Hi, I'm Savannah Rychcik and I am currently a senior political science and journalism major at Ithaca College. I have been involved both on and off campus with several kinds of media. On campus I have worked on ICTV shows including Newswatch, The Gridiron Report, the Ithacan and the political debate show On the Hill. I have worked as an AP and reporter on Newswatch, social media coordinator on The Gridiron Report and a contributor for On the Hill and a copy editor for the Ithacan.
I have also been involved with the Protestant Community on campus since sophomore year and have edited the Protestant Community newsletter. Spring semester of my junior year I studied abroad in Washington D.C. and interned with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress within the communications department. My responsibilities included covering congressional seminars, running social media accounts, editing video content for the website and creating content for articles. I was also able to attend congressional events. This semester I am interning with Project Look Sharp, which is a media literacy initiative here at Ithaca College. I will be writing press releases, reaching out to media outlets and promoting media literacy initiatives. My ultimate career goal is to create an independent media outlet that analyzes world news from a Christian point of view. This blog is a great opportunity for me to begin analyzing independent media. |
"Movement Began With Outrage and a Facebook Page That Gave It an Outlet"
Iris Marion Young, a radical multicultural philosopher, contends that “solidarity is a relationship among separate and dissimilar actors who decide to stand together for one another.” It is a term often used by the media and politicians to convince constituents that their country is the epitome of "togetherness." Reading this article by the New York Times taught me that solidarity does not come from the top, it comes from the bottom. It doesn't come from chancellors or presidents who stand at the pulpit preaching something that they don't practice, it comes from someone with a cell phone and will to challenge the hypocrisy.
"But in Mr. Said, they unwittingly chose the wrong target." This quote from the times article speaks volumes to the influence that individuals have through both anonymity and social media. The case of Khaled Said can be and is argued to be the catalyst for a strong community focusing on police torture and brutality. Governments are becoming increasingly weary as a result of the power that social media has and its ability to create communities that are essentially untouchable. YouTube, being the third most visited website in Egypt, provides protesters with a platform to post videos anonymously while also giving the people a chance to comment; most importantly, it can be used to create an environment of solidarity: "We are Khaled. Each one of us can be Khaled.” The Egyptian government did not beat him to death out of the presumption that he would tell anyone, but out of the presumption that he could SHOW everyone.
Visualization is underrated. Words cannot describe Said's death to the effectiveness that putting a photo of him smiling next to his bloody battered face can. The anonymous human rights group that made the conscious decision to place these photos next to each other made the impactful decision to identify with Said. There is power in saying "me too" and "we are Said." Solidarity starts with saying, "me too." Using Facebook, Twitter and Youtube as platforms to stand in solidarity with each other lead to protests and conversation, this is an example that validates this statement:
“If you think you can go on Facebook and tell the people to go home, it’s too late for that,” said Omar Ghoneim, 32, who walked to Friday’s protest, wearing two bandages on his right hand from, he said, throwing tear gas canisters back at the police."
You can't go on Facebook and tell people to go home because even if they do, the conversation will continue and grow stronger even if it is behind a computer screen. If people have the power to stand in solidarity through social media, imagine what power they have in standing together in protest because of those conversations. The conversation needs to start with, "me too," and that is exactly what people standing with Said did.
Iris Marion Young, a radical multicultural philosopher, contends that “solidarity is a relationship among separate and dissimilar actors who decide to stand together for one another.” It is a term often used by the media and politicians to convince constituents that their country is the epitome of "togetherness." Reading this article by the New York Times taught me that solidarity does not come from the top, it comes from the bottom. It doesn't come from chancellors or presidents who stand at the pulpit preaching something that they don't practice, it comes from someone with a cell phone and will to challenge the hypocrisy.
