Long Live Izzyness!

Last night, April 28th, Ithaca College's Park Center for Independent Media hosted its sixth annual Izzy Awards. The Izzy Awards recognizes amazing journalists who chose to involve themselves whole-heartedly in independent media outlets for the greater good of mankind.

The two receivers of the award this year were John Carlos Frey and Nick Turse. John Carlos Frey is a fellow with the The Nation institute. His beat is focusing on the violence occurring on the U.S.-Mexico border, a place he calls home. One of the most important things about independent media for Frey is the ability to take the time necessary for a story. Mainstream media must report to make a deadline. Frey told the audience about taking a whole year to find a vital piece of one of his investigative pieces. It was a video (that was merely rumored about existing) an eye witness took of a brutality of a Latino man being accused of note having a green card. It took him a full two years to put together this story with all of the needed evidence, something that would not have been permitted in mainstream media.

However, once Frey had the completed story in a package ready for TV news, all of the mainstream outlets he pitched it too wouldn't take it. Frey's struggle with network news was a platform for him to talk about the censorship of important stories in network television, the censorship of the stories that do not fit the politics of the corporations that fund the networks (wait aren't they suppose to be objective?! ha ha).

Nick Turse is currently a managing editor on TomDispatch.com and published a book in 2013 titled, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam. The book featured classified Pentagon documents as a lead towards systematic violence against Vietnamese civilians, and was put into context through personal interviews. When asked about the difficulty of both exhibiting the emotion and also remaining somewhat distant from the emotion in stories (such as those described in his book) Turse commented that although there were days when his mental state was in the worst shape of his life, he found journalism to be very "therapeutic." He said that there were times he felt guilty, asking the interviewees to relive the most tragic experiences of their life, but his purpose was to retell these stories in the most dignified way, so as to create change.

Something special about this years Izzy Awards was the first induction of journalists to the I.F. Stone Hall of Fame, for journalists who continue year after year to produce content to win the Izzy Award again. It was of no surprise to anyone that those journalists were Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill.

Glenn Greenwald was one of the first recipients of the Izzy Award, but deserved to be recognized again this year for his work to expose NSA surveillance with Edward Snowden. Although Greenwald couldn't make it to the ceremony on IC's campus, he filmed an amazing speech that touched on the function of independent media, and what kind of leaked information makes journalists be considered criminals.

Jeremy Scahill produced a film after his book, Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield and it was nominated for an Oscar this year. Scahill's passion and wit makes him a very enjoyable public speaker, and he spoke about the corruptions in the government and mainstream media that try to suppress important stories.

Notable quotes from the evening:

Jeremy Scahill: "Nobody in their right mind would hire me. So I had to find someone in their left mind."

John Carlos Frey: "TV news can make you hate your friends, and love your enemies."

John Carlos Frey: "Journalism really isn't a career- it's a burning in your heart, it's a way of life. It's the most incredible tool for justice."

John Carlos Frey: "Remain open and vulnerable to the emotion of the story."

John Carlos Frey: "Journalism is NOT always two-sided… Someone is getting shit on and someone is doing the shitting."

Nick Turse: "The most important question to end an interview with: who should I talk to next?"

Jeremy Scahill: "You can tell a lot about a country by looking at who's in prison and who's on a book tour."

Comcast, bad dog!

These past two weeks in both my Independent Media, and Government and Media classes, media consolidation and net neutrality have been intertwined in our conversations.

One of the big names that is inevitable to be mentioned when talking about these topics is Comcast. Comcast is the world's largest mass media and communications company by revenue - at a whopping $62.5 billion dollars. Additionally, it is the largest cable provider and internet service provider in the United States. So yeah, Comcast is one of the top dogs in control.

As a concerned citizen and a promoter of maintaining net neutrality, I was excited when I came across an article dogging the top dog Comcast.

The article starts with a disgruntled Comcast customer who is upset because of his lack of internet service in his own home. The customer is a web designer and estimates that he has lost anywhere from $500 to $1000 because of time he has to spend dealing with his lost internet connections. Although he has reached out to Comcast several times, he has to use his iPhone as a hotspot or go to a local cafe to use the internet.

The article then continues on to mention Comcast's campaign to convince Congress to let them take over Time Warner Cable for $45 billion dollars, saying that it will benefit both companies as well as the customers.

The customers disagree.

David Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president, states that Comcast is aware that it has trouble delivering a quality service to its customers, he says the company is working on it. But is seems the customers aren't believing Comcast's barks:

"You are seriously everything that is wrong with the world," a Seattle woman with the handle Kate J. wrote in October on the review site Yelp. "I am 100% sure you are run by Satan himself. I feel confident that you are responsible for cancer, homelessness, war, suicide, 9/11, and every darkness in the world." 

