Evenhandedness

Lets take a look at Jim Lehrer's NewsHour from this FAIR article:


"Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public—"person in the street," workers, students— accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.

Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.

People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian- Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.

Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period.

At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.

Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources. "

So either we are being lied to or the rest of the population has no idea what even handedness is. hmm. Interesting.

I would much rather have a news organization tell me that they were going to support one political slant as opposed to the other so I could at least have the ability to understand the slant and take that information for what it is.

In the UK, residents have to pay to watch television with a TV License Fee. This way, they can decide exactly where they want their money to go. I studied abroad in London for five months and did not have the opportunity to watch television in my house because I did not pay the fee, but my friends who did paid the minimum for five basic channels. In the UK they are very upfront about what political slant (if any) their news outlet is going to take, and you can listen to the news from a million different stations and political slants. The more you watch and listen, the more you can form your own opinion and make a well-informed decision.

I'm not quite understanding why we haven't done this in this country..

Public Broadcasting?

For as long as I can remember, public broadcasting has been the one station I was allowed to watch. I did not watch cable when I was child- we simply did not have cable. I grew up watching PBS with Arthur and the concert series on the weekends. What I've come to find, and what has become a most devastating realization about my childhood, is that even PBS has accepted gifts from political parties.

This is most disappointing. I vaguely remember watching Arthur and then all of a sudden there was a commercial for something (which I didn't understand at the time) which somewhat resembled a political ad. Well, my suspicions have been confirmed in this article, which notes that PBS accepted a gift from the GOP and FCC- "permission for public broadcasters to commercialize some of their new digital channels."

Well that just doesn't sit well with me. The reason we did not pay for cable when I was a child was so that I would not be exposed to blatant political support and corruption and would be able to make my own decisions without the influence of colorful ads and pretty music.

If even PBS is commercializing, who can we possibly trust?

Transparency is the new objectivity

In an article on Joho, the blog, about transparency being the "new" objectivity, the author says "The problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark." I have never had an simile resonate so much with me as that sentence. It hits the nail squarely on the head, and I think it is a sentiment that should be more widely understood.

Hyper Local News

Today in my news editing class we skyped with Amanda Gillooly, editor of the Canon-Macmillan Patch.com site. I had heard of Patch.com briefly in passing or in other classes, but it had always slipped my mind to look it up or look into what it was all about.

I was surprised to find out two things: one, that it was a hyper local site that has locations all over the country, is run by one editor and a bunch of freelancers, and reports on news in its specific "patch," and two, that is was owned by AOL.

The first question that was asked of her was whether AOL had any control over what was published by their particular Patch. Amanda said that she had never once had a problem with AOL not liking the material she was writing, nor did she think that she would be covering material that AOL would care so much to advise for or against.

It was interesting to me that something that appears so independent would actually be owned by AOL, but then again we all thought Huffington Post was entirely independent too...

Homeless Inspiration

Yesterday we had a speaker, Mark Hovarth, come in to our multimedia class to discuss his path from homelessness to getting off the streets to founding his website, Invisiblepeople.tv.

Invisiblepeople is essentially a documentary website where Hovarth travels the country documenting the homeless people that he meets in order to get their story and have others hear it.

Previously a TV production manager in LA, Hovarth discussed how the life of drugs and alcohol eventually drove him to the streets. Sick of that life, he worked to get himself off the streets and back into a 3 bedroom home. But he never forgot the life he had once led. He took it upon himself to get the message out to the world that homelessness is a serious problem and what the government is doing right now just simply isn't enough.

He started another website, We Are Visible, in which he details how to set up a gmail account, a twitter, a facebook and how to blog so that they can get their stories out and their voices heard.

The most amazing thing about this is the fact that one of the twitter accounts is currently run by a homeless woman. In this age of technology, it is still possible for homeless people to be connected on the internet, even if they don't have the money to feed themselves or live in a house or shelter of some sort. This is what Hovarth is banking off of. YouTube gave him their home page on August 22, and he got millions of views.

