Independent News Source:
For my independent news source, I chose Internews, an international news source that is based out of California. Created in 1982, Internews is an independent media source that is supported by contributions and grants from various companies and people. They had projected revenue of over $35 million for 2009 alone. They are currently working in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and North America and have worked in over seventy countries in total. They have trained over 80,000 people in media skills, train 8,000 to 10,000 people every year and have supported the development of around 4800 independent media outlets. “We believe that free flowing, locally produced and editorially independent news and information has the power to transform lives and enrich communities.” The overall goal of the source is empower local media around the world in order to get people the news and information that they need, give people an opportunity to connect and a way to make their voices heard. In comparison to a mainstream source, like CNN, whose tactics include anchormans and showy antics that actually inhibit the watcher’s ability to retain information, this independent source’s main concern is the people. CNN, which is owned by a huge corporation, has limits and rules to uphold when giving their information, which then results in a type of censorship of information. The people do not get the information they want and need, but with Internews, the people are receiving all the information necessary as well as the means to voice their own opinion and make a difference in the media world.


McLuhan: It’s All Going According to Marshall’s Plan
This reading is about Marshall McLuhan, whose reflections on the media have begun to come true. McLuhan suggested that the “depth experience” of the media would seriously transform human lives. He believed that a completely obsessed media environment would only result in a removal from first-hand experience while he wasn’t exactly right during the time that he made these predictions, they have begun to come true in our current society. If our society continues to go this way, we will completely be void of first hand experience and will solely rely on technology to do things for us and hinders our ability to do things ourselves. In order to fix these problems, we need to reflect on ourselves and the media industry and realize that what we see on television is not the world, but merely representations of what they think the world is. It is extremely vital that we come to realize this because then and only then will we be able to gain power over the media system.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is a principle that says that all information that is on the Internet should be treated equally. It is essentially for the people, so that they can get any information they want without censoring from companies because that’s who it is against: large corporations. If this disappears, then Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast will be able to slow down websites or shut down access to things they don’t agree with. There are many questions surrounding the issue like: should sites that generate massive traffic (like Google or YouTube) pay extra fees? Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? How will people who violate the rules be punished? Who would regulate the Internet if net neutrality was eliminated? The problem is that currently, no one has the answers to these questions because no one is even sure if net neutrality will be abolished.

Net Neutrality
This video is all about net neutrality: what it is, who it affects, who is for it and what will happen if it goes away. It speaks about how Pearl Jam's lead singer's critical lyrics about George Bush during an AT&T sponsored event were cut out. If net neutrality is eliminated, things like this will be happening much more often and eventually the Internet will be just as censored as the media, and we will be receiving our information for very few sources. IF net neutrality is eliminated, and that's still an IF, the FCC will be the regulator of the information. They basically have no rules and will be able to do whatever they want and block whatever they want. I think that if net neutrality was eliminated, we, as human beings, would lose an extensive amount of freedom that the United States prides itself on. We would not be in control of any of the information we will intake and we will continue to be manipulated by those in charge.

Google is Competitively Manipulative
This article is about an issue in Europe where complaints filed a case against Google because they apparently punish their competitors by "demoting them in search results". The complaint is that Google favors only its own products and net neutrality is required to stop them from attempting to ruin their competitors by lessening their search results. I found this extremely interesting because I use Google daily and to find out that they have been playing a part in censoring information for their own well being really changes my outlook on the website.

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
This article is about how the FCC recently approved net neutrality rules and about how it is currently working to make sure they are enforced and followed. The rules consist of four principles including two new ones that basically say that broadband providers cannot prohibit information from being put on the Internet and sites being accessed. It shows all of the rules and what they state. After researching net neutrality and finding out about all the issues surrounding it, I became quite nervous because I thought that it was something that would be eliminated and that would result in corporations having complete control of the Internet. But finding out that the FCC is making rules and an effort to ensure that our rights as Americans are solidified, makes me feel a bit better.

"Guantánamo is Gulag of Our Time, Says Amnesty"

This article speaks about how the United States is supposed to be attempting to gain freedom for the Iraqi people, but instead they are mistreating and torturing them and we don't even know about it. The media is being controlled by the government so that instead of us seeing what is really going on over there, we see only the good things that are going on so that we will continue to support the war. The article then talks about other rights that are currently being abused in the world in places like Haiti and China and it makes you wonder what kind of people we are to support a media that purposely censors us from seeing this type of news.

"Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act"

This next article is from a site whose name alone perpetuates all the accusations about the media: Project Censored (the news that didn't make the news). This article is part of a series of the top 25 censored stories from 2007. It speaks about how the Pentagon was granted the ability to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Not only was the general public not informed about this, but we also had no say in the matter. With this new exemption, the Pentagon does not have any responsibility to divulge information to the general public. They are now immune from the FOIA and therefore, we will continue to be in the dark about the real issues in the world that they don't want us to know about regarding foreign operations or any other type of information.

"O'Reilly Says ACLU Aids Terrorism?"

This is a video that criticizes Bill O'Reilly's opinion regarding President Obama's statement that he plans to close the Guantanamo Bay facility. The voice over on the video is a member of the ACLU and is a fan of Obama and states that he was happy when Obama stated he plans to close the facility and end forms of torture. But Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, who verbally states that he is being objective, speaks about how he is essentially annoyed about this decision because he believes the terrorists will be a threat to national security. This is a prime example of how people who are relaying the news to us are adding in their own opinions and are biased in what they are reporting. People who watch this channel could easily be swayed into believing what Billy O'Reilly is saying if they had no previous knowledge of the subject. That is the issue with today's media. Many Americans are generally uninformed about topics and therefore, when they see something like this on the news, they tend to follow the bandwagon and believe it because they don't know any better and that is not okay.

"Obama Signs Order to Close Guantánamo Bay Facility"

This article is about how President Barack Obama signed an executive order that requires the closing of the Guantánamo Bay Facility within a year from the signing. Not many people actually know about the torturing that occurs at the facility because the government has manipulated the reporters so that they don't report on those types of things. In the article "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand", the author speaks about how military analysts are hired to hide the information of what is going on at this facility while also providing the information in a way that will convince the public to make decisions according to what the government wants. When the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq, military analysts were hired to verify that they had weapons of mass destruction that could be viewed as a threat in the future and to convince the public to believe what they were saying and support the war. Many of the analysts actually verbally stated that they knew what they were doing is wrong yet they hid their own personal feelings on the matter and still reported what they were told. I think it's awful not only that the media is so easily persuaded and corrupted by the government, but also that many of the analysts knew they were wrong yet still did it. It's a disgusting industry that is controlling our lives and I'm thoroughly appalled at the progression of the media in society and how it's come to this point. It needs to be stopped before it goes any further.