The article continues on with horror stories from customers who have complained about not being able to depend on Comcast's services in times of great need. One couple lost all internet service with Comcast, even though they depend on using the internet for the wife's chemotherapy computer. Another family told a story of a time they were robbed but couldn't call 911 because their phone line had been disconnected. The website, Consumerist, awarded Comcast with the title of "2014 Worst Company in America."

A merger of Comcast and Time Warner will control 40 percent of all broadband access in the U.S., and most importantly in locations where it will be the ONLY choice for broadband (no competition).

Net neutrality and why it's super important

Net neutrality - the idea of having a free and open internet - is very important to me. However, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast (the internet service providers, or ISPs for both wired and wireless) want to disband net neutrality because they claim there is too much traffic on the internet. This traffic is the fault of "bandwidth hogs" who are slowing services with downloads and internet television. 

This article explains the idea of a "fast track," and a "slow track" that the corporations would create. The internet would essentially be divided like cable TV in which customers would have to pay for the websites they want to use in the "fast track." If they don't want to pay, or more importantly - can't afford to pay - for the services, then their internet connection will be extremely slow. 

In 2012, Free Press and other organizations created a mockumentary titled, "The Internet Must Go." It is a 30 min film about a man named John Wooley, who was hired by the ISPs to convince people that net neutrality was a bad thing. 

Wooley interviewed leaders of organizations, senators, and even the creator of Reddit to get a better understanding of the importance of net neutrality. Some of the organizations got their start by creating a simple website that went viral. They explained to Wooley that this wouldn't have been possible if net neutrality didn't exist, because start-up websites and personal blogs are too small to appear on the corporations internet cable lists. One of best quotes from the film was from the president of TheColorofChange.org who said, "At the end of the day, America works best when all of its voices are heard." 

In my opinion, one of the biggest misconceptions about net neutrality is that it is needed because there is only so much bandwidth. However, the pipes and wires that create the internet space is NOT a finite resource. In fact, if the ISPs invested more money into their services, we would all have extremely fast internet. 

Currently, the American broadband infrastructure is ranked 28th for speed and other services on the list of developed countries. This is embarrassing! We are suppose to be one of the most advanced countries of the world, built on a document that declares freedom. Instead we are prisoners to our capitalistic mindsets that don't allow for development. 

I have two main issues with the idea of not having net neutrality for our country: 

• First, I understand that the meaning of the word "free" in "free and open internet" does not mean that customers shouldn't have to pay for their internet services. ISPs do provide the infrastructure that is needed to be able to surf the web, write a blog, or watch hours of YouTube videos. However, it does ensure me the right to free speech. Also, the ISPs don't own the rights to my creative content of free speech.
• If the ISPs are allowed to charge for one's free speech, then it essentially creates censorship for those who can't afford to pay extra for their internet services. This idea preys off of the economic inequality in our country, and states that if you can't afford to purchase freedom then you don't deserve it. That makes me sick to my stomach. 

IC Weekend Update

In celebration of Seth Meyers's visit to campus, Dom Recckio and I made our own IC Weekend Update. Here are tonight's top stories:

I Walk the Line: Between Journalist and Activist

Walking the line in the journalist's case is not to be confused with Johnny Cash's idea behind his song "I Walk the Line." Although the song is cherished because of his distinct voice and the infamous chord progression, Cash sings about walking a straight line of decency by following the rules.

It's not that journalist's shouldn't follow all of the rules, I just believe there are times in which the journalism field requires outliers that are willing to break the rules, or the journalism norms, to shed light on injustices. But I am talking about the line between journalism and activism that in some nonprofit organizations might seem a bit hazy. Are the issues that nonprofit organizations choose to report on in the best interest of the public, or the donors? Or do they themselves have a particular agenda that sways their reporting?

David Carr (one of my all time favorites after watching Page One) wrote an article in the NYTs titled "Journalism, Even When it's Tilted,"that where in instances in which American mass media doesn't cover some topics, nongovernmental organizations - some with agendas - are filling those voids. However, Carr brings up the question of "who is a journalist and who is an activist, and can they be one in the same?"

Kevin Davis from NetNewsCheck.com wrote a similar article titled, "Greater Scrutiny for Nonprofit News?" Davis too has heard the question of whether or not mission-driven organizations that do not have a steady cash flow and rely on donors can "sustainably and ethically perform the core public accountability functions of the fourth estate." 