"But in Mr. Said, they unwittingly chose the wrong target." This quote from the times article speaks volumes to the influence that individuals have through both anonymity and social media. The case of Khaled Said can be and is argued to be the catalyst for a strong community focusing on police torture and brutality. Governments are becoming increasingly weary as a result of the power that social media has and its ability to create communities that are essentially untouchable. YouTube, being the third most visited website in Egypt, provides protesters with a platform to post videos anonymously while also giving the people a chance to comment; most importantly, it can be used to create an environment of solidarity: "We are Khaled. Each one of us can be Khaled.” The Egyptian government did not beat him to death out of the presumption that he would tell anyone, but out of the presumption that he could SHOW everyone.
Visualization is underrated. Words cannot describe Said's death to the effectiveness that putting a photo of him smiling next to his bloody battered face can. The anonymous human rights group that made the conscious decision to place these photos next to each other made the impactful decision to identify with Said. There is power in saying "me too" and "we are Said." Solidarity starts with saying, "me too." Using Facebook, Twitter and Youtube as platforms to stand in solidarity with each other lead to protests and conversation, this is an example that validates this statement:
“If you think you can go on Facebook and tell the people to go home, it’s too late for that,” said Omar Ghoneim, 32, who walked to Friday’s protest, wearing two bandages on his right hand from, he said, throwing tear gas canisters back at the police."
You can't go on Facebook and tell people to go home because even if they do, the conversation will continue and grow stronger even if it is behind a computer screen. If people have the power to stand in solidarity through social media, imagine what power they have in standing together in protest because of those conversations. The conversation needs to start with, "me too," and that is exactly what people standing with Said did.
The Dissident Press in America: Chapters 1-3 : Written 9/28/16
"Fighting for the Rights of American Labor"
There is something to be said about the mainstream media speaking for corporate capitalists as early as the beginning of the industrial era in the United States. As trade unions began to form, mainstream media had little to know regard for the struggles that these individuals had against the moguls benefiting from the poor conditions of their workplaces. Reading about the first labor newspapers showed me that the control mainstream media has over society is not a new phenomenon, it began with the capitalist establishment.
"The great mass of newspapers and periodicals are thus mischievously involved in doing worse than nothing for the poor because their driving mission was to 'pay court to the rich,'" (Streitmatter, p.5). It has become clear that the purpose of the majority of news outlets at the time were to cater to the rich rather than the oppressed. Instead of covering the issues that affected the most vulnerable groups of people, mainstream media refused to cover those issues out of the fear of the corporations and millionaires controlling their voices.
I agree with Streitmatter in his claim that the rise of dissident journalism came with the bravery of journalists of these magazines and newspapers refusing to succumb to the threats and criticism of the mainstream media. I believe that is where true and honorable journalism stands, fighting for change rather than shrinking in fear of corporate dollars. William Heighton of the Mechanic's Free Press handed his bravery to dissident journalism as it evolved. It wasn't that he simply crusaded for better labor conditions through his words in the paper as Streitmatter discussed, he spoke in front of the Philadelphia City Council bringing the words he had written off of the page and bringing them to life before the people who could do something about it. He had initiated the dissident journalism that we can look back and use as an example today. Heighton did not hold the belief that journalism and political activism were mutually exclusive, but that they were complimentary of each other. For the first time, political activism and journalism came together.
"Awakening a Nation to the Sins of Slavery"
The equivalent to Heighton during the abolition movement is William Lloyd Garrison of The Liberator. When the mainstream media wouldn't cover the effort of the abolitionists, Garrison would. His methods in writing on this issue of slavery would be debated among scholars as harsh or too aggressive considering the rhetoric he used. In "The Insurrection" he wrote, "Woe if it come with storm, and blood, and fire...mother and daughter- friends of kindred tie! Stranger and citizen alike shall die!" The questionable violent threats Garrison used were especially looked down upon by mainstream media. Although his methods may have been questionable, Garrison would be heard. An interesting tactic Garrison used was publishing letters he had received threatening him or those containing obscenities. He believed that any publicity was good publicity, starting a conversation in any way about this issue showed his will to reveal the American people how awful slavery really was. Similar to Heighton, Garrison believed that journalism was dead without political activism, because what use did words on a page have if they were not brought to life or to the attention of the public.