This is the type of indy media activism that needs to grow stronger. It is in this way that he is affecting change, one person at a time.

Refreshing Perspective

On Tuesday, we had a guest speaker in class, Legal Insurrection founder and blogger William Jacobson. The law professor at Cornell University started this conservative blog as a small forum to express his views with friends and family. Eventually, it was picked up and linked to by slightly larger blogs, and through some networking efforts, Legal Insurrection has become one of the most recognized conservative blogs.

The visit was an incredibly refreshing one. I must admit I was slightly nervous that we would hit a nerve with the differences in political opinion floating around the room, but it was actually one of the best presentations I have heard.

Something I really appreciated was the fact that he was very transparent with why he does what he does, especially on the financial front. I also really appreciated that he both understood and respected the fact that most people in the room were liberal or left-leaning, and expressly stated exactly what he wrote about and why.

He mentioned that he would not purposefully bash a right wing person if they did something that was not in their political favor as he would a left wing, he would simply not mention it. I respected that because he was completely honest with us, and if we are honest with ourselves, we can admit that this is how all media people work, whether we like to admit it or not.

Overall, I truly appreciated the visit and feel like I have gotten a good perspective from the other side of the political spectrum, which was, as I have aid, incredibly refreshing.

Torn Apart

I was shown this story in the San Jose Mercury the other day. It is a fascinating multimedia package about undocumented immigrants in the US and the struggles they face when their families are torn apart when parents are deported.

The most fascinating thing about this website is that it has both a video, a full length story, and two audio clips from interviews with people on either side of the story.

This type of project is something you would expect to see on a more independent news site, one that has no bottom line or corporate sponsor to own up to, so it was surprising to see this on a regular mainstream news outlet.

It refreshing to be able to both read and visualize a story, especially one of this importance and relevance. Having the multimedia aspect gives the story impact and purpose, which is something that the media could greatly benefit from today.

Point for Indy Media

In a recent article about Talking Points Memo and how they received the George Polk Awards, it is absolutely amazing that one journalist who had started out just as most bloggers do (at home, late at night, probably downing some caffeine-related beverage), could grow to the point where he could hire an entire staff and cause so much ruckus as to be recognized by what is essentially the Golden Globes for journalism.

The list of accomplishments goes on:

"The winners include Leila Fadel, the Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, a 26-year-old woman who reports from some of the most dangerous regions of Iraq, as well as journalists who peeked under Vice President Cheney's veil of secrecy, toxic river pollution in China, unsafe cribs, infant mortality in Mississippi, the Blackwater scandal, human rights abuses in Burma, healthcare scams, and the courageous work of Oakland's Chauncey Bailey, who was slain as he investigated drug dealers in his hometown."

The most notable thing is that these accomplishments were made during a time when the industry was thought to be taking a turn for the worse. In the past few years, journalism has taken on a completely different meaning, and in many cases that means it has almost completely transformed in all aspects, including dissemination. TPM is a perfect example of how one person could take the change for good instead of bad, and make something truly important about it.

Hands down, it is one of the most influential blogs on the internet today, and has absolutely had the most significant effect on the government and society.

We Are Visible

I was recently introduced to this website, We Are Visible, which is essentially a social network for homeless people. Their slogan, "Sign Up, Speak Out, Be Seen," is their mission for the site. The site aids homeless people who do not have the money to pay for rent, etc., but do have money to access the internet or phone service to connect with others to have their voice heard and to get their story out there for others to hear and hopefully do something about.

Under the "Why Social Media?" tab, there are stories from contributors about how they have made connections with people across the country and across the globe who did not realize they were homeless at first.

One quote was especially interesting: "People aren't used to the 21st Century Homeless People, who have laptops and mobiles and even money in the bank!"

The site allows you to follow the contributors on Twitter, friend them on Facebook, and follow their blogs, which facilitates their progress in having their voice heard.

The site walks you through signing up for Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, and setting up a blog and then the next steps have the contributors send their message out to the world.

This is a fascinating new idea that really found its niche and is doing quite well.