Independent Media

The internet gave us the ability to shop online. It also gave us an outlet to express ourselves. It gave a voice to independent media outlets a chance to publish content with no retractions. Now the United States government wants to put restrictions on it and make net neutrality a thing of the past. In Deirdre Fulton’s “Public Outrage Over Net Neutrality ” the 2014 proposals by the FCC do not support a free open internet. They limit it to those who can afford the best and fastest package. On the internet there is no class. Everyone is equal when they are anonymously behind a computer screen. These laws would put barriers up to those who cannot afford to be in “the fast lane.” An independent journalist who is operating on limited funds could have their voices oppressed all because of this paywall. It would be a disservice to the American democracy by limiting the voices of those who want to get the truth out. Those that can pay for the fast lane could be apart of larger media c

Since my Intro to Journalism class Freshman year we have always had one thing drilled into our heads. Objectivity. If a reporter remains neutral and just states, the information then a reader or viewer will be able to make a decision for themselves. Blogger David Weinberger writes that we are now looking for transparency and that transparency is fulfilling some of objectivity’s old role in the ecology of knowledge. Before news consumers would believe objectivity would be the stopping point and everything published had to be accurate. In the twenty-first century technology has changed all of that. You can see an article’s sources with just the click of a button. By showing this you can see exactly where a reporter or blogger stands. You can do research on their sources if you so choose to see where they stand. From that point on a reader could make an informed decision on a subject instead of pretending to know what was said in the “objective” newspaper. No longer are the

I would hate to shatter my grandparent’s illusions of PBS and their promise to “serving the public interest.” In reality they are just serving the interests of corporations who provide millions of dollars to them.   “Those donations of $25 or $50 mailed to PBS are just there to keep the lights on,” says Media Critic Jeff Cohen in an interview with The Real News. What really makes an impact on the editorial side of PBS is the millions corporations donate. For example, a series about pension policies that was supposed to be released was funded by a billionaire who is in favor of cutting pensions of local government employees. Our country which prides itself on the freedom of the press is in a way doing just the opposite. It is at the mercy of large donations to fund content which only expresses their interests. Maybe they would not have taken donations such as this one if the United States placed a larger emphasis on public broadcasting. Only $3.75 goes towards it in the U.S. w