This example of dissident journalism that Garrison has created has shown me that just like faith without works, journalism without political activism is dead. Political activism and journalism are both meant to hold the public interest in its hands. Sadly that has not been the case in the past with mainstream media.
"Setting a Revolutionary Agenda for Women's Rights"
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony held similar hopes that Heighton and Garrison did for laborers and slaves, but instead, Stanton and Anthony worked for the rights of women. When Stanton and Anthony created The Revolution, they were faced with tackling some of the biggest issues associated with the role that women had in the U.S. including economic, social and political roles that they filled or may not have filled. They were not ashamed to discuss their ideas loud and proud, telling women who wanted to write for the paper: "Don't preach. Don't even exhort. Don't philosophize. Above all, don't sentimentalize. Give us facts and experience in words, if you please, as hard as cannon balls." This proclamation lends a hand to true journalism in the sense that they are not asking women to sugar coat or even exaggerate but rather simply state the facts of oppression and experiences of discrimination simply because of their gender. It isn't about exaggerations but rather facts looked through the scope of the political issue currently affecting an oppressed group of people. As Steitmatter put it, the paper's primary purpose was without apology, to ignite the fire of indignation in the hearts of its readers. Journalism shouldn't be an apology for offending anyone who is opposed to a social or political movement, but instead unapologetically report the truth, which is what Stanton and Anthony did.
Stanton was not afraid to become a political activist. She circulated a petition exposing women to issues of the day, the political process and grassroots social movements that were gaining momentum. Stanton is another example of political activism and journalism working together to inform the public and specifically women of the issues affecting them that they would otherwise not be aware of. Stanton and Anthony may have been the only exposure to the political process that women around them would have ever had. Their lasting legacy created a conversation, put into motion by their bravery fighting for voting rights and equality throughout society economically, socially and politically, which is what journalism is supposed to be but has instead lost its way in today's mainstream media circus.
"Fighting for the Rights of American Labor"
There is something to be said about the mainstream media speaking for corporate capitalists as early as the beginning of the industrial era in the United States. As trade unions began to form, mainstream media had little to know regard for the struggles that these individuals had against the moguls benefiting from the poor conditions of their workplaces. Reading about the first labor newspapers showed me that the control mainstream media has over society is not a new phenomenon, it began with the capitalist establishment.
"The great mass of newspapers and periodicals are thus mischievously involved in doing worse than nothing for the poor because their driving mission was to 'pay court to the rich,'" (Streitmatter, p.5). It has become clear that the purpose of the majority of news outlets at the time were to cater to the rich rather than the oppressed. Instead of covering the issues that affected the most vulnerable groups of people, mainstream media refused to cover those issues out of the fear of the corporations and millionaires controlling their voices.
I agree with Streitmatter in his claim that the rise of dissident journalism came with the bravery of journalists of these magazines and newspapers refusing to succumb to the threats and criticism of the mainstream media. I believe that is where true and honorable journalism stands, fighting for change rather than shrinking in fear of corporate dollars. William Heighton of the Mechanic's Free Press handed his bravery to dissident journalism as it evolved. It wasn't that he simply crusaded for better labor conditions through his words in the paper as Streitmatter discussed, he spoke in front of the Philadelphia City Council bringing the words he had written off of the page and bringing them to life before the people who could do something about it. He had initiated the dissident journalism that we can look back and use as an example today. Heighton did not hold the belief that journalism and political activism were mutually exclusive, but that they were complimentary of each other. For the first time, political activism and journalism came together.
