Anyway, back to the book situation…

Summer break usually means carefree days, relaxing on beaches, catching up on shows and all the time in the world to blog. Sounds like a dream come true! 

​

If you’re reading this, congratulations! You made it to 2016! Given the violence and other dangers in the world today (I admit I rushed to the store when I heard Blue Bell had returned to Louisiana. So far, so good!), this is no small feat.  Along with this accomplishment comes the arrival of varied vows to exercise regularly, save more money, stop watching ratchet reality TV shows and unfriend toxic people from our Facebook friend lists. We know these extreme makeover-self edition pledges as new year resolutions.   


But, do you know the origin of this practice?
​
According to the History Channel, the ancient Babylonians likely started the practice of making resolutions for the new year. They made promises so they could “earn the favor of the gods and start the year off on the right foot,” reportedly promising to pay off debts and return borrowed farm equipment.

The more you know, right?
​
​

Over the last couple of years, I have noticed the growing trend of making vision boards to visually proclaim your desires in hopes they will manifest throughout the year. 


I’ve never made a vision board, but I’m no stranger to making resolutions. Some I keep. Sadly, others fall to the wayside.  The older I get, however, I realize the importance of sticking to these life goals . This year, I don’t want to be a quitter.


Some areas of my life need a serious overhaul, and I’m determined to make it happen.   I’ll share my resolutions with you. You might find them helpful in making your own lists. 

1.  Healthy Lifestyle-- Once you enter your thirties, fatigue sets in and the weight doesn’t come off as quickly as it once did, especially if there are underlying medical conditions at work.   I plan to exercise regularly and eat healthier. Good health is essential to my long-term goal of living a long, healthy happily ever after. So, good health is essential!

 

1. Beauty--This piggybacks on the healthier lifestyle goal.  With the thirties comes the threat of things sagging, less than fabulous hair and nails and wrinkles. It’s time to jump on the beauty bandwagon and remain a PYT as long as possible.

          

​

1. Graduate—I began working toward my Ph.D. in 2012. Three gigantic last hurdles remain— two defenses and writing a dissertation. I’m aiming to graduate in Aug. 2016! So, if you know anyone in need of the services of someone with experience in journalism and public relations and a future in Ph.D. media and public affairs, let me know! Additionally, prayers are also requested!

 

1. Social—I have become such a homebody over the last couple of years.  When I’m not busy with school and work, I can usually be found lounging around at home watching TV. I’d like to hang out more with my existing friends and make new ones. However, school and my grad student income have made a social life difficult to manage. Thank you to my family and friends who have continued to stand by me, reach out and understand my lack of availability as I work toward my educational goals. I recognize my flaws and promise I will work on being a better friend/family member this year! 

1. Church— In 2015, a mentor dispensed some valuable advice to me on how to succeed in a Ph.D. program. She told me I would need a good church and a good bar! While I keep a good supply of moscato on hand, I still need to increase my filling of church. I don’t always get this, but I’m working on it. 

​

1. Relationship- If you have read my blog, you know I have a #bae .  Relationships need to be watered with understanding, patience and compromise to grow and bloom. I plan to do my part to make this happen.

​

Sources:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/police-arrest-woman-wanted-forcibly-twerking-man-article-1.2431793
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDATT4g6GA


Audience reaction to both of these stories proved interesting. They shined light on men reacting in what society would typically deem as a less than masculine way. It should be every man’s dream to be touched and groped by scantily clad women, right? At least that is the narrative constructed by dominating masculine stereotypes in society.

A similar question could be asked of the alleged rape victim. Why would a man be mad a woman threw herself at him for sex?  This, too, goes against the dominating masculine stereotype.
 
Would the reaction have been different in both of the situations if the roles were reversed?
More than likely, yes!  Gender performance typically becomes problematic when it goes against the grain of societal norms.
 
In class, the conversation grew even more interesting once we applied the question of masculinity to dating. The students offered up some widely varying answers including physically strong; leader of the household; powerful; a take-charge attitude; good morals; confident; level-headed; and someone who only cries during serious situations like death.
 
 This brings me to the question of today’s blog. If you date men, what masculine roles do you look for them to embody?  How else does society characterize society? 







If you would like some additional reading on gender, check out these materials:
Jost & Hamilton, “Stereotypes in our Culture”
 
Lorber, “The Social Construction of Gender”
 
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987). “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society, 1(2): 125-151.
 
