Suspect AKA It Was You.

In an article very recently published in The New York Times, "Dragnet Shuts Boston – One Suspect is Slain but Second Man Is on Loose," the history of the Chechen origin is discussed along with the two suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings. 

Throughout this article, I asked myself one question: Why are they suspects for the Boston tragedy? Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspects and brothers, are supposedly believed to have killed a police officer at MIT. They then led police through a "wild car chase," where Tamerlan was killed, and later studied for suspicions of him having "a homemade bomb strapped to his body." 

Yes, clearly, there is a problem here. These guys should be thrown in jail, guilty of the Boston bombings or not. But my question still went unanswered. Assuming that the MIT crisis is completely separate from the Boston one, where is the alleged evidence stemming from the marathon itself that these men had something to do with it?

I also want to bring attention to the racial stress presented in this article. The men are from a "predominately Muslim territory in southern Russia," and for some reason I have the sense that  the writers felt that's all they needed to say to convince their readers these men were most likely responsible for the Boston bombing.

I have a hunch that not the distribution of information, but a satisfying distribution of information to the public is all the media wants to accomplish. Even if the MIT crisis never happened, someone or something else would have been coughed up so to cease the boiling frustration about who ruined the Boston Marathon. 

It's gotta be someone. And if we don't know, we pretend like we do to shut everyone else up.

(If anyone knows the answer to my question; if there was a video, photograph, news report or anything placing these men in the midst of the bombings and making them viable suspects, please send it to me!!) 

Public Service Broadcasting Ain't So Public

It's really interesting to me how PBS is being so closely analyzed –– almost to the point of insult –– in Jerold Starr's article, "It's Time for PBS to Get Its Trust Fund." I've always been under the impression that PBS is the one channel that produces the most objective news it can possibly undertake regarding its proximity to government chains mainstream outlets deal with. 

Specifically NewsHour with PBS and their election coverage over the past few years have been the least bit sensationalized in comparison to FOX, CNN, MSNBC and so forth. I was just in total dismay when I read Starr's statistic that PBS draws in a mere 2 percent of the television audience, and then realized that I don't watch PBS either. 

Starr says that this percentage is because of "so little production and promotion" for PBS. After all, the United States pays a little over one dollar to public service broadcasting stations, significantly less than that of other countries. No one watches PBS because of its lack of promotion through other, more prominent, outlets. Which means that we all criticize FOX, and The Times, etc. for being so mainstream and so manipulated, but we let them manipulate us just the same. 

And then there's the thought that people who don't sit around and pick out who's objective and who's not, but are just normal people who turn on the news here and there, don't really care about the equalized content PBS produces. They have content that is more personally suiting, like FOX if they're  republican and everywhere else if they're not. Because who wants to hear what you don't want to hear? Why dabble on the other side of things when you have a network of people who can preach the one you think is right? And this obviously doesn't apply to journalists.

Unfortunately, when it comes to independent media and objective standpoints that PBS mastered (before they started recycling that of others) the only ones drawn in are the journalists, which is a field in limbo of dead or alive. Not only that, but journalists are the last ones media outlets want to reach out to, because then it's not reaching out; it's competition.

Yes, PBS needs to get a trust fund, but it shouldn't need to prove itself to whomever has the power. It should make its content around the following of its 2 percent audience. For now.

The Fifth Annual Izzy Awards

Mother Jones was proudly presented with the Izzy Award last night. MJ Reporter and Ithaca alum Kate Sheppard, publisher Steve Katz and Washington Bureau chief David Corn accepted the award for their independent outlet.

I was surprised to find that it was not a full house when I arrived, and hope that this absence shows in future curiosity about the Izzy Award.

Check out The Ithacan's slideshow if you couldn't be there!

Photo and Video Journalism at the Boston Marathon

Yesterday, at the Boston Marathon, two bombs went off near the finish line killing three and injuring over 100. Among the three dead, was an 8-year-old boy.

Besides the event itself, which has had more than enough coatings of opinions and media coverage in the last 24 hours, the bombings have opened peoples eyes to the power of cameras.

The New York Times writes in a very recent article, "Boston Combs Mile-Square Crime Scene After Blasts," how impertinent camera work of both professional and citizen journalists are to police and news outlets:

"Law enforcement officials pleaded at a briefing Tuesday morning for anyone who took pictures or video of the finish line at the time of the blast to submit them to boston@ic.fbi.gov or to call 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324).
The plea underscored just how pervasive cameras have become at events like the marathon and how crucial they can be in helping the police piece together crucial pieces of evidence. But it may also suggest how few clues the authorities have otherwise."

