Lasting Effects of a Smear Campaign

Smear campaigns, or the systematic destruction of one's political career are not new to this country. There seems to exist a double standard between conservative public figures and more liberal figures, regarding the ethics of retracting smear campaigns.

In the case of Shirley Sherrod, the official was taped at an NAACP dinner addressing racism to a white farmer, which was then heavily edited and skewed to appear "racist."

Despite the basic journalistic principles of ensuring facts of a story are correct and cooberated, conservative media producers ran wild with the story. How could they not? In the era of Obama in which post-racialism is an insidiously expanding ideology and the protected interests of White, conservative elites is being challenged, a story of a black official appearing "racist" towards a white man served as a jackpot.

Rush Limbaugh utilized the smearing of Sherrod to say the NAACP "is as racist an organization as there has been and is in this country."

Limbaugh must have suffered historical amnesia and forgot about the most racist and murderous organization in the United States, the Ku Klux Klan and its descendant the police force.

The smear campaign successfully ruined Sherrod's career, forcing her to resign.

Later, a few news organizations and distributors apologized for not getting the facts straight. Bill O'Riley apologized for "not doing [his] homework."

Despite this apology, many conservatives were unapologetic to Sherrod and the damage these accusations had caused. I am nearly certain if the tables reversed, any liberal outlet would be forced to issue a large apology to a conservative official, and his or her mistake would be highly publicized.

Does Transparency Ruin Journalism?

The journalism industry's debate over whether transparency benefits or hinders journalism is far from coming to a resolution. Journalists, such as the New York Times' David Carr is an advocator of transparency and lists his e-mail address underneath articles for readers to directly contact him. 

While many journalists argue that transparency is beneficial and neccessary for correct journalism, others view it as a hinderance to reporters. 

Stephen Ward of PBS is of strong opinion that transparency should not be "over-hyped," otherwise it "distorts the ethics of democracy and media."

In my opinion the omission of personal bias, position, or other "revealing" facts is a greater detriment to journalism and the public than the 'over-hyping' of transparency. I do not think that one's personal bias can ever be over-hyped. In fact it does not receive enough hype. 

For Carr, articles that he has written disclosing personal investment or a stance have been labeled as "activism."  He argues that activist "has become a code word for someone who is driven by an agenda beyond seeking information on the public's behalf."

If this were the case, a large percentage of producers, editors, and journalists in corporate media outlets are activists for corporate interests. 

Corporations such as Disney are intertwined with ABC and its content, it is impossible for the station to produce content that is lacking in a strong bias for the Disney corporation. 

There needs to no longer be a double standard in the journalism industry surrounding transparency. All news outlets and reporters need to disclose their biases.

  

Charging Viewers to Use YouTube

During May 2013 many UK news outlets reported a new YouTube policy to begin charging for subscription services. 

In a Telegraph report, subscriptions services to "30 content creators, including children's programers Sesame Street and Muppet creator The Jim Henson Co." and other popular channels. 

Initial pricing for the subscriptions will start at 99 cents a month and could average $2.99 a month. This change would apply to 10 countries at the launch. 

Google's switch to subscriptions for channels should not come as a surprise. The company began overtly crossing the path into the corporate world when short commercials serviced on popular videos. 

Colorlines Sponsor Set to Re-brand

The organization that created and publishes the famous racial justice website, Colorlines, has now re-branded to "Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation."

A public relations statement on Race Forward's website states that the goal of rebranding is to "lead with race in the same way that [their] organization does, highlight with centrality of addressing 'Race' an the importance of paving the way 'Forward' to racial justice, and convey the urgency of moving forward using the word 'Race.'"

In a story explaining the shift, Rinku Sen describes the change as one "to reflect [their] mission and strategy most accurately" 

Race Forward's news outlet remains largely untouched by this rebranding. However, on the Colorlines homepage there are two stories, including Sen's, explaining the process of rebranding the Applied Research Center and its refined charge for racial justice. 

 

YouTube Changing The Face of Journalism

In an age of emerging interactive media and social networks, YouTube has changed the face of journalism and reporting. Before the rise of YouTube's partnering program, those who dreamed of being a TV personality or disseminator of news had to wait to be hired by a news outlet.

Now that independent users are able to spread their own stories, commentary, and interests, the way the world thinks of reporting is rapidly changing.

As reported in a NY Times story, creator of "What The Buck," Michael Buckley is prime example of a YouTube success story. Buckely was earning over $100,000 from YouTube advertisements through his comical commentary show.

For people who wish to expand their voices and create their own YouTube success stories, these users must be willing to put as much time and effort into their YouTube shows as bloggers. Buckley was putting over 40 hours a week into his segments before people began to notice his work.

Other success stories include actor Joe McHale of "The Soup,"  Ryan Hall of "Stereotypes" which examines assumptions based around race, gender, sexuality and pop culture. This series is a bit different because it was initially created by Pharrell Williams.

Stereotypes caters to a niche community of typically socially conscious people and those who are interested in or experience social inequalities in their daily lives. This segment tackles these serious issues in a comical way, by asking strangers a series of satirical questions around these topics. Stereotypes currently has nearly 260,000 subscribers.

A clip from "Stereotypes"

Collaboration not Competition

The New York Times article addressing Talking Points Memo made a significant argument as to why the blog is so successful. The history of how TPM became a now-famous muckracking blog is based heavily on the concept of collaboration with not only other outlets, but their readers as well. 

As Josh Marshall and his colleague worked to break their story on the firing of attorneys that did not agree with President Bush's agenda, they utilized their audience to be successful. 

In an era of increasing media that focuses on being interactive with its audience, blogs and other online news sources must incorporate that interaction with readers in order to be successful and to have meaningful content. 

Blogs are usually targeted at a particular audience - therefore serving these communities. How can a blogger expect to fully service his or community specified community without somehow involving this group of people in the creation, review, or distribution of its media. 

Edward Snowden Denied Clemency

Edward J. Snowden, who leaked classified NSA documents describing surveillance techniques by the US Government, has been denied clemency for his actions.

The American Civil Liberties Union describes clemency as "forgiveness for a crime and the granting of relief from all or part of a sentence"

In a New York Times Caucus article, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein was quoted saying "he was trusted; he stripped our system." Feinstein claimed Snowden should have called the House Intelligence Committee with his information if he was a "legitimate" whistleblower.