First China; Next the U.S.?

In 2010, Associated Press published an article explaining the reasoning behind Google bending to China's censorship laws. The search engine threatened to shut down, except for a few services that are still supported like music, due to the drastic increase in censorship on sites deemed "unsafe for national security" or a threat. This counterproductive decision hurts the advancement in technology that the country is striving for. Fast forward to the current U.S. and I wouldn't be surprised if this were to happen under Trump's administration.

With the way that the government and large corporations indirectly control the media as well as the outcome of net neutrality, there is no telling where censorship and online freedom will go. Slowly, as our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and press come under fire, our ability to search whatever we want and ultimately our privacy could also be targeted.

FCC: then and now

For the sake of keeping the lines of communication open between the government and the people, I find that net neutrality is of the upmost importance in that department. Back during the Obama administration policies were attempted to keep the protection of net neutrality but to no avail failed to be passed. According to the Daily News, these "poorly written new rules on net neutrality," were the turning point in protecting the rich, instead of the common carriers.

The person in charge of the FCC was Tom Wheeler, who was "a key lobbyist for both the cable industry and the telecom companies." So much for being neutral. This meant that he was more inclined to speak for the rich companies, giving them better deals and faster internet service (the big companies and corporations who also control the very bias media outlets), while the non-for-profits and the not-as-popular sites fall to the wayside, loading more slowly. Unfortunately, this also leads to the type of news outlets that the public turns too — whoever can get their news out the fastest. So if the biased big corporations are the ones that the public is turning too (Fox News, CNN, etc.) then how is the public supposed to be properly informed?

This is relevant now more than ever, especially under the Trump administration.... and I'm sure we all know why. More about the current FCC regulations on net neutrality under the Trump administration can be read here. Basically, Recode says that the new administration is currently working to undo everything that was accomplished under Obama — shocker right? In case you weren't invested before, you should know that this could also affect the price of Netflix by increasing it quite a bit. I'm sure that puts it into perspective for you now.

Telling the whole story

Today I was a part of a discussion about editing news stories in order to portray a specific view point, or creating biased news. We all know that this is nothing that hasn't been done before, however, it's becoming a damning part of the Trump administration that is further distinguishing the divide among people in the USA. Specifically, it is creating a divide between the poorly informed conservatives who watch Fox News and believe everything that President Trump says, and the enlightened public who know well enough that there are multiple perspectives to every story. This isn't a new problem, however, and has been a consistent one for quite some time now. ACORN and Planned Parenthood are just a few organizations that have been portrayed in a poor light thanks to precise video editing and selective clipping.

For example, in 2009, ACORN was put on the spot when Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe went to the offices of ACORN pretending to be a pimp and a prostitute and secretly videotaped their entire interaction while there. They heavily edited the videos to make it look like the employees at ACORN were helping the two begin their own underaged sex trade and prostitution business. However, when the full un-edited version of the tapes were released, it showed that they actually went into the organization saying that they needed housing and were having trouble finding the financial assistance due to their work choice. They fooled everybody.


Another example is the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood that occurred in 2015. A video was released showing an interaction between a Planned Parenthood employee and a fake tissue broker attempting to make a deal. However, the video was edited to show that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling aborted fetus tissue in order to make a profit. The un-edited video showed that the "profit" was at most $100, which is the normal price to require in order to make up for delivery fees, packaging fees, etc.

Comparing other outlets and news sources can help us avoid these outrageous situations altogether, but it's up to us to inform ourselves and want the truth.

"Fake News"

In my independent Media course, we discussed the vicious cycle of circulating false information and malicious facts. The best possible example I can give for this current issue in the media is that of Tump administration and a majority of the news presented by Fox News. While accurate news CAN be found by most media outlets and through fact-checking, uninformed public view Fox News and press conferences under the impression that they are being "informed," however, the information presented is anything but.

According to politifact, after fact checking both Fox News and Trump, they have found a majority of the statements made to be "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire." That being said, if the public refuses to watch any outlet other than these, and chooses to believe the president who also claims that any outlet that speaks an opposing opinion is spewing "fake news," then how can we open the eyes of the public to this vicious cycle? In what ways can we enlighten them and show them the way to the truth and the correct facts, even if the facts are hard to listen to.

Blogging roadblocks?

On March 21, William Jacobson came into our Independent Media classroom to discuss his blog, legalinsurrection.com. He focused more on the backend of blogging and the mechanics behind it than the content itself and he raised a lot of questions and concerns that I realize many bloggers may or may not take into consideration. For example, a blogger's reputation may be at risk — William is a Cornell law professor who blogs about politics and takes an open and very direct stance in his work. That being said, he has encountered issues with finding students and keeping his job due to this blog.

In addition, blogs don't necessarily use any type of style guide, which causes concern for politically sensitive topics. There is an appropriate way to reference groups of people and discussion topics that need to be applied when discussing issues, especially on a public forum. However, blogs — because they are opinion-based majority of the time — don't take these terms into consideration and while opinions aren't necessarily something to be corrected, language is.

While I believe that blogging is a great way to uncover government scandals and dive deeper into important issues, there should be a few guidelines that are followed by bloggers because of if they're going to be a strong voice of the public, they should at least be sensitive in language usage and politically correct.