Davis concludes his article with the standard that all non-profit news organizations should mention any individual or company that donates over $1000, so then readers know where the support is coming from. Davis writes:

By adopting clear and practical editorial independence policies, coupled with an unwavering commitment to transparency, nonprofit newsrooms can avoid the inherent risks in accepting philanthropy to produce much needed and valued public service and investigative journalism so desperately needed in a free democracy.

The most important part of that quote to me is calling reporting a "valued public service" that is "desperately needed." One of the reasons I decided to study journalism is because of the impact good reporting can have on an issue that I might be passionate about. However, if I seek to report on an issue I am passionate about, is that expressing a type of activist bias? 

In the previously mentioned NYT article, Glenn Greenwald is quoted saying a statement about journalists that I immediately wrote on a sticky note and hung above my desk. He said, "All activists are not journalists, but all real journalists are activists. Journalism has a value, a purpose- to serve as a check on power."

The day you can't trust anyone- not even the internet or the media

A few minutes are left on the clock for one of my favorite and most dreaded days of the year, April Fools' Day. I am a prankster, tried and true, but only because I was raised in a household whose mantra was: prank or be pranked.

Ever since I was young, my parents have gone over the top for April Fools' Day. I don't mean your classic toothpaste in Oreos or plastic wrap under the toilet seat types of pranks - they are in a whole other league. Some of the highlights include: 

• Convincing my middle school to create a fraudulent report card with failing grades and remarks such as "Bethany talks too much and is too boy crazy."
• Getting in cohorts with the local police station to steal my car while I was at an evening dance class
• Pretending my dog was lost, and told me I had to go find her. I found her. On our roof.

They're cruel, but they're geniuses. This year my dad started my day with a text that seemed like a white flag of surrender…

But later in the day, it turned out he and my best friend who is currently studying in LA, and interning with Ellen, joined forces to try to convince me he was going to be on the Ellen show. 

However, my parents aren't the only ones I tip my hat to on April Fools' Day. Media venues have a great history of being involved in the holiday. Also corporations create hilarious (and always almost believable) videos or ad campaigns in attempt to trick the masses. 

Here are a few of my favs for 2014, complete lists from Salon and Mashable

• Netflix added two documentaries in which you can watch bacon sizzling or a rotisserie chicken cooking
• Google Maps created a new type of maps in which users can find Pokemon. "Gotta catch them all?" If you do, you can become Google's very own Pokemon Master
• Google+ offers a feature in which David Hasselhoff photobombs your pics
• YouTube claimed to have insights of what video viral trends were going to occur in 2014 (such as clocking and dad kissing)
• Jimmy Kimmel invents a spray on yoga pant
• Twitter announces to users the creation of the "Twitter helmet" a helmet that users can wear and Tweet from (imagine google glass but instead of glasses, a giant bird head)
• TripAdvisor tries to send users to fictional locations, such as Mordor or the Death Star

Some Buzz on Buzzfeed

I'm a news junkie as much as the next journo, the only difference is I'm willing to admit that my day isn't complete without spending at least a little time catching up on news, and then catching up on the silliness of Buzzfeed. I just can't avoid the overwhelming need to read lists about why Harry Potter movies are more magical than I ever imagine, or taking a quiz about "Which Late Night TV Talk Show Host Are You?" (which btws, I got Seth Meyers and cried crocodile tears of pure happiness).

However, I have started to notice both on Buzzfeed and from articles in other media sources that the site is looking to rebrand itself as a stop for both amusing gif-filled lists, random quizzes, and - ACTUAL NEWS.

Buzzfeed's steps to become a source for credible news and investigative reports first caught my eye in early February, but apparently the site began evolving in 2011 with the hire of Ben Smith, a Politico blogger. Recently it's added bloggers and reporters from ProPublica, The LA Times, and The Indianapolis Star.

Then, yesterday I read an article about Buzzfeed's tactic to use it's lists to incorporate breaking news events. By creating lists of photos and graphs that break down the complexities of world news topics, readers can connect and understand the news story in a different way.

Luke Lewis, editor of Buzzfeed UK says:

The […] content "is not viral", Lewis said, "but the important thing is to do both". While the more detailed coverage gives that added depth and understand, the image-led list approach can serve to engage a new audience to the news story, Lewis said, who may not otherwise have clicked on more typical reports.

Lewis's point just gave me another reason to spend time on Buzzfeed. Perhaps some of the users don't typically engage with news topics, so perhaps they will be more inclined to read about breaking news if Buzzfeed is making it accessible for them.