Viral YouTube videos

Although we have talked about it in class many times previously, I have been noticing more and more that you can't only watch one video on Youtube when you intend to. With their related links and similar videos, it is almost like you go on it and then lose the next hour of your life to the site. It really is a brilliant concept, after it became so popular, it not only became an easy medium to share content desired to be viewed, but also a major ad site. They are advertising more on the site than they used to, now with each video an ad pops up at the bottom of it that you can close, however, it takes up a good sized portion of the screen so the viewer can't really miss it. It is also a good site for word to spread about up and coming bands, comedians, songs, etc. Many comedians have used Youtube as a tactic for them to become more popular, the trick is to post small and incomplete clips and make the viewer want to watch more and learn more about the comedian. One comedian that has done this successfully is Russell Peters. It was a great struggle for him because he was the first of his kind, an Indian comedian. He attributes word of mouth via youtube as a major contribution to his rise in popularity after working so hard for over 10 years, youtube sped the process up and got him to a point that he wanted to be in his career.

However, there are strict lessons to be learned from Youtube. As a provider of the ability to view the content, they are a safe harbor of sorts and can not be sued directly for any copyright infringement, however, if they do not take videos down that they have been notified to take down, they can be sued. The copyright infringement notices have become ridiculous, in my opinion. The artist formerly known as Prince, sued a woman for posting a video that she wished to share with her friends and family of her 10 month old child dancing to one of his songs. The audio in the video was not even distinguishable, apart from the title of the video including the song title. It was claimed that it infringed on his marketability, although he is an old artist that doesn't market products anymore. This is just one example of how with Youtube, copyright cases have increased, and continue to; there are now companies that employ an entire department solely devoted to searching for such copyright infringements. It is a flawed system, and some type of legislation should be finalized about it, limiting such cases as this mother showing her dancing son.

Shield law defines journalist and now provides protection for web journalists

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, which has passed through the House and the Senate and still pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee (to be decided on shortly) finishes with a definition of who qualifies as a journalist and would therefore qualify for coverage under the law. The original definition was that of a reporter being someone who was covered under the shield law, was a writer who wrote with the purpose of disseminating the news with significant financial gain. However, the legislation has gone through several remedies, some of which were those to the definitions as paraphrased above. The act now will provide protection for online journalists, which we have found to not normally be the case in most other aspects of business it is a struggle for the independent, online media spectrum to be acknowledged as more than bloggers or for others to recognize it as a skilled profession, just as print is, but with a different medium. The bill was also changed to provide protection to independent journalists that don't necessarily make an income because they are possibly starting a new independent outlet, or perhaps just providing content to such an outlet, like many do as part of the Huffington Post. However, the Free Flow of Information act now takes into account different aspects of the indy media realm. This can be seen as a large step, although smaller town governments still provide harsher terms and don't accept independent bloggers, the federal government has at least put parameters in place for the larger government (federal government) to not only acknowledge it, but put it on the same playing field as the traditional mainstream media.

Journalism students studying business

It is interesting to think of how many journalists have started their own successful businesses, in order to do this it is necessary to have some kind of background in business or finance. Does this make it worth journalism students studying economics or business? It is debatable if it would help more journalists successfully launch an independent blog. In many schools, this thought process isn't thought about. I wouldn't have to plan out a prospectus for a business down to the finer details dealing with developing a revenue stream, and how to sustain the media organization. It can be difficult finding that niche to get you started, so many are politics now a days that it is hard to compete. The article by Jeff Jarvis is interesting because it presents the argument that many wouldn't think of when dealing with developing a new media organization. This is the idea that it shouldn't be unique, in order for it to thrive, there has to be some competition, so people can better interpret the content of certain sites as compared to others. However, it is a perfect balance of sorts, because with too much competition, you could just as easily get buried, especially in comparison to much larger entities such as the Huffington Post, which covers multiple niches, although mainly the politics spectrum.

