in how we came to trust information, and in the economics of newspapers in the modern age." With the rise of the Internet, however, objectivity is no longer the revered golden cow to be worshiped; rather, it's transparency, the once taboo journalistic practice.

The Internet has made every media outlet - whether they want to be or not - transparent. This transparency, once something print journalists feared, is now seen in some circles as not only a good thing, but a necessary move. As Weinberger writes, "What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective we now believe because we can see through the author's writings to the sources and values that brought her to that position." Indeed, the endless pit of information on the Internet makes it increasingly harder to be objective.

So how does transparency show itself on the Internet? The answer: through independent bloggers, in the form of links. Rather than hide their political leanings, bloggers now, when writing politically partisan pieces, post links that further explain their points. "Transparency prospers in a linked medium," Weinberger writes, "for you can literally see the connections between the final draft's claims and the ideas that informed it." By being transparent, bloggers are gaining credibility because they're striving for accuracy, and not the bland, middle-of-the-road objectivity of yesteryear.

I'm all for it.

OK Computers: Consequences of New Technology

On Thursday, IC journalism professor Vadim Isakov gave a special presentation in our class. During Vadim's presentation, I listened with both eager excitement and frequent fear about the new technologies being used by today's journalists. Here is why I feel as I do...

The first example of new technology that is being incorporated into modern journalism is GQ magazine's altered reality. As Vadim demonstrated, subscribers to GQ were treated with an interactive, movie-like video that featured Robert Downey Jr., the issue's cover story. All readers need to do to access this video is hold their issue in front of the computer, where a small, barcode-like box is read, bringing up this cool video. Sweet, right?

Yes, but as someone who takes great pride in writing, I fear that people are growing desensitized to the physical nature of the world. Too often people get sucked into the digital world never to return, or when they return, to emerge a different person. It is obvious that technology is as much an addiction as any drug, and while it may not be as physically harmful, it certainly affects the way people communicate.

With that said, I do enjoy fancy new technolgies, but I do think some of these new inventions are absurb and demeaning. A refrigerator that instructs me when to buy milk? Give me a fucking break, I'm not that stupid. But if I put forth the money for such a fridge, wouldn't I be just that stupid? Or would I just be technologically ahead of the curve?

Humans are the supreme species on this planet, and our technologies prove that. I just hope they don't prove to be better than us...

A Leak From Above

Last week, my attention was captured by a shocking story that I found while browsing the Huffington Post. The case I am referring to has now gained worldwide media attention because it involves video - taken from a U.S. Army Apache helicopter - as the pilots reign bombs down on innocent Iraqis. Shot in 2007, the video, which was leaked from inside the Pentagon to WikiLeaks, a Swedish-based organization that publishes anonymous videos that focus on government and military cases. The video is horrifying, especially since the two American pilots inside the helicopter sound giddy as they reign bombs down in a populated city street. However, that is not the worst, or most horrifying, part of the video.

Unfortunately, the on-ground targets the pilots in the Apache killed were not terrorists, but Iraqi civilians and a Reuters photographer. What the helicopter pilots mistook as an r.p.g. turned out to be photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen's camera. The whole video, which is unlike anything I have ever seen before, is an important milestone for independent media because three years ago, this story could not have been leaked. With websites such as WikiLeaks, investigative journalism still survives to serve as a vital tool for holding governments and military powers responsible.

What is most impressive about WikiLeaks is that even though they possessed this video for weeks, they took their time in order to be accurate. That is true journalism, and something too few "journalistic" websites are doing today. As clearly shown by this latest incident, WikiLeaks is a promising independent media organization that has already affected change by getting the U.S. military to admit they killed innocent people. While it remains unclear who leaked the video to WikiLeaks, what is clear is that the Internet now provides people with the ultimate platform to spread messages that are being silenced by the mainstream media. That's encouraging news.

Stories On Demand

I recently discovered a glimmer of hope in the depressing world of journalism: spot.us. Based in the San Francisco bay area, spot.us is a website that focuses on hyperlocal news stories the people of northern California PAY to read. In other words, spot.us hires a journalist to cover a story, then asks online readers to fund the story. This new business model, which is essentially community funded reporting, is an interesting example of how much local news still means to people and how empowered citizens can not only support, but create their own news.