"Awakening a Nation to the Sins of Slavery"
The equivalent to Heighton during the abolition movement is William Lloyd Garrison of The Liberator. When the mainstream media wouldn't cover the effort of the abolitionists, Garrison would. His methods in writing on this issue of slavery would be debated among scholars as harsh or too aggressive considering the rhetoric he used. In "The Insurrection" he wrote, "Woe if it come with storm, and blood, and fire...mother and daughter- friends of kindred tie! Stranger and citizen alike shall die!" The questionable violent threats Garrison used were especially looked down upon by mainstream media. Although his methods may have been questionable, Garrison would be heard. An interesting tactic Garrison used was publishing letters he had received threatening him or those containing obscenities. He believed that any publicity was good publicity, starting a conversation in any way about this issue showed his will to reveal the American people how awful slavery really was. Similar to Heighton, Garrison believed that journalism was dead without political activism, because what use did words on a page have if they were not brought to life or to the attention of the public.
This example of dissident journalism that Garrison has created has shown me that just like faith without works, journalism without political activism is dead. Political activism and journalism are both meant to hold the public interest in its hands. Sadly that has not been the case in the past with mainstream media.
"Setting a Revolutionary Agenda for Women's Rights"
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony held similar hopes that Heighton and Garrison did for laborers and slaves, but instead, Stanton and Anthony worked for the rights of women. When Stanton and Anthony created The Revolution, they were faced with tackling some of the biggest issues associated with the role that women had in the U.S. including economic, social and political roles that they filled or may not have filled. They were not ashamed to discuss their ideas loud and proud, telling women who wanted to write for the paper: "Don't preach. Don't even exhort. Don't philosophize. Above all, don't sentimentalize. Give us facts and experience in words, if you please, as hard as cannon balls." This proclamation lends a hand to true journalism in the sense that they are not asking women to sugar coat or even exaggerate but rather simply state the facts of oppression and experiences of discrimination simply because of their gender. It isn't about exaggerations but rather facts looked through the scope of the political issue currently affecting an oppressed group of people. As Steitmatter put it, the paper's primary purpose was without apology, to ignite the fire of indignation in the hearts of its readers. Journalism shouldn't be an apology for offending anyone who is opposed to a social or political movement, but instead unapologetically report the truth, which is what Stanton and Anthony did.
Stanton was not afraid to become a political activist. She circulated a petition exposing women to issues of the day, the political process and grassroots social movements that were gaining momentum. Stanton is another example of political activism and journalism working together to inform the public and specifically women of the issues affecting them that they would otherwise not be aware of. Stanton and Anthony may have been the only exposure to the political process that women around them would have ever had. Their lasting legacy created a conversation, put into motion by their bravery fighting for voting rights and equality throughout society economically, socially and politically, which is what journalism is supposed to be but has instead lost its way in today's mainstream media circus.
Are bloggers Journalists? Written 10/9/2016
"In historical terms, today's bloggers are much closer in spirit to the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers than today's giant, conglomerate mainstream media," I found this statement made by Chris Daly, author of "Are Bloggers Journalists? Let's Ask Thomas Jefferson," to be true. Daly makes an incredibly important point in acknowledging that some of the least recognized journalists are the most revolutionary. The debate continues to prevail surrounding the issue of recognizing bloggers as true journalists because they don't have editors or a giant newsrooms to back up their words. I would make the argument that bloggers are far and few between compared to corporate media talking heads because the darkness behind telling lies seems safer than the shining light on the truth. Corporate media acts as the government's puppet and are too fearful of exposing the truth at the cost of both jobs and money. A blogger's responsibility is not found in corporate dollars, it is found in the interest of the public which is something that corporate giants cannot tolerate nor work to understand.
Daly's recognition of pamphlets during the revolution poses a sound argument for the legitimacy of bloggers. It wasn't those of the higher up that created the conversation surrounding independence, but those with stories surrounding how this issue has affected their lives and the lives of their families. Writers of that time did not have to be afraid of the government because they wrote in anonymity and found their voices through publishing for the people, rather than corporate conglomerates that filtered their words into sound bites. These figures, as Daly points out, are not impressive oil monopolists or tax collectors they are citizens that are assessing the issues of the system for the people. There is something to be said about the common man with a pen, it's dangerous. It was dangerous then and it is dangerous now. It's not dangerous for the people, but for the governments that choose to keep secrets and truth from the public. Something that Thomas Paine chose to challenge. Paine wasn't afraid of what his bosses would say if he published the truth, he was afraid of what would happen to the public if he didn't.