The entirety of the digital age is seeming to come to its peak sooner than we expected. The unfortunate part just happens to be, it's because of acts of terrorism and massive killings.

Objectivity: Dead When Solid, Alive in Air

Mayhill Fowler seems like an extremely interesting character, according to James Rainy's "Barack Obama can thank 'citizen journalist' for 'bitter' tempest," in the LA Times a few years ago.

I don't really know what this woman is about, and I'm unsure how bad it would be to say that I've never heard of her before. With three unpublished books and her citizen journalist position for the Huffington Post, I'm guessing many are new to her name.

What I liked about Rainy's article is how he portrayed Fowler as a lifelong supporter of President Obama, but centered on her article for the Post, where she basically threw him under the bus.

After a comment Obama had made at a closed press meeting, Fowler was torn between publishing a stereotypical comment he made about America or sticking to her personal beliefs that supported him. She ended up publishing this article, throwing America's controversy up to a new level. Out of the 200 e-mails she received criticizing her article, she continued covering this beat in private because she was scared of the threats she was faced with.

I can't help but think how difficult this probably was, considering she politically is a supporter of Obama. She is going against her own belief, and being ripped apart for it.

And then I think about how great of a journalist she is. Objectivity is a dead form of writing in the field, and is being overthrown by transparency. But what is dead on paper, is necessary off. If Fowler wasn't objective about Obama's comment, and didn't publish her article for the greater good rather than what she stood for, it would have never been published.

I think this is an important lesson for future and current journalists. Times may be changing, and transparency may be the new form of writing, but it can't be the new form of decision making. Journalists still have to be objective and unbiased with the things they see and hear. Once we know what to write about, we can write it the way we want.

Transparency shouldn't take over everything. We need to keep an eye out for real news, not for what we want to the news to be.

Arianna Huffington Brings Larger Ideals to Internet Era

Arianna Huffington, founder and owner of The Huffington Post, talks about something at the Guardian's Activate 09 conference so many others have talked about before: how the Internet is changing society.

However, Huffington somehow manages to bring new ideals of this commonly regurgitated topic to the table.

One of her examples of how the web can change society did not rotate around the medium itself, but the use of it. According to theguardian, Huffington said that "the greatest thing internet users can bring to the world is our obsessiveness."

This notion mildly supports one of my previous blog posts, which discussed how a career based off of YouTube can be equal to more stressful and busying than a normal market job. This is because the founders of a website have to work up to its speed, providing information to its readers as fast as its readers can access information.

Huffington also talks about how investigative journalists and bloggers will probably get more publicity by using the internet in the first place, but if they don't follow up with their work by leading readers through their investigative process as they go, they will lose publicity and risk a chance for change. The example for this notion was illustrated through investigative journalist and founder of the Talking Points Memo blog, John Marshall, who rigorously covered the firing of government attorneys by the Bush administration.

"If Josh Marshall had disappeared for six months and then wrote a blockbuster piece, maybe nothing would have happened." 

On that note, its really not the medium at all. It's the use of it. Just like before Internet, newspapers were the best form of information, not because there wasn't anything better, but because society didn't want there to be. 

An Internet Living

"Youtube Videos Pull In Real Money," a business article in The New York Times by Brian Stelter was a favorite read for me.

Firstly, I thoroughly enjoy hearing about the speed, success and revenue that consistently pops from online videos and advertising, or from being online in general. It's exciting to me to read article's like Mr. Stelter's because it shows that I am in the middle of an epic time period; one that will most likely change the world.

However, every article I've read like Stelter's that harnesses the miracle of making a living via Youtube has had an aura to it, making it seem like those who have succeeded with Internet publicity live an easy, perfect life. Stelter mentions how the protagonist in his article quit his job in the music industry –– a great job –– to pursue his video stream.

It's interesting, because I feel that a life like Mr. Jacobson's who founded the popular blog Legal Insurrection is very timely and pressuring, because the web is always running and millions of people are always checking to see your updates. I would think maintaining an Internet reputation requires a lot more time and effort than a regular job, even if it is in the media. At least if you take one or two days off, you have the opportunity to not have to do anything (if there's no work to be done).

I give a lot of credit to those who work on the Internet, and manage their own sites. Because they run their own show, but probably have a fuzzy definition on what it's like to take a day off.