Connell, “The Social Organization of Masculinity”
 
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/social-construction-sex-77099
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/target-removes-gender-labels-from-kids-sections-after-complaints
 
VIDEO: The Codes of Gender

Image Sources:http://feministing.com/2015/03/19/remembering-why-redefining-masculinity-is-important/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vb4yd3Ljxg
​

​ As I scrolled through social media this morning, I came across the above meme.

 It was one of those viral memes that gets shared and altered among the masses.

You don't know who created it (Sorry, I'm not sure to whom I should attribute credit) or even why they created it.

All you know is it resonates with you and is probably applicable to some aspect of your life.

In my case, the reason is I am 30 and single. ***Inserts dark, scary music**

To clarify, I am dating someone exclusively, but I’m not married.

So, technically, I’m still single.

According to society, that’s a scary situation.

I regularly come across articles addressing the issue.

http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/10/13/new-jim-crow-marriage-black-women/17217909/

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/04/09-race-assortative-mating-inequality-reeves

http://hellobeautiful.com/2015/04/24/why-black-women-are-single/

http://www.essence.com/2014/04/03/why-it-so-hard-black-women-find-love-they-deserve
 
http://verysmartbrothas.com/the-10-real-reasons-why-so-many-black-women-are-so-damn-single/

http://www.thematchmakingduo.com/the-9-biggest-complaints-from-single-black-women/

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/single-black-females/story?id=9395275



 I’ve even covered the subject myself.

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/mar/13/gp_livingsingle_031411_121216/


To summarize, the perception is times are tough in the love department for single, black women. 


​





​

This semester, I am teaching a course on multiculturalism in the media.

As part of the course, I have assigned a number of readings  related to multiculturalism.

This past week, my students read Ann Coulter’s, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama.” 

 The book explores what Coulter describes as the misuse of race in politics in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. 

She assigns a large part of the blame to the “fact-resistant media.”

Regardless of political and racial ideology, I recommend people read the book, if for no other reason than to educate yourself on alternative points-of-view.

In my class of diverse students, the book definitely prompted a lively conversation.

 During the discussion, a student asked whether a formal apology to blacks was necessary for the country to move on from past and ongoing racial strife. If so, who should issue that apology and what should it  entail?

Students offered an assortment of answers, with some interested in  reparations and mostly all coming to the consensus that President Barack Obama could not be the one to issue the apology. 

The question was so intriguing I later asked a friend about it.

He wasn’t sure how to answer it.

Personally, I think an apology is warranted, but it should come in the form of action rather than just empty words.

 I think there have been plenty of steps already made toward this elusive “apology,” but there is certainly a lot more to be done.

I thought I would pose the same question here for my readers.

Is a formal apology necessary for the country to move past racial tensions? If so, who should issue the apology and what should it entail?

Book cover retrieved from Amazon.com

It has been awhile since my last blog post. If you have followed my blog in the past, you know this is not something new. What can I say? Life gets in the way.

I was inspired to blog today, however, because I have been reading my fair share of blog posts lately. You see, I turned the big 3-0 in November 2014. Hence, you may have noticed why I had to change my blog name from “Confessions of a twenty-something journalist” to “Welcome to 30: Bills, Beauty, Books and a Beau,” which better sums up my life right now. For a woman, 30 can be a pretty scary age. It’s a milestone of all you have done –good and bad—up to this point. While I feel accomplished in some areas of my life, I am unfilled in others.

I read somewhere the habits and regimens we employ by age 30 are ones we will adhere to for at least the next 20 years.  It is scary to think that some of my bad habits may drag on that long. Therefore, I’ve made a commitment to myself to “get my life,” as they say.

 While I’ve never done a vision board, I see the value in them. It is important to lay out a plan of action.  So far, I have decided these are the main areas I would like to work on in my life (in no specific order):

1.       Beauty (Skin, Weight, Hair)

2.       Health ( Living as much of a chemical-free life as possible)

3.       Time Management/Organization

4.       Better Student,  Teacher, Daughter, Friend, Girlfriend, Pet Mom

5.       Money Management (including couponing)

My recent consumption of blogs has mainly been due to the No.1 area of attention on this list—beauty.  Between years of unprotected sun exposure, medication, irregular salon facials, biotin breakouts, mild melasma and a bad habit of putting my hands on my face, my skin, although not refuse to come outside without a bag over my head horrible, was left with some unwanted blemishes and dark spots. I am a dark tan complexion (according to MAC Cosmetics). So, my skin needed some serious T.L.C. to get that glowing, even tone back. 


I recently got my first V.I. chemical peel and my first microdermabrasion.  As a newbie to this level of skin revitalization, I wanted a second opinion from my esthetician’s suggested skin treatment plan. Although she is a nice lady, I tend to be skeptical about people’s motives. At the end of the day, she needs to make a profit. 