All of the major breakthroughs that have occurred throughout history due to intelligent independent bloggers/journalists who wrote for the sake of the people and hard-hitting journalism — Salam Pax and his Invasion of Iraq posts, the posts regarding the July 7 London bombings, posts about the news occurring and the lists of survivors of 9/11, etc. — have given us a closer, in-depth view of these events than any mainstream media outlet would.

After reading a lot of blogs recently, I did notice that although this type of news contains a little bit more bias than other news outlets, the perspective is articulate and sides with that of the people. The Salam Pax blog contained posts about what was happening on the other side during the war — during the bombing, from a ground-view. He was part of the armed forces but he was able to give intel and insight that no journalist had access to. He is a perfect example as to why independent bloggers are important to the world of journalism, whether mainstream media agrees with it or not. The people have their opinions and it is a journalist's job to listen and inform, not correct.

The significance of George Seldes begs the question of what the true purpose of journalism is. Fortunately, Seldes was someone who knew that answer. He used journalism as a means of informing the public, especially in times of injustice, and upholding all governments — even those of foreign countries — to a high standard. He held them accountable for the moves they made and the words they said. Unfortunately, journalism today becomes caught up in more paparazzi-style, tabloid news, and journalists begin to write for the outlet, not the pubic. As a journalist, it is our duty to be the tie between the government and the peoples, as well as be the eyes and ears of all things important for those who may not have any means of acquiring such information. Seldes knew he did not want to work for an outlet, simply rewarded with a check at the end of the pay cycle. He was there for the people and created his own independent media outlet to prove it. Unfortunately, people today are also blind to the inaccuracies of some (maybe most) mainstream media outlets, but refuse to acknowledge that there is an objective side to every argument.

The sad truth about "a woman's right to her own body," is that it is still an ongoing issue, as if a century of fighting hasn't been enough time to create a solid, substantial case for acquiring the rights to woman herself. Since 1916, when Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic, the continuous fight for simple fundamental rights — cheaper "luxury items," more accessibility to reproductive health professionals, the defunding of those health care professionals who are affordable, the protection of women and their bodies , etc. — has continued in full force. But why? Why is it so difficult for the government to remove themselves from this position of power over women?

Unfortunately, even though it is already 2017, women still struggle with an increased risk of being in poverty; education that they can't afford but need because of the wage gap that still exists; are more likely to be victims of domestic violence; don't have much of a voice in politics (yet the government controls a majority of their lives); and still encounter injustice in rape cases. Sadly, with the current government in place, I don't see any of this changing either. With the lack of support for affordable health care and non-for-profit organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, the voices of women need not to not give up, but raise the volume.

The significance of Chapter 4 of the book "Voices of Revolution," by Rodger Streitmatter, is the embracing of moving freely between marriages based on true love, and the importance of consensual intimacy as well.
     Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly became one of the first sexual reform papers — published by Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin (her sister). They discussed sex education, promiscuity, abortion, sexual language, and couples living together without the title of married. This began the onward creation of even more publications, including The Word and Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, which fought to bring to light conversations that weren't exactly dinner-table appropriate, but were ones that still needed to be had.
     These topics  fought the typical Victorian couple lifestyle, including marriage and at-home life, and challenged it by putting forth the newfound double standard of how men also committed scandalous sexual acts, but never paid for any of them. Additionally, it was possible for sexual abuse to occur between a wife and husband if the sex was non-consensual, marriage was just a label, while love and level of comfort played a more important role in a woman's mental health. Additionally, it fought a lot of the traditional views of censorship and what is okay to be discussed. For example, in his bi-weekly newspaper, Moses Harman wrote an article discussing the ability to discuss procreation involving horses, but the inability to discuss human procreation without censorship. He questioned the censorship behind distributing important information involving human procreation that isn't easily attainable, by arguing that it is alright, though, for animals to be discussed in this way.
    These publications were important for paving the way toward discussing controversial topics and laying down everything that had to be said out on a big open table.

In an act to silence the opposition (activists), police beat 28 year-old Khaled Said to death because human rights advocates claimed that there was proof he had evidence of police corruption.

Fortunately, Said's death caused an uproar of activists to come forth and band together against police torture. Through the Internet and social media, activists were able to use blogging, Facebooking, Youtubing, filming, photographing, etc. to catch these acts and display them for all to see.

The chilling part of this story is that he was an ordinary businessman who had a video showing officers with illegal drugs and simply wanted to inform the public about this interaction.

Putting into context of the current situation of the United States of America and its new presidency — the danger of silencing the truth is just as possible. With the current president picking and choosing which media outlets he endorses, the favoritism also guarentees a dictated bubble in which his truths are untouchable and the major companies, law enforcement, etc. are untouchable. It would be reassuring to know that as a journalist trying to reveal the truth surrounding law enforcement, we are safe from being beaten up in a public forum, however, is silencing the facts and blurring the line between the truth and ignorance really any different?

Through videos that pop up on Facebook from Al Jazeera, Now This, etc., through created public events (protests, rallies), through short segments and clips from factual news outlets, and through the networking that happens around social media, we have the ability to re-establish this divide between truth and ignorance, and educate the public about what a corrupted government looks like.