Hail to those with information and no name---and the journalists who enable them

Criticism aside, I am really relieved to finally see something in this book, besides a few words in the foreword, that actually addresses the books title. I think it raised some genuine concern directly and she took a stance on a topic and even built an argument, what a chapter!

The topic of my previous post was crowd-sourced journalism. In this practice you almost have to acknowledge that privacy is quickly becoming a thing of the past. I can't decide whether I care or am terrified/outraged. Should I just post my SSN right here or boycott every institution that asks for it? The walls are getting thinner daily. How much longer will we be able to be speak without being listened to? Already, we can essentially rule out phone conversations as private.

The ability to listen isn't the new threat. It is the inaction of the people that give those with the consensual violence, the power to use our words against us.

Reporters privilege=

Amendment IV U.S. Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Except for reporters.)

I have yet to make my mind up on this one. It is obvious that it is in the nature of law to consistently contradict. What the reporters privilege says, is that by time they got to the fourth amendment they had already contradicted the first amendment. There shall be no laws that abridge the freedom of the press, therefore we need an exception.

This is scary since it can logically excuse government from search and seizure while trying to petition for a redress of grievances. If government feels the potential for investigations impede their ability to get the "work" done than they too have a right for privilege. Holy shit they call this national security don't they!

Hands off my notes 5-0!

Assignment Zero conversation

I recently contributed to a forum at Assignment Zero. I encourage people to check out what is going on at the site. I responded to a post that was looking to define the term crowd-sourcing. I post it here because I was able (at least i hope i did) to convey some ideas that might be relevant to this blog and Jour 201. Plus I think Thomas mentions the internet at some point or another.

>>>One interesting thing about this topic is its ability to self-consume. When covering it we could almost plug the word "crowd-sourcing" into every slot that the coveted 5 w's provide. Even as we write about the topic we crowd-source for the greater project.
To me this term aims straight at the heart of democracy, not to strike it but rather to embrace it. True democracy should also be self-consuming. True journalism is essential for democracy and conversely I believe that this project is part of a large effort to democratize journalism. It is with this that I offer a rebuttal to a previous call for response: "I ask this more of the Pro Team in this experiment since it is their assignment." This is our assignment. I say this not to exclude the "Pro team" for I believe that within a democratic crowd the lines that divide hierarchal status become blurry. I hope that we can all take part in defining our terminology and thus be able to attain the focus needed to complete the project.

The way that I have come to use the term "crowd-sourcing" is such:
When a medium in which the intended audience members are also (or at least have the opportunity to be) the proprietors of content. These proprietors communally contribute to a desired end result. Not only does the content, and thus end result, have to be controlled by the audience; the means of production and distribution must be controlled by the audience.
I think that the previous examples were great. I think that classified ads and TV ads would fit better into this term if the means of producing them were readily accessible to the general population. Graffiti seems like a great physical world example (if done in groups), as it is quite easy to attain and use a can of spray paint. It is not a given though. If you are a member of the physical world do you automatically have a spray can?
If you have access to a computer and internet you become part of the internet audience. "Crowd-sourced" projects on the internet are then inherently accessible to you.

Obviously this is just my take on the subject. Please add to the conversation as it is still incomplete.>>>

A brief history of journalism

Helen Thomas has seen a lot in terms of presidential politics. She even mentions in her book Watchdogs of Democracy? that she has watched nine presidents come and go. She has also been witness to many of the journalistic trends that accompanied the last century.

I sense cynicism in her writing when she talks about the the current status of journalism, yet at the same time she still holds a lot of pride in the institution. Why is this? How can Thomas look at all that has and is going wrong in journalism and still believe that there is hope? Because it is essential to democracy to have this institution in place. She has watched American democracy dwindle and she knows that if there is hope for our democracy there must be hope for a free media. The two are inseparable.

In Chapter 1 Thomas lists several examples of contemporary journalistic blunders. It is the story about Jason Blair that stuck with me the most. Thomas uses a quote from a book Blair wrote (a confessional of sorts), it describes an entire life that he lived that was based entirely in fiction. He told stories and passed them off as news. Where does this leave the public? If journalism does not serve the public than the people must take back what is rightfully theirs.

Journalism is a special branch of government. We the people are the government. We the people become the government when we agree to relinquish some of our freedoms in order to live in a society based on the majority's principles. We are the media. The media is the government. We become the media when we expose the dark corners where freedom lays dormant. We are the people. We become the people when we grab a hold of every freedom afforded to us and demand more. We are a living being that must not rest until all of our individual parts are united harmoniously and we acknowledge our freedom so that we may live the way that we find fit.