Therefore, I took to online reviews about the peel itself, what to expect, after care and maintenance and other general information from everyday people and other doctors on the subject. As an African-American woman, I was particularly concerned about possible negative side effects (my blemishes getting even darker) after the peel. I’m happy to say the blogs put my mind at ease, and I’m happy with the results of my peel. Although, I will likely need another round or two to get my truly desired results.

In the meantime, I am now using a doctor-recommended skincare line—Obagi NuDerm— in addition to tretinoin that will hopefully help. Once again, I resorted to researching online reviews and blogs before making my decision to try Obagi. My student budget wouldn’t allow me to purchase the entire $500+ skincare line (7+ items) from my esthetician. So, I piecemealed the most essential items (6 items) from the line from both the esthetician’s office and reputable sellers on Amazon for less than $200 (winning!).  Plus, I opted against the pricey Obagi 20 percent vitamin C serum ($56.99 on Amazon); instead purchasing Sano’s 20 percent vitamin C serum and eye gel with Hyaluronic Acid, Jojoba Oil and aloe among other great natural ingredients for $19 from Amazon. 

The verdict is still out on whether Obagi coupled with future skin treatments will help me reach my desired end results. Only time will tell, but I'll be sure to give my endorsement if it does, which brings me back to my original point.  Online reviews and blogs have played a huge role in my decisions of whether to try products on my limited budget.

I am not naïve enough to believe everything I read online.  I am a Christian, former full-time journalist and forever X-Files fan so my worldview falls somewhere in the amalgamation of people are inherently good, trust no one and the truth is out there. Therefore, I am open to what people have to say, but I do take into consideration the validity and trustworthiness of the source and look at how many other people expressed similar sentiments.

My journey to a new year/new me is ongoing. As the year continues, I hope to blog (as time permits) and offer my own reviews on products and services that can hopefully be of help to others. You can also expect some general musings from my journey to becoming a better me, which includes academic-oriented subjects.  I hope you’ll stay tuned!
 
For more information on the Obagi skincare line, check out their website here.

Before I get into background of this blog post’s tile, I want to share a story with you.


This story is about one of my first real bouts with stifled creativity due to copyright laws a couple of years ago. 

In an effort to protect the parties involved, I’m going to be as vague as possible with some exact details.

To summarize, however, I was working on a multimedia package for my journalism job. 

I was really excited because not only was I telling an important story, but also because my boss gave me leeway to be creative in both the  storytelling and editing. 

 i did extensive subject research, traveled to collect footage and had an awesome video editor at my disposal. 
 
Given the story’s subject matter, I thought it would be great to close it out with an old Negro spiritual, underlying the audio of the last interview and slowly bringing the volume up as the video went into the credits. 
 
The story included footage from more than one locale in the state. 

To tie in the local community angle even more, I asked a local church pastor whether we, the media outlet, could use a 30-second snippet of his church choir singing one of the spirituals. 
 
I was completely taken aback by his answer. 

He told me I could use the snippet if I paid $20+ to buy the CD. 
 
I was floored by this answer for two main reasons:

Before we even got into my request, I introduced myself to  him. 

He claimed he had met many of the young journalists who had worked in the area and he began relaying to me his “knowledge” of some of the downsides of the profession including low pay. 

Therefore, I felt it was  unreasonable for him to turn right back around and demand I come out of my own pocket to pay for something I only wanted 30 seconds of for work purposes.  

This is especially true since I would have been happy to borrow a CD and return it the same day after we’d copied the song we wanted to use. 

Secondly, this was an opportunity for his small-town church choir to receive free, widespread publicity for an audience of about 100,000.   
 
Needless to say, I left his church empty-handed, but not discouraged.

Instead, I decided to use 30 seconds of a well-known artist’s emotion-invoking song.

The story received many views and countless compliments. 
 
I still couldn’t help but to think that the pastor’s attitude on sharing the CD robbed him and his choir members from an opportunity to share their work and minister to a wider audience through music.

 Instead that same $20+ CD is likely collecting dust in the same box it was sitting in when he pulled it out to sell it to
me.

This idea of creativity being stifled by copyright laws is the idea of this week’s MC 7019 reading

 We read Lawrence Lessig’s 2008 book, “Remix.”

 Lessing’s book focuses on the “copyright wars” (Lessig, 2008). 
 
In these wars, the “right-thinking sorts  mean not the ‘war’ on  copyright ‘waged’ by ‘pirates’ but the ‘war’ on ‘piracy,’ which ‘threatens’ the ‘survival’ of certain important American industries. 