It requires a lot of thought, but the creativity and effort put into it is clear to work towards one's benefit in the long run.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality seems to becoming more and more of an issue. Who would've thought that competition would get so intense and companies would want to further their own interests so much that they would censor what can and can't be seen on the internet? Some are said to believe that no new legislation is needed to fix the issue, while others say that it is. Those who believe that no corrective action is needed insist that a free market will regulate itself and therefore not need regulation, it would be unneeded regulation to some. Others believe that having a free market in the first place is what developed such competition and censorship amongst the internet. Big corporations are transferring into the internet, just has had previously happened in the print media. Corporations are placing their agenda and political views above their service to their consumers. Legislation is needed to regulate this, who is to say it would stop on its own, just as it started on its own. It has developed into a bigger issue, prior to this year, many may have not even known what the concept of net neutrality is, however, now it seems as though it is increasingly urgent.

Journalists with an agenda or bloggers?

There has been speculation in a blog that "Transparency is the new objectivity". The author states that many journalists have in fact objective, while it is bloggers that have an agenda that they project onto their readers through their lack of objectivity. This isn't exactly accurate to me, because it is always obvious that the mainstream has a bias through the corporations that own the publications. While the bloggers both report the news that needs to be reported while also making a statement about it.

The article is interesting in that it links objectivity and transparency to print versus online, where links are possible. The author says that it is easier to state an agenda through the links that explain how that conclusion was reached. While in print, the only way remotely close to do so is though footnotes, which can be time consuming and not effective in the end because some don't read them, etc.

"Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?"

This was an interesting quote, it seems as though in itself, it project arrogance and foolishness.

New York Post corruption

We all remember the New York Post cartoon controversy in which the writer of Obama's stimulus package was portrayed as a chimpanzee. Now an editor of the NY Post that was fired for speaking out about the ordeal is suing the Post. Many more horror stories of sorts are now coming out via the fired employee. Accusations of being forced to look at sexual images, endure racist and sexist comments as well as being required to follow the Posts agenda rather than what may have been more important at any given time. Other allegations include plots of destroying President Obama, not only were the sexist comments and misogynistic attitudes endured, but the hiring and firing habits of the publication were also directly related to the racist attitudes and needs of the Post. Corruption in the mainstream media can be found anywhere. Sandra Guzman, the fired employee, also says that sexual favors were traded in for job promotions, along with other allegations that could have a profound impact in terms of embarrassment and damages to the Post.

Is this a question of the bitterness of Guzman from being fired for speaking her mind, or are the allegations true? Either way, just from the information leaking out, whether it is true or not, many have most likely already indicted the New York Post in their minds because of the harsh statements made.

Standard journalistic practices

Speaking of citizen journalists not acknowledging something as simple as standard journalistic practices, Mayhill Fowler was one such person. I am not an accurate judge to say what exactly are standard journalistic practices are, but she was fully aware that she had given Bill Clinton the wrong impression of who she was. She didn't say that she was a journalist or that she was recording, although it is not required by law. She says that she held her recorder in plain sight in her hand, however, it could have looked like any number of things and her hand may not have been prominent enough to be noticed, she could have had it hanging down by her side with her recorded clutched in it, etc, we don't know.

The story that developed was one of considerable weight, however, which could possibly justify the questionable means used to develop it. It is evident that Clinton is a public figure, and as such, he has public importance and prominence, which leaves him vulnerable to such events occurring, in this instance it was just an example of one abusing this vulnerability. From the recording, it wasn't that a normal conversation was started and then turned to the topic of the reporter who wrote the article. Fowler spoke to him with the intent of getting such a reaction out of him. I don't feel as though it can be completely OK when it is taken out of context like that.

Undercover reporting has always been questionable and doubted by many. In saying that, it is very hard to form a judgement one way or the other in this situation as to whether Fowler should have had more remorse or hesitation with the situation, because she seemed to be quite the opposite and was very proud of her accomplishment in recording such a statement from the former president.