"Transpaqueness"

In October, the Committee to Protect Journalists (or CPJ) released a special report that covers many of the same elements that we have been discussing in class.  The topic covered centered around the Obama administration and its transparency, or lack thereof, with government operations.  Ironically, this is the same administration that ran on a platform of openness in government.  Much to the detriment of journalists, there was a disconnect somewhere along the line between campaign promises and actions after election.  While this is not a unique characteristic of the Obama administration, the CPJ report charges that the current leadership in Washington has taken secrecy to a new level.  Since the passing of the 1917 Espionage Act, three prosecutions had been pursued prior to the Obama administration.  Since 2008, there have been a total of 8 prosecutions, with others pending.  While it is still up for debate as to whether or not the prosecutions are warranted, the sheer volume of prosecutions is undeniable.  One of the outcomes of such a "crackdown" on informational leaks has been the creation of an informational desert, or a general lack of available information.  According to the report, journalists who used to operate in the "gray" areas between classified and unclassified information are now afraid to say anything at all for fear of arrest, and journalists are lacking quality sources as they can be subpoenaed if politically convenient.  This behavior stands as a danger to our democratic system and deserves to be monitored closely.

The report, written by Downie and reported by Rafsky, details selected aspects of what they consider to be the hostile and disingenuous treatment of journalists who cover political, national security, or other sensitive issues.  The report discusses the methodologies used by the White House to prevent the disclosure of information, as well as the administration's practice of deploying "its own media to evade scrutiny by the press."  As we have been exposed to in our  learning modules, this tactic combines misdirection of information and spin, avoiding the issues that it doesn't want to cover and focusing on the ones that cast their administration in a positive light.  As New York Times  reporter Scott Shane put it, "I think we have a real problem."  Through the creation of content the Obama administration has been able to control the flow of information by drowning out negative voices.  This action can be considered a new twist on the media's gatekeeping function (see Graber Ch.4) and has served it fairly well.  In a Politico report veteran journalists Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen posit

“One authentically new technique pioneered by the Obama White House is government creation of content—photos of the president, videos of White House officials, blog posts written by Obama aides—which can then be instantly released to the masses through social media. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forum, not just for campaigning, but governing. They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like.”

The situation that is developing due to government aggressiveness does nothing to further our democracy, and therefore should be faced with increased scrutiny.  I am a strong supporter that the general public is not prepared for a complete and total transparent government, but where to draw the lines should be constantly reviewed and evaluated by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the citizens.  Unfortunately, if the media is not able to operate effectively due to government threats (either real or perceived) then the citizens will have very limited access to the knowledge necessary for informed decision making, leading our nation towards a self defeating conclusion.  If we are to continue the American tradition of prying investigative journalism, muckraking, and holding those in power accountable, then there has to be a change in administrative attitude towards journalism.

Freedom of Information, Unless We Change Our Mind

In 1966, new legislation was passed that changed part of the operating dynamic between the government, the media, and everyday citizens seeking to know more. This new legislation was the FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. In its simplest form, it allowed the public, both citizens and the media, to request official government documents. The purpose of the new legislation was to increase transparency in governmental operations, while simultaneously increasing public knowledge with the hope that more informed citizens would benefit the American democratic system. Since the inception of the FOIA, individuals have been requesting thousands of documents, ranging from CIA operations to the recipe for beer brewed in the White House.

Obviously, a functional government cannot disclose all of its information to anyone requesting it at any given time. This should not need much explanation, and anyone who disagrees and thinks that 100% transparency is a viable solution could clearly benefit from a generous dose of reality. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the government should be able to withhold any information, for an unlimited amount of time, for any reason it deems necessary, is one step closer to tyranny. The question that presents itself now is where should the line be drawn? What information is necessary to produce a more informed voting population, and what information is necessary to hold close to the chest for issues of national security? I don't have a concise definition or example for either of these, but I am able to illustrate specific problems when I see them.

In 2009 the Obama administration issued Executive Order 13526, which allowed reclassification of documents AFTER a FOIA request was made. Prior to this order, any request for documentation that was not classified was required to be fulfilled. Now, the government has the ability to deny any FOIA request by simply reclassifying the material requested if it is not convenient for them to release it. For an administration that campaigned on transparency, this does not seem appropriate. Are we to believe that by a simple request that the actual material has somehow increased in sensitivity? If the information was vital to national security, then it should have been properly classified from the beginning. The government has generally erred on the side of over-classification from the start, and I am not able to see why it could become imperative to the security of our nation to reclassify documents after a request is made. To me, this seems to be more of a mechanism put in place to erect road blocks in front of journalists or citizens when they appear to head down a trail that the government does not approve. In other words, freedom of information for as long as you ask irrelevant questions. I disagree with this approach, as I am able to envision much more harm than help; especially from an administration that promised more transparency than ever before.