With that said, spot.us is just the type of experiment that could not only survive, but thrive in California. I have heard rumors that the website plans to expand to Chicago and New York City, and I encourage such a move. However, I hope spot.us hires properly trained, college educated journalists and not simply citizen journalists. What I like about spot.us is that it's greatly different from a blog. The blogosphere is the realm of citizen journalists, and I'm very much supportive of anyone who starts a blog as a way to express themselves. I just hope spot.us, which does have great journalistic promise, continues to produce fair and accurate hyperlocal reporting.

But when the sun shines again, I'll pull the curtains and blinds to let the light in - Death Cab For Cutie.

Big Business Neuters the LA Weekly

Jon Wiener's article "End of an Era at the LA Weekly" got me thinking about how exactly chain ownership of local weeklies hurts journalism. For starters, journalists working for news outlets that are owned by much larger, corporately invested companies have to pick their words with more care than an independent Internet blogger like myself. Since I am free to say whatever I want as a blogger, I will take advantage of this great freedom now. Fuck big business, and fuck journalists who refuse to speak out on issues they themselves know are important. They are slaves to their paychecks, and while I cannot place myself in their shoes, I hope I would have the courage to write objectively and honestly about subjects that are taboo for the larger chain corporations.

For three decades, the LA Weekly served as the West Coast's premier alternative weekly, renowned for its news coverage and political writing. Unfortunately, when the Phoenix-based New Times Media purchased the Weekly in 2005, the honest, opinionated reporting that readers had grown to love was suddenly absent. The one example that Wiener used that really struck a chord with me was the lack of editorial coverage for the May 2007 police riot in MacArthur Park. The LAPD, acting like a group of thugs rather than civil protectors, charged families - women and children - with billy clubs and nonlethal projectile rounds. The story became international news, but was quickly brushed under the carpet in the states. The Weekly the following week devoted a miniscule 330-word story to the event, while devoting six articles totalling 3,700 words to the Coachella music festival.

Without belaboring the point much further, that's seriously fucked up and is only happening because big business has invaded the newsroom, turning once objective journalists into scared slaves of the corporate machine. If that's the future of journalism, I want no part in such a charade...

The Definition of a Journalist

What does it mean to be a journalist in the twenty-first century? I have often wondered where my four-year journalism degree will take me, especially since the definition of who, and what, journalists are is changing. The future of journalism makes me ask why I ever took on such a course of study. In these challenging economic times, the number of journalists has decreased to the point where important news is not only ignored, but is unable to be written about. The future - it appears - is in the Internet and specifically with bloggerout the

With that said, bloggers are becoming an increasingly important group as seen in the recent case of blogger Mark Bunster in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Bunster, author of the political blog Loaded Orygon, claimed he was a member of the news media. Under Oregon law, members of the news media are allowed to sit in on executive session meetings. When Bunster failed to show credentials, Lake Oswego city councilors kicked him out. The move to exclude Bunster from reporting on "open" council meetings has Oregon buzzing. The case is important and worth considering because it raises one critical question: who can be a journalist?

I do not agree with the move by the Lake Oswego city councilors, and I think it sets a terrible precedent. It's 2010, and politicians - from the president to the lowest city official - must understand that the Internet is not only the future of news, but the medium by which they will reach the public. This current recession has killed countless newspapers and local dailies. To report the news, there needs to be accountability and it is great that citizens with enough intestinal fortitude have stepped up to answer that call.

Unfortunately, these people - bloggers specifically - are largely untrained, citizen journalists. What that means is that they are not officially licensed media members, but that is a good thing for one reason: they have no ties to their stories, and can report objectively. The Internet is replacing paper, and a stream of voices is now flowing in the vast, expanding online world. That has opened up endless possibilities for journalism, and free speech for that matter, that differs from the staleness of print publications. It's wild stuff to think about, and I don't know if I've reached an answer on who qualifies as a journalist. I guess only time will tell...