He writes that his main point is “to get you to see something that is otherwise too often obscure: there are many different ways in which we tax to raise the revenues needed for public goods (as the economist would call
copyrighted works. We select among these different ways the one that is best…we should consider when deciding that is whether the way we select makes our kids  criminals…it is one that has plainly been missing from Congress’ consideration about how to best deal with the impact of digital technologies upon traditional copyright industries” (Lessig, 2008). 

Lessig clarifies that he is not defending taking others’ content in wholesale for commercial purposes without the permission of the copyright owner, but rather people taking content and using digital technologies to recreate it and say something differently . 

Lessig accuses the current system of being “democratized” (Lessig, 2008). 

While people of every generation are infringing on the government’s mandated copyright laws, it is especially true of Generation Z. 
 
A digital generation, children born from 1990 to 2010 are tech-savvy. 

Their brains are “wired for the fast delivery of content, data, and images from computers, videogames, and the Internet” and educators are “increasingly bringing game design and game theory into education with
continuous grading, continuous feedback, clear goals, rewards, challenges, etc.” (Renfro, 2012). 

Despite this obvious relationship between technology and creativity, the government has not exactly greeted this creativity with open arms.


Instead, “the architecture of copyright law and digital technologies as they interact, have produced the presumption that these activities are illegal” (Lessig, 2008). “Without permission you are a trespasser” (Lessig, 2008).


As a result, there is a growing extremism coming from both sides of the creator and government v. user debate.

One side is building new technologies such as a semi-recent one enabling them to automatically take down content from sites like You Tube that contains any copyrighted content in it whether or not there is a judgment of fair use that might be applied to the use of that content. 
 
On the other side, children and others are becoming copyright abolitionists, rejecting the “notion of what copyright is supposed to do” and believing “the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible” (Lessig, 2008). 
 
Lessig said he believes both sides of the debate are wrong.

 “I believe so not because I think copyright is unimportant…I believe in peace because  the costs of war wildly exceed  any benefit, at least when you consider  changes to the current regime  of copyright that could end this war while promising artists  and authors the protection that any copyright system is intended to provide” (Lessig, 2008).

Drawing upon lessons learned from John Philip Sousa, who warned in the 19th Century that America was changing from a “read-write culture” to a “read-only culture,” and BMI, which offered better access to user-generated content and music, Lessig offers up a two-prong private solution to the debate (Lessig, 2008).

 1.   Artists and creators embrace the idea that their work be made available more freely for non-commercial and amateur use. 

2.  Businesses building out this read/write culture to embrace these changes so freer content can become
available, benefitting all parties involved. 

He believes this will create a system that provides artists and authors with the “incentives to create”  without “criminalizing our kids” (Lessig, 2008). 

In most instances, I agree creators should be compensated for commercial usage of their content.

The news media, however, should be one of the exemptions from this rule. 

Now, I’ll admit that I do get very annoyed when I look for a song on You Tube and all I get are fan versions instead of the real thing.

However, I don’t think people should be stopped from uploading these remixed creations. 

I just think You Tube should do a better job in filtering the originals from the copies.

In case you’re wondering what the latest fair use laws entail, here’s a link.

 A true artist produces content to exercise their freedom of speech, invoke emotion and thought and express themselves. 
 
Having the opportunity to make a living from that should be considered an added blessing.

Some artists these days are too greedy for money and forget where they started. 

Before they were famous, many singers created mix tapes, on which they rapped or sang on top of a beat. 

Sometimes these beats came from existing songs. 

They didn’t get permission from those artists when they were performing these songs trying to get a record deal. 
 
People these days are doing the same thing, only they are recording themselves performing these songs and placing them on You Tube. 

I offer up two semi-recent situations for discussion:

  CASE STUDY 1: 

Beyonce’s song “Single Ladies” grew to phenomenal popularity thanks in part to You Tube. 

Fans could record themselves performing the fun choreography from the song’s official video and share their attempts with friends on You Tube,  blogs and other websites. 

Having this freedom to share their experiences with the song and dance routine, undoubtedly created a sense of community among posters and viewers, led to a lot of smiles and good feelings and maybe even inspired
watchers and performers to become professional dancers themselves. 
 
Do I think Beyoncé should get a cut from each of these homegrown performances?

Absolutely not! 

 What are your thoughts on this matter? 
 
Should Beyoncé get a cut from the performances?

CASE STUDY 2:

Now, here’s the story referenced in this blogs title. 
 
In 2010, soul singer Kelly Price filed a lawsuit against The New Light Center Christian Church.