Different Strokes for Different Folks or Padding the Bottom Line?

While perusing the inter-webs this week, I happened to stumble upon a few discrepancies that directly correlate to the often messy intersection of politics and the mass media. What I found was essentially various covers for TIME magazine next to each other, only with different graphics and story placement in the American market versus the rest of the world. While this may not come as a shock to many others, I had never realized the level of difference in various markets. I was aware that magazines sometimes ran various stories in order to tailor their features to the local markets, but unaware of the tremendous variances within the same magazine per regions.

The September 16, 2013 edition of TIME magazine's cover showed a football player mid stride with a headline that read "It's Time To Pay College Athletes". On the same day, the European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and South Pacific versions featured a close up shot of a serious looking (when is he not) Vladimir Putin followed by the words "America's weak and waffling, Russia's rich and resurgent". Needless to say, this serves as a stark contrast to the American print version. You can find the story hidden in a corner of TIME's cover with an altered title, "What Putin Wants" in the US version. No mention of America's weakness, no compliments for Putin. When one looks at the various covers, very different thoughts and feelings come to mind. The rest of the world was given a cover with a feature story of international affairs, while we were given something that might be a legitimate issue on its own, but certainly not at a time when we have such development in the Syrian conflict.
Perhaps American's have no tolerance for politics anymore? Perhaps we value are sports stars more than those who set the rules for our futures? Last time I checked, the Super Bowl got quite a bit more coverage than Presidential addresses. Are we that detached from politics that we can't face cold facts, and we merely turn another cheek?  Maybe the news outlets are simply afraid of casting Putin in a favorable light as a large portion of their paying audience lived through the end of the cold war period?

Regardless of the original reasoning for a vastly different cover, the implications are clear to me. The media is not nearly as concerned about sending out a message and disseminating information as they are about turning a profit. I can only assume TIME thought that they would offend their American audience with the international version and therefor loose sales revenue, and so they chose to relegate real news to the back burner in order to protect profits. I don't necessarily mean to condemn any news outlet for making money, rather, I intend to use this as another example of the media as a corporate enterprise rather than a public servant. If they are able to serve the democracy while turning a profit, then they will certainly oblige. But, when it comes down to it, news outlets will sacrifice their role as protectors of the people and mass educators in order to increase their wealth.

Politics and the Public Eye

Gone are the days of separating business from pleasure.  In the past, many politicians have been able to keep their personal life outside of the public eye and for the most part under wraps.  In the technology driven world of today, indiscretions are increasingly prone to exposure and therefor subject to public approval.  Candidates and incumbents alike are being forced to either face the music about past actions, lie and attempt to cover them up, or simply avoid the issue until it is old news.  While politicians and government employees in general are no different than any other group of humans, they do come under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and are often subject to losing either their current job or elections as the public's opinion of their actions weighs into the equation.  But does this really serve democracy?  Should we hire and fire our political leaders based on standards of personal behavior that many civilians or businessmen do not subscribe to?  Is someone who partakes in an extramarital affair still fit to lead, or should they immediately be removed from power?  All of these questions are forced to be addressed when the media brings attention to a politician's actions, shining light on a very relevant topic of the day: Should the media stay out of personal conduct issues, or is it their role as a "watchdog" to alert the public when indiscretions arise?

Perhaps the answer to that question lies in ones own personal opinion and can be traced back to their own moral code.  While some people would quickly condemn affairs and use them to immediately disqualify any elected representative, others would surely say that it does not matter so long as they can govern.  A subscriber to the latter school of thought would surely agree that in a world with so many problems, we should bar competent individuals from setting policy and regulation just for questionable personal conduct.  The former group, of course would contend that personal and professional behavior are inseparable, and if you cannot keep one course on the straight and narrow then you cannot guide the other.  Each of these views have individual merits to stand on.  Each of these views are in direct conflict with one another, and still a matter of debate.  What is not up for debate is the level of influence the media has on citizens, and how its coverage of personal issue can mark a decisive turning point in the careers of those individuals who find themselves caught up in the latest and greatest scandal.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of affairs in the media lately.  Anthony Weiner serves as a relevant example of media involvement in personal behavior.  After two separate "sexting" scandals, Weiner's bid for mayor seems far fetched.  While the public seemed to forgive him for his original indiscretion, the mood seems to have shifted after the second incident.  As another example of media influence, General David Patraeus resigned from his post as CIA director amid allegations of an extramarital affair during his time in the military.  Despite being celebrated as a dedicated civil servant by "both sides of the aisle", Gen. Patraeus' behavior and the potential fallout from it caused his career to end badly bruised.  A comparison of the outcomes of the Bill Clinton and JFK affairs gives clear incite into the media's role in public opinion.  Whereas both men had affairs while in office, the media chose not to cover Kennedy's affairs, leading to a far different outcome than that of Clinton.  While the verdict is still out on whether or not the media should be involved in questionable personal conduct issues of officials, their influence has been clearly demonstrated when they choose to become involved.

