Could the end of net neutrality bring down bloggers

Since the start of the Internet all users have been able to receive equal access to any available website. The idea of net neutrality allows any website the opportunity to receive a large audience if the content is compelling enough. For many years however, large-scale Internet service providers have been advocating to end net neutrality. Although it has not been eliminated yet, the FCC has created a proposal that calls to give Internet service providers to create a “fast-lane” for companies that can afford to pay an extra-fee. According to an article from Common Dreams, the proposal received an overwhelming amount of backlash.

The FCC received so many comments from the public it caused their site to crash. This alone should be enough to show the FCC that net neutrality should remain in existence, however there is still a definite risk that the FCC will place this proposal into effect.

The end of net neutrality could mean the end to many independent online media outlets and bloggers. If these sites are placed into a slower lane than large mainstream organizations, the audience will not take the time to wait and receive the content provided by a small independent outlet when they can receive instant news from a larger outlet that has the funds to be placed in the “fast lane.”

Personally, as a someone who grew up with the Internet, I expect to receive a website’s content instantly. If I am in a space with poor Internet connection I often give up and do not try to wait and see if the content will load. I find that this is becoming a common theme among Internet users, especially those of the younger generation.

If this policy were to be put into effect I would not be surprised if online independent news outlets and bloggers would most likely lose a large portion of their audience. These news outlets may already struggle with receiving a sufficient audience and even if they have a reasonably sized audience many are always looking to gain in readership. Although many are providing important and interesting news, there are still a large number of the public who are unaware of independent media outlets.

Ending net neutrality would not only weaken independent but also strengthen large news corporations. This policy would assist in directing news consumers to the fast-paced website simply because it is more convenient.

Although there was such a high amount of criticism towards this policy, I believe it will be very difficult to implement successfully. This policy in my opinion appears to be an indirect way of infringing on a citizens right of freedom of speech/freedom of the press. Many news outlets are solely online and if they could not afford access to the fast-paced service than it would alter how many people hear their voice.

Problems arising for journalism in the coverage of a politcal scandal

When I think of Bill Clinton, I can’t help but recall the infamous sex scandal that occurred during his presidency. Unfortunately, I do not instantly think of the work he did as the president however, during his presidency the press chose to focus on his personal life as opposed to the decisions he was making in the United States government.

The Online Journalism Review depicts a timeline of how the press reported on a sex scandal involving Clinton. The case of Danny Williams first broke in 1992 when his mother claimed she had an affair with Clinton and Williams was his son. At this time the mainstream press investigated the claims and found there was not enough evidence to report on the story. However, six years later during Clinton’s presidency, the story resurged and this time went viral.

After being reported on NewsMax.com, a politically conservative website, major mainstream publications began publishing the story, many of these media outlets being owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Ultimately, the DNA test proved Clinton was not the father of Williams, and while retractions were made the story still impacted the way the public viewed the president.

This scandal shows two major problems in the media today. One of them being the effect a single owner of multiple news outlets has on the stories that are published. The other being how reporters chose what stories to report on.

Murdoch clearly was biased against Clinton’s political party affiliation. This scandal gave Murdoch (or any other leaders of conservative media outlets) to influence the public to have a negative opinion of Clinton. The public also may not have been aware that this bias exists and therefore solely focused on the story being presented to them.

This goes back to the idea of transparency in journalism. These stories were being presented as if they were coming from an objective/unbiased source, when really that was not the case. Had transparency been put into effect the readers would have been able to take where the story was coming from into consideration.

While the lack of transparency is an issue, I think the larger problem is that this story was reported so heavily. Although I do not condone Clinton’s extramarital affairs, I’m not sure if it is my place to judge a public official based off of their personal life.

During Clinton’s presidency there were so much news related to government action that was not getting the same attention as the president’s personal problems. This is detrimental to the public because not only does it take away from their awareness of what is going on in the government it also takes away from the idea of journalists acting as a fourth estate. Journalists were meant to report truthfully on the actions of government official in relation to their job position and how these actions affect the nation. 

In some cases releasing information about a public official’s personal life may be important to share with the public but this is always depending on the situation. Overall, journalists should be not focusing on the idea that “sex sells,” and automatically expose an aspect of someones personal life. They should be looking to share necessary truthful information with the public.

Public figures and libel laws

The Internet has been instrumental in helping bloggers achieve success and providing the public with recent news almost instantly. However, despite these benefits, the use of the Internet did not bring forth only positive attributes. One major problem has been the ability to instantly spread sensationalized news and therefore damage the reputation of those involved.

Sidney Blumenthal (a victim of this) urged John Kerry to sue the Sun, in a 2004 article he wrote for the Guardian. Kerry was accused of having an affair with an intern; the story was reported by Matt Drudge of the Drudge report and also in various British conservative papers before going viral. Also this story became prominent right when Kerry was leading in the polls.