Price accused the Houston-area church of allegedly “making money from her song ‘Women Who Win,’ without proper licensing and permission” (AT2W, 2010).

Specifically, Price claims the defendant did the following (AT2W, 2010):

 1) “Recorded a telecast of New Light Church called “Women Who Win.”

2) “Promoted DVDs and other products from their website called “Women Who Win.” 

3) “Recorded and performed at several 2008 Women Who Win conferences.”

 4) Created audio CDs “incorporating the song still remain on sale.”

5) Performed the song during regular church services.

 You can read more on this story at the following link: Read more about Will Bishop I.V. Hilliard & Church Pay Kelly Price for Copyright Infringement? 

Should a church have to pay to sing a song during Sunday morning worship service?

 Was New Light wrong in basing a sermon series off of a song title?

 Should Kelly be financially compensated for the church using “Women Who Win” in any capacity?

 If the Church was not making money off the slogan, would it be OK for them to use it?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these case studies or anything else you feel like discussing from the blog. 
 
I look forward to hearing from  you!

References




Lessig, Lawrence. (2008). Remix: Making art and culture thrive in a hybrid economy. New York: Penguin Press.


A Toast 2 Wealth (2010, November 8). Will Bishop I.V. Hilliard & Church Pay Kelly Price for Copyright Infringment? | AT2W. Retrieved from http://www.atoast2wealth.com/2010/11/08/will-bishop-i-v-hilliard-church-pay-kelly-price-for-copyright-infringment/


Renfro, A.(2012, December 5). Meet Generation Z - Getting Smart by Adam Renfro -
   commerce, gadgets, Gen Z, generation z, professionals, social media, web tools
  | Getting Smart. Retrieved from
  http://gettingsmart.com/2012/12/meet-generation-z/

By definition, the Internet is a publicly accessible computer  network connecting many smaller networks from around the world. 

This concept of a larger network linking the connections of many smaller networks transfers to  the general workings  of life in the 21st Century, particularly as it relates to the Internet’s impact on democracy and institutions of democratic citizenship cultivation.  

Being a democratic citizen entails staying informed about issues affecting members of society and joining with others in determining how society will resolve those issues. 

Institutions of citizenship cultivation are an extension of these democratic citizenry efforts. Undoubtedly, the Internet has and will continue impacting these entities. 

Whether this impact positive or negative is the question  addressed during this week’s readings. 

According to author Evgeny Morozov’s 2011 book, “The Net Delusion,” there is certainly a dark side to Internet
freedom.

What is Net Delusion, you ask?

Morozov defines it as the occurrence of acting on a “flawed set of assumptions (cyber-utopiansim)” with “flawed, even crippled, methodology (Internet-centrism)” (Morozov, 2011). 

According to Morozov, Internet users in a democracy have been deluded into believing two fallacies: the Internet will help promote Democracy and that it will actually create a growth and lead to more people  being empowered; and governments will actually be able to use the Internet, technology and new media to promote democracy around the globe (Morozov, 2011). 
 
While democratic citizens are naively living like those in Plato’s Cave, authoritarian governments have busied themselves with  disseminating propaganda via the Internet and surveilling dissidence. 
 
In other words, authoritarian governments are using the Internet as a weapon in the war against democracy.

In order to combat this, Morozov argues “those of us in the West who still care about the future of democracy will need to ditch both cyber-utopianism and Internet-centrism” (Morozov, 2011). 
 
In part, Morozov focused on the protests in Iran following the disputed presidential election of 2009.

Protestors disputed the victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in support of opposition candidates
Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi.

The protests spurred the idea of techno-utopianism, the belief that advances in science and technology will result in a utopia or at least help spur another utopian ideal,  among politicians and journalists. 
 
Twitter coverage of the protests was dubbed the “Twitter Revolution” by some commentators. 

Journalist Andrew Sullivan was even quoted as saying “The revolution will be Twittered!”(Morozov, 2011). 
  
Morozov, however, refutes these claims about Twitter’s role.

 He acknowledges the enthusiasm people had about using Twitter during the protests, the droves of people who
actually took to the streets and Twitter’s great role in actually publicizing the event and in getting the information out (Morozov, 2011).

However, it was not instrumental in getting people into the streets (Morozov, 2011). 

Even more newsworthy was the Iranian government’s response in the aftermath.

The Iranian government began tracking everything its countrymen posted to social media and sending Facebook messages to Iranians abroad telling them not to get involved with the protests (Morozov, 2011). 
 
The Iranian government went a step further when they began posting photos of people involved in the
protests on government websites and asking others to identify them (Morozov, 2011).