Bloggers do deserve to be covered by the same laws that journalists are protected by. As Daly states, it isn't about the job title but the activity behind that job. How are corporate conglomerates protected by these laws so they may deceive the public and lead them down a path of misunderstanding? The revolution wasn't made successful by the government and its idea of a perfect nation, but rather a common man and a pen challenging the idea of this "perfect" nation. Journalism isn't solely including those with the credentials, it includes those willing to tell the truth unconditionally and willing to challenge those who deceive. Daly's approach in using historical context to make this argument shows strength in proving that bloggers can be journalists, because those who were revolutionary weren't famous- but they did become infamous.
"In historical terms, today's bloggers are much closer in spirit to the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers than today's giant, conglomerate mainstream media," I found this statement made by Chris Daly, author of "Are Bloggers Journalists? Let's Ask Thomas Jefferson," to be true. Daly makes an incredibly important point in acknowledging that some of the least recognized journalists are the most revolutionary. The debate continues to prevail surrounding the issue of recognizing bloggers as true journalists because they don't have editors or a giant newsrooms to back up their words. I would make the argument that bloggers are far and few between compared to corporate media talking heads because the darkness behind telling lies seems safer than the shining light on the truth. Corporate media acts as the government's puppet and are too fearful of exposing the truth at the cost of both jobs and money. A blogger's responsibility is not found in corporate dollars, it is found in the interest of the public which is something that corporate giants cannot tolerate nor work to understand.
Daly's recognition of pamphlets during the revolution poses a sound argument for the legitimacy of bloggers. It wasn't those of the higher up that created the conversation surrounding independence, but those with stories surrounding how this issue has affected their lives and the lives of their families. Writers of that time did not have to be afraid of the government because they wrote in anonymity and found their voices through publishing for the people, rather than corporate conglomerates that filtered their words into sound bites. These figures, as Daly points out, are not impressive oil monopolists or tax collectors they are citizens that are assessing the issues of the system for the people. There is something to be said about the common man with a pen, it's dangerous. It was dangerous then and it is dangerous now. It's not dangerous for the people, but for the governments that choose to keep secrets and truth from the public. Something that Thomas Paine chose to challenge. Paine wasn't afraid of what his bosses would say if he published the truth, he was afraid of what would happen to the public if he didn't.
Bloggers do deserve to be covered by the same laws that journalists are protected by. As Daly states, it isn't about the job title but the activity behind that job. How are corporate conglomerates protected by these laws so they may deceive the public and lead them down a path of misunderstanding? The revolution wasn't made successful by the government and its idea of a perfect nation, but rather a common man and a pen challenging the idea of this "perfect" nation. Journalism isn't solely including those with the credentials, it includes those willing to tell the truth unconditionally and willing to challenge those who deceive. Daly's approach in using historical context to make this argument shows strength in proving that bloggers can be journalists, because those who were revolutionary weren't famous- but they did become infamous.
How Will Journalists survive? Authenticity. Written 10/31/2016
Money is temporary, authenticity is eternal. The question our generation of journalists is currently facing is that of how will we survive financially. Will we find refuge in a corporation or dependence on a millionaire or we will swallow our pride and settle for integrity instead? Many have sold out because of the fear instilled by corporate America against the dissident voices that keep it all in check. Individuals have refused to voice their thoughts on account of being persecuted by the rest of the mainstream media for their lack of credibility or verifiability. It's ironic, isn't it? How mainstream media scrutinizes individuals for voicing their opinions when the mainstream media voices their opinions as "facts." It is so important for people to realize that journalism extends to all walks of life, all stories and all experiences because it matters. Period.