This is just one example of a public figure that was wrongly defamed. In his article Blumenthal points out that there is basically no legal protection for public figures who are defamed by the press. This is why he suggests to sue in a British court.

The issues raised by Blumenthal bring up a complex matter, How strict should US law be with libel laws in relation to public figures?

If the US laws were more open to public figures suing for libel (similarly to a private citizen) they may face an overflow of lawsuits. There are so many gossip columns and false claims made by tabloids that celebrities would be given the opportunity to sue for libel almost daily. Some people believe negative press is something that comes with the territory of being a public figure.

On the other hand, in Kerry’s case these rumors may have impacted voters opinions of him and therefore effected the results of the election. In this case one could make the argument that Kerry’s career was impacted by the claims made by various news outlets and perhaps he should have the right to sue for damages.

I honestly am far from a legal expert however, I do feel that Kerry (and public figures in similar situations to him) should be able to receive some type of compensation for the effect the inaccurate media coverage had on him. While I do not believe celebrities, politicians and any other type of public figures should be given the same treatment as private citizens in libel suits, there should be some sort of way to determine how severe a false claim impacted a public figure.

Citizen Journalism should not be overlooked

In 2008 after Mayhill Fowler exposed an inappropriate statement made by soon-to-be president Obama, many questioned her support for the presidential candidate. According to an LA times article, “‘CitizenJournalist’ broke Obama story,” Fowler gave almost $2,300 to the Obama campaign, and while she still considered herself an Obama supporter she felt compelled to share his statements with the public.

The concept of citizen journalism may be criticized by some and as a journalism major I can’t help but feel slightly bitter about someone with no training performing successful reporting. However, I do feel the development of citizen journalism will benefit the public at large. In the Fowler example, the event where Obama made his statement was closed to the press, had Fowler been attached to a news outlet it is extremely rare that she would have witnessed what Obama had said and therefore not have the story.

Citizen journalism has been able to become so widespread because of the use of the Internet and social media. A citizen can put a video on YouTube or pose a picture on twitter and it can instantly become viral. This is a more basic form of citizen journalism than Fowler, considering she was able to produce an entire story and have it published on the Huffington Post. But, no matter what medium the news from citizen sources has made coverage of public figures almost nonstop.

The LA times article quoted USC journalism professor Larry Pryor who said, “"We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear…you have to assume that everything is on the record. There's no getting around that anymore."

Some may question whether or not news from citizen journalists can be trusted however, as I discussed in a previous blog post, transparency is now becoming key to effective reporting. As long as a citizen journalist is truthful in their reporting and open about where they are coming from and how they received the information, I don’t think it should be much of a problem.

Although, Fowler was criticized by the fact that she was not “a true Obama supporter.” I feel she should be commended for her reporting. She was able to put her personal feelings aside and instead of covering up for a politician she admired she chose to share the truth regarding his opinions on small-town America. As a citizen journalist Fowler acted in the way traditional journalists should when given the opportunity to expose the truth.

Transparency and its growing importance

When I took journalism 101, one of the first lessons I learned was the importance of objectivity in journalistic writing. As I took more classes however, I began to learn about the growing prominence of transparency in journalism.

Blogger David Weinberger discussed in one of his posts how “transparency is the new objectivity.” While some believe you can’t trust journalists who display their opinion, Weinberger feels the complete opposite.

He said, “Transparency gives the reader information by which she can undo some of the unintended effects of the ever-present biases. Transparency brings us to reliability the way objectivity used to.”

After learning about the idea of transparency I can’t help but agree with Weinberger. It is impossible for a person to have absolutely no opinion on a subject. Particularly, in regards to politics I feel it is almost pointless for a journalist to try to appear as objective.

While much of the public does know which news outlets are conservative and which are liberal, journalists still typically construct their content in a way to make it appear that they are being “objective.”

Some proponents of objectivity may say if a journalist is only presenting the facts then the reader can be left to come to their own opinion on the subject. In this case I would say it is rare for an article to be 100 percent bias free. Even if the journalist did not intend for their bias to be displayed it could come through in an underlying way.

If a journalist were up front about his/her political views (or any opinions that could impact their writing) they would allow the reader to gain an understanding of where the news is coming from. The reader would still become well informed on the news and at the same time be able to evaluate certain aspects of the article more clearly.

Also if a reader felt so inclined, they could search for news coming from a journalist who has different views than the journalist of the original piece they read. By understanding biases and gaining news from journalists with different outlooks, I believe that the reader would be able to truly understand what the news is and really grasp how he feels about a certain issue.

Another important aspect of transparency that Weinberger discusses is how the Internet has impacted journalists’ transparent writing. Online journalists can easily link to where they got certain information. This allows readers to evaluate the source for themselves and not solely rely on the journalist.

As a more conversational relationship develops between journalists and their audience, with things such as comment sections online and journalists reaching out for sourcing tips, I feel it will become more and more important for journalists to be transparent in their writing.