Timing is important, terminology is everything

The topic today is all about words. Often overlooked or taken for granted, words can (and do) play a significant role in the media as well as the political arena. When we peruse our local newspaper at breakfast or read the AP's "10 Things To Know For ________" before bed, we might benefit from pausing  a moment to consider not only what has been written, but also how it was written. Every word has a specific definition, and the selection of one word over another has the potential to influence the audience before a sentence has even been completed. Journalists today must traverse an increasingly thin line between reporting a story, remaining true to their own world views, and remaining politically correct. This often results in selective wording choices which have an effect on the overall story presented, whether intentional or not.

I remember just a few short years ago learning that most of the major news outlets had a "stylebook" that governed the way their writers reported. While this may come as no surprise to the politically involved individual, I recall being quite intrigued after learning this interesting bit of information. I suppose that I had always assumed that contributing writers wrote whatever they felt appropriate and submitted the article to the parent company for editorial corrections. These corrections, at least in my mind, were merely grammatical in nature, and did not alter the content or underlying tone of the work being presented. This of course proved false, as many stories are edited for content and terminology. All the stories that run in news corporation "X" must conform to the rules and regulations laid out in that particular companies stylebook. It is these rules that I find fascinating as they can lead be used to influence the agenda setting functions of the media as well as imparting or preventing bias.

Examples are always helpful for me, so let's illustrate how various terminology can change the way a story reads, and therefore the political thoughts and/or actions that may stem from it. The Associated Press has a strict policy on the term "terrorist", they simply don't use it. They have essentially taken the stance that terrorism is a unique term that is applied by one entity onto another, and only the writers of history make that distinction. Take for example the American Revolutionary War. Do you often think of our country as being founded based on terrorism? I don't. But if definitions are universally upheld, that is precisely what happened. British colonists rebelled from the crown and by the use of force broke away to form what is now the United States of America. If the past 200 years had unravelled differently, it is very possible that British textbooks could have called all Americans terrorists. For this reason, the AP refuses to label groups such as Hezbollah or al-Qaeda "terrorist" groups, relying on other terms such as "militant organizations". It is very easy to see how one's opinion could be biased (whether intentional or not) by a sentence reading "the terrorist group _______ began an offensive in Northeast Africa" as opposed to "the militant group _______ began...".

Additional examples of how terminology may be more important than we initially understand are plentiful. The BBC generally elected to use the term "crime" to report atrocities in Libya and Syria, while simultaneously describing similar events in Egypt as a "tragedy". In both instances the military was used to oppress civilians with resulting loss of life, but the different terminologies elicited different reactions from readers.

All of this is to illustrate a simple point: the terms we use to describe actions, groups, or events can be as important as the actual sentence itself. By various media outlets focusing on stylebook compliance, journalists may be subjected to producing biased articles in way or another. The same can be said about media outlets that do not have stylebooks. Perhaps when we read or listen to stories we should consider what terms are being used, and what alternatives could have been employed in their place.

Syrian Electronic Army Targeting Major Media Outlets

It seems as though a group of hackers known as the Syrian Electronic Army have been targeting major media outlets lately, accessing their servers and altering code for a variety of unspecified reasons. Over the past few months, the group known as SEA or the Syrian Electronic Army Soldiers claimed to have hacked into well known media outlets throughout the UK and US in addition to Columbia University and Human Rights Watch. On Wednesday, August 28, the group was able to infiltrate the powerful media outlet The New York Times homepage for roughly 20 hours and redirect visitors to a virtual coat of arms for the SEA as well as cause other issues. In another cyber assault, the SEA managed to take control of the domain name of Twitter . In a potent example of the effects of the new media outlets, the Syrian Electronic Army used Twitter to claim responsibility for both cyber assaults, while the hacks were first reported by Twitter users accompanied by screenshots of the domain registration changes.  The message was first delivered through Twitter on both accounts, and while the NY Times website was down they used their Twitter account to keep readers updated on the progress. 

It is important to note that while the traditional mainstream media did write reports on the attacks by the SEA, they were first notified and discussed via Twitter. To me this stands as a clear indication of how technology has changed many of our traditional news sources, and in many ways allows consumers to pick and choose what we are exposed to. Twitter is