Brian Stelter's article in the New York Times, "YouTube Videos Pull in Real Money" illustrates an individual's ability to pick up a camera and not only tell stories but make a living, which is something we can all reference when asking the question of "how will journalists survive?" Stelter writes, "In a time of media industry layoffs, the revenue source — and the prospect of a one-person media company — may be especially appealing to users. "
In the age of layoffs and unreliability within the media industry, one-person media companies allow for personal stability while maintaining integrity. There are no corporate moguls controlling your voice or advertisements associated with your content. The advertisements placed around the content generate revenue and is then split between the producer of the content and partners of the advertisements. The source of revenue provides a stable income for the content creator. It is not impossible for individuals to make a living off of creating content that other companies would love to have incorporated in their content as well.
There can be a relationship between established media outlets and individuals posting videos, Stelter writes: "On YouTube, it is evident that established media entities and the up-and-coming users are learning from each other. The amateur users are creating narrative arcs and once-a-week videos, enticing viewers to visit regularly."
Established media outlets and citizen journalists have the ability to create the relationship that enables each other to report the news but also create content that tells stories through narrative undertones. Not only can these entities work together narratively but also financially creating opportunities for each other to establish a steady income.
There is a future for journalists and it doesn't rest in the hands of the mainstream media, corporate moguls or politicians. It lays in the hands of the individual and their story, because it matters and it always will. The mainstream media may receive the most attention, but independent individuals still have their integrity-- which matters more?
Transparency vs. Objectivity, Written 11/2/2016
David Weinberger's blog titled: "Transparency is the new objectivity" argues that transparency is taking over the current roles that objectivity has held in the realm of knowledge and information. He writes, "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." Weinberger's point is incredibly sufficient to say that without transparency, a world of darkness cannot be brought into the light. The issue with today's society, not just in regards to the media but information in general, is a result of the lack of transparency. In the beginning of Obama's presidency he claimed he would remain completely transparent to the public, eight years later I believe it is safe to say that he broke his promise. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidential administrations combined, and why? Because of the absence of transparency we will never know.
When individuals challenge credibility in regards to objectivity vs. transparency, they often argue that without objectivity there is no credibility because there is a bias. I would like to challenge this notion by turning the question back around on these critics, how if we are not honest, raw and real about the issues plaguing our world can we present the truth? The truth does not come out of solely presenting the facts, it comes from how those facts are affecting people. Without humanizing the facts, putting faces and beliefs to the issue how can we believe that the facts are even relevant to us?
"Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance," writes Weinberger. There is no other way to say that besides objectivity without transparency will look like arrogance, just as Weinberger writes it. Writers have continuously hidden behind the smoke screen of objectivity because if it is factual to them, it should be factual to us. Objectivity has been used as a "verification" tool by newspapers arguing that that is the only thing the reader needs to question, not the idea behind it, not the sources used... just the objectivity. If we look at mainstream news media today, we constantly see their slogans contradicting their content... Fox News: Fair and Balanced. Shouldn't it read Fox News: Fair and Balanced? Because where is the transparency in that? There isn't any. If it is a fact to Fox it should be a fact to you... so they say.
The Internet Is My Religion- Ted Talk, Written 11/7/2016
Watching Jim Gilliam give his Ted Talk about his life, battles with cancer and hope in people struck a chord in my heart. I feel that this world is so hell bent on avoiding the true depths of human pain and its effects not just on ourselves but those who love us. Human pain and suffering is real. Our lives have been known to change in seconds, bringing us to our knees. Whether it is the diagnosis of a disease, such as cancer or the sudden loss of a loved one or a personal struggle striking so deeply within that we begin to question our worth and identity. That darkness is suffocating, debilitating and paralyzing to our souls. Scars and wounds write the words of our stories of pain and heartache. So where can we find hope? Where does that peace come from? What keeps someone fighting when their mind and heart are telling them to stop? It is so easy to ask the question of: what kind of God would allow such suffering to occur in this world? Jim Gilliam explained his finding hope in the internet when he believed God had forsaken him during his struggle and fight with cancer, some may say this is an unfair question or false belief in who God actually is, I think it is a fair question. I am not here to condemn him from a biblical standpoint, but rather empathize with his pain and frustration.