They even interrogated those who dared to use their real name when posting comments about the protests on social media (Morozov, 2011).

This exemplifies the dark side of Internet freedom.

 I had no idea of the Iranian government’s post-protest actions. 
 
I appreciate Morozov’s theory, which toes the line of conspiracy.

In terms of the first delusion Morozov explains, we believe the Internet provides a number of individual and communal benefits. Some of those benefits include greater access to information; ability to telecommute; an outlet to voice their thoughts; helped create transparency and government
 accountability; spurred political mobilization; and helped spread the idea of democracy beyond American borders. 

To some extent, the Internet combats some of the characteristics impeding our ability to be good active citizens such as: work related constraints; consumerism; social capital; personal constraints; and suburbanization (Chadwick p.90).

However, the dark side of the Internet includes websites advocating for authoritarian government systems as well as
those sites promoting acts of terrorism as a means of protest against democratic governance.

Even in a democratic society, government censure of ideas based on libel and slander laws or those falling
under the purview of the Homeland Security Act and in a potentially extreme situation, the shutdown of the Internet are all dark outcomes that some democratic citizens would rather tuck under a rug and not acknowledge. 
 
Additionally, the Internet creates a knowledge gap between those who have Internet access and those who don’t.

Those who have Internet access at home have opportunities to become more politically engaged, while those who do not have access to it period or only through libraries or school are at a disadvantage.

The "marketplace of ideas" has elements of being beneficial and harmful to both individuals and
society as a whole. In a democracy, the supreme power lies with the people, who exercise it either directly or indirectly through a system of representation  usually involving periodically held free
elections. 

Informed citizens make better decisions. 

The marketplace provides a figurative space of public discourse where the truth can emerge from a diversity of ideas competing in a free, unhampered environment.  

News websites, Wikileaks, Grits for Breakfast and other watchdog sites are all products of this marketplace of ideas made available by the Internet. 
 
However, sites of biased, completely fictional and factually incorrect information also riddle the Internet. In a marketplace with little to no controls, as with the Internet,

It may be difficult for people to fish out “the truth,” particularly, if people are only look at the first information coming their way and accept it at face value. 

Ideally, in a marketplace, the best goods are the best-sellers.

However, that may not always be the case in a sea of information.

At times, unscrupulous advertisers use the Internet to spread untruths and sell products  to fund Super PACS and unethical campaign teams push untruthful smear campaigns against political opponents. 
 
Also, as evidenced with the Iran protest story, authoritarian regimes use social media sites to threaten
dissidents, making it more difficult to promote democracy.

Additionally, the Internet serves as a potential threat to traditional institutions of citizenship cultivation such as the press. 

Conglomerations that own media outlets often limit and censor the news their outlets can report, or the slant in which they can report it.

This limits the flow of information, especially non-biased information, ultimately making it difficult
for news consumers to uncover the truth. Also traditional media outlets have to compete against bloggers, who in some cases do not adhere to traditional journalism values and report opinion as fact. 

Furthermore, the Internet along with other forms of media has to compete with the public’s growing desire to be entertained rather than educated.  
 
Additionally, Morozov describes the occurrence of “slacktivism,” wherein the Internet distracts a population from political engagement beyond joining a Facebook group or retweeting something.

I agree with this phenomenon and have even been guilty of it myself at times. 

Overall, Morozov makes a compelling argument

We, as democratic citizens, may be to idealistic and naïve about the uses and gratifications of the Internet.

 While there is most certainly a dark side to the Internet, I don’t believe we should scrap the whole idea and go completely back to older forms of communication. 

In my opinion, the Internet can be an extremely effective tool for supporting democracy and non-democratic ideals.

There were wars of political, cultural and social ideals long before the Internet came along, and it will likely continue
for the foreseeable future. 

As democratic citizens, we just have to do our best to use the Internet to our advantage, while acknowledging that
others are doing the same for different purposes. 

As always, I love to engage in stimulating conversations with my readers so I offer up these discussion questions:

 1.  Have you personally experienced the dark side of Internet freedom? If so, explain.

 2.   How can we go about freeing democratic citizens from this Plato’s Cave of the Internet?

 3. What do you think the future holds in terms of the Internet and democracy? Will we lose the war of ideals?

 If you’d like to discuss this topic and offer your opinions, feel free to contact me. Thanks!

 Works
Cited


Chadwick, Andrew. Internet Politics:
States, Citizens, and New
CommunicationTechnologies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press,
2006.

 Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion:
The dark side of Internet
freedom. New York, NY:
PublicAffairs.

This blog title is evidence of the type of story ideas journalists have to deal with during the course of their day. 

It contributes to the difficulties of being a journalist today. 
 
While the traditional responsibilities of yesteryear –developing sources and producing well-developed news stories- remain, the way journalists carry out these tasks has changed considerably. 
 
Source building now happens both online and offline. 
 
Deciding which stories to actually produce-- stories about a potato or corruption in local government- entails enacting personal judgment, often to the dismay of others, and wading through a sea of information, again both online and offline, to decipher truth from fiction. 
 
Additionally, journalists are forced to promote their work and themselves as brands. 

This is done through social media, networking, holding community office hours and just being visible within the community. 
 
Then, there’s the drama associated with online activity. 
 
You have to grow a thick skin to take the criticism of your work, which often goes beyond professional critiques into personal territory.  To boot, you may or may not have the support of your superiors. 

Also, you are limited in your personal social media behavior. 
 
Journalists have to take on this wide load of job responsibilities amid notoriously low salaries; long hours; a 
strong likelihood that you’ll have to move around a couple of times to move up the position and pay ladder; and often little appreciation for their work beyond their peers in the industry. 
 
All this makes you wonder why anybody would be crazy to sign up for this job, right?

The answer in short is somebody’s got to do it!

 For some, it’s a calling; for others, it’s a job they don’t particularly like but they are good at it.

 Regardless of the reason, journalists play an important role. 

Journalism, otherwise known as the Fourth Estate, plays an important role in a democracy. 

That relationship between journalism and democracy is the topic of this week’s discussion for #mc7019. 

This week, we read Herbert J. Gans’” News & the News Media in the Digital Age: Implications for Democracy;” Robert McChesney’s “Farewell to Journalism? Time for a Rethinking; Nicco Mele’s “Big News;” Matthew Yglesias’ “The Glory Days of American Journalism;” and Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism’s “The State of the News Media 2013." 
 
The Pew Research Center report “spotlights the dynamics of a kind of vicious cycle now taking place because of deep business problems in the news industry” (Pew Research Center, 2013). 

The top findings from this cycle-- Journalists played a smaller role in shaping what voters heard about candidates and politicians found new ways to get information out, often with little to no journalism vetting.

 Other effects of this cycle coupled with slashed staff reduced quantity of coverage include the following:
    · Nearly one-third —31 percent– of people say they have deserted a particular news outlet
because it no longer provides the news and information they had grown accustomed to.

 ·   Nearly 1,000 people surveyed said news stories are not as thorough as they were previously.

 ·    Of the consumers who reported abandoning certain news outlets, 61 percent said the
decision was based on issues of quality, while 24 percent said there were not enough stories.

 (Pew Research Center, 2013)

 Additional findings included:

 ·   Only about one quarter of the statements in the media about the character and records
of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney came directly from journalists while about half came from political partisans.

 ·    Social media users took a dim view of both candidates

 ·    Horserace coverage was down, but coverage of the issues didn’t fill that gap. In 2012, the
amount of coverage devoted to tactics, strategy and polls declined to 38%. But that attention to policy issues—both foreign and domestic—barely budged, inching up from to 22% in 2012.

 ·     $2.9 Billion spent on political advertising

 ·    Obama made greater use of social media messaging than Romney, but the overall conversation in social media was negative toward both men. In the period studied by Pew Research, for example, the Obama team produced about 25 times more Twitter posts than the Romney campaign. But on blogs, Twitter and Facebook, users were consistently more negative than positive about both candidates—although Romney fared somewhat worse.

 (Pew Research Center, 2013)

 I was not shocked by these findings. 

I consider myself somewhat attune to the details of the last presidential election and journalism’s role in it. 
 
News coverage has grown increasingly partisan, either to the pleasure or dissatisfaction of news consumers. 

As a journalist, however, I would have liked to have seen more qualitative questions/answers in the survey about the news questions.

 From previous experience, I know news consumers often make blanketed statements to describe all media coverage. 
 
Regardless if a particular entity is guilty of the accusations waged against them, they get lumped into the singular category of “the news.”

 I want to know examples of which purportedly objective stories news consumers actually found to be partisan in nature. The same goes for the news outlets themselves. 

I also would have like to have seen examples of a story news consumers found to lack thoroughness. 

In many cases, news consumers have little understanding of how news coverage works; therefore, they make low-information accusations on topics for which they are not truly familiar with.

 Gans’ piece complemented the Pew findings, exploring the impacts on democracy presented by journalists’ dwindling role in delivering political information to the masses.

 He discussed the bulwark theory. 

According to Gans, the bulwark theory argues being informed also enables citizens to participate in politics, choose their political representatives, and instruct them on how they want to be represented.

 As evidenced by several clips of Jimmy Kimmel’s “Confusing Question of the Day,” people are not as informed about political topics as they think they are.


Clip One


Clip Two


Journalists’ role is to help keep citizens informed; thus enabling citizens to participate in the democratic process. 


Journalists can fulfill their roles, according to Gans, by doing the following:


·   Monitoring the Political Environment and Assuring the Country that the Polity Will Survive

 ·   Reporting the Actions and Decisions of Elected Officials

 ·    Airing Political Disagreements and Conflicts

 ·    Defending Democratic Values

 ·    Investigative reporting

 New technologies, however, make it increasingly difficult for journalists to fulfill their job responsibilities.

 The increase in opinion blogs masquerading as news and social media can and have resulted in uninformed citizens (Gans, 2010). 
 
Furthermore, the decreasing role of journalists can result in “a return toward high levels of political corruption, incompetent policy-making, and governmental mismanagement” (Gans, 2013).

 I’m going to reference an article that I’ve referenced before. I PROMISE I’ve done other articles during my years working as a journalist. You can Google my name for proof. 

However, I often talk about this particular article because it was one of the first articles I did that had a major impact on the politics of a community and it impacted me both professionally and personally. 

During my time working as a journalist, I did an in-depth look into candidates for county judge in Victoria County,
Texas.

The story was unique because Matt Ocker, the Republican candidate, was running amid accusations of domestic abuse, assault and aggression in general.  Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate had a record of arrests for driving while intoxicated. 
 
You can read the story here.


Amid criticisms from both near and far, the story did what it was supposed to do—shined light on a possibly incompetent candidate who, if elected, exhibited a high propensity toward governmental mismanagement.

 This piece took me months to finish.

 In the beginning, I multitasked with other stories, but toward the end, I was able to focus on just this one. 

Stories like this come to fruition when you have bosses  who do what they can to ensure their newspaper fulfills its government watchdog duties and gives its reporters the support,time-wise, financially and emotionally, to get the job done.

 Unfortunately, this kind of support is growing more and more rare among media outlets who thrive on a 24-hour news cycle. 

Matthew Yglesias argues that people should “ignore the doomsayers” because the “news-reading public has never had more and better information at their fingertips” (Yglesias, 2013).

 Journalists are producing more content than ever before.

 “For people trying to make a living in journalism, the problems are real enough. But from a social viewpoint, these are excellent problems to have,” Yglesias wrote. 

Gans offers up the following seven tips for journalists to continue their democratic contributions: 

·   Conduct more active reporting.

 ·   Increase and broaden economic reporting.

 ·   Cover citizen news.

 ·     Report additional perspectives on America.


·  Increase watchdogging.

 ·   Make room for informed opinion.

 ·   Enlarge the news audience.

 Mchesney expresses similar sentiments. 
 
These ideals are easier said than done, going back to mydiscussion on necessary support from those in charge. 
 
In terms of big news, Mele wrote, “we don’t know yet whether sufficient resources are in place to enable journalism to fulfill its historic role as guardian of the public interest” (Mele, 2013).


I’ll never forget, but a news consumer told me once that “real journalists don’t work at the Victoria Advocate. They work for the New York Times.”

It’s unfortunate that some ignorant people have this mindset. 

Reporters and editors at smaller media outlets possess just as much ability to exercise accountability and responsibility from government and corporate leaders as employees of other news outlets.

 Also, in the midst of the financial crisis larger media outlets are enduring, many community newspapers are holding their own.

 If called upon, these small outlet employees would be capable of providing the same coverage on a larger scale. 


 This is something news consumers should keep in mind as well as advertisers and news management. 
 
I offer up these questions for discussion:

 1.   There is a fine line between freedom of speech and slander, one which many media companies have not yet learned to successfully maneuver in terms of managing online comments on political stories. 
In recent years, many journalists have lost their jobs while defending themselves against slanderous comments that go beyond criticizing just the story. What are your thoughts on this situation? What can be done to better protect journalists without infringing on the rights of commenters?

 2.   What key insights from those articles and the Pew report in this lesson should news professionals be aware of as they consider the future of digital content and related business models?

 3.   What are your thoughts on non-profit journalism?

4. Should the demands of the audience drive how journalism develops going forward?

5. Is including readers in the journalistic process actually good for journalism and democracy, or is it a form of pandering?

6.  At what point should news outlets draw the line between appeasing consumers and upholding standards of journalism?