When my brother was diagnosed at eight years old with a rare form of childhood cancer I asked the same question. This disease left my family broken, confused and angry. This life is fleeting, temporary, a glimpse of time. C.S. Lewis writes in his novel, The Problem of Pain: “But if suffering is good, ought it not to be pursued rather than avoided? I answer that suffering is not good in itself. What is good in any painful experience is, for the sufferer, his submission to the will of God, and, for the spectators, the compassion aroused and the acts of mercy to which it leads.”
C.S. Lewis speaks volumes in regards to human pain and suffering focusing on not the suffering itself but the merciful compassion it can lead to. People produce compassion in the deepest moments of suffering, a point Jim Gilliam raises in his talk. He has wisdom , hope can be found in people. People need people, always. The internet has power to spread truth, honesty and vulnerability when we feel as if no one is listening. We can spread hope through this megaphone acknowledging each other's questions, frustration and most of all the deep rooted painful experiences that this broken world has caused us to feel.
This life is so so temporary, but Jesus is eternal. Hope is eternal. Love is eternal. Maybe someone needs to hear that they matter, that they are not forgotten, that there is hope and magic left in the world-- words can save a life, I remembered when they saved mine.
Why is American Internet So Slow, Written 11/18/2016
My father has worked for Verizon for over eight years now and has had his own issues with how corporate greed has affected not only himself but the company as a whole. He has explained to me before how the CEO has selfishly driven the company to turmoil. There have been union strikes against Verizon, one particularly last Spring. My dad was out of work for a while as a result of the refusal of the CEO to bargain for better contracts for Verizon’s employees. So when I hear that these companies, such as Verizon, are not doing so well I am not surprised.
It’s ironic how the 1996 Telecommunications Act was meant to foster competition but in turn divided markets and allowed corporations to merge into monopolies. After reading about the example of Verizon in The Week’s article: “Why is American internet so slow?” by John Aziz, I fully understood the effects of the Telecommunications Act.
The issue with fiber optics and Verizon is that they don’t actually offer it across the country on the basis of the argument that it is too expensive. Because of the lack of competition, Verizon isn’t compelled to offer it all over the country and therefore dominates the market. It is ironic because while our country encourages free market economics, it isn’t what we see in the practices of these larger corporations.
So why is our internet so slow? It’s because of the lack of actual free market implementation and therefore allows for larger corporations to dominate. While Obama has tried to combat the flourishing of monopolies in our society, he has also hired Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for cell-phone operators and cable companies. So is he really trying to make America’s internet faster?
Diversity in the Media, Written 11/19/2016
An article written by FAIR, also known as Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, called: “Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour” gave me intense perspective on this flagship news program. When watching the news or reading stories online I always expect to read of the voices that are really affected by that issue. Instead I find government officials, lawyers, and right-winged office holders acting as “voices” for the voiceless. It’s ironic because mainstream media preaches on their soapbox that they are the poster children for representation of the public, while at the same time they are giving the utmost high position holders in our a country the platform to spew propaganda that contributes to the issues that the public is facing.
Isn’t this how injustice begins? Allowing for people contributing to the problem to control the media? How is that even fair? It’s not. It’s not fair that the voice of individuals struggling for a chance in this society are being silenced by corporate voices. It goes without being said, the voices that matter the most are the ones that are underrepresented. So where do we go from here? The mainstream media holds so much power over the public sector solely because they are corporations funded by corporate dollars. Where can the underrepresented voices go to tell their stories? Independent media.
Independent media has been attacked again and again for their credibility and lack of foundation for “accurate reporting.” For these outlets it’s not about making millions off of lies they feed to the public. Instead it is about correcting the injustices made by mainstream media, even if it is at the expense of corporate dollars. It isn’t about giving more power to the top, instead giving a platform to those not represented or misrepresented. There is diversity in independent media because they make room for it. It’s time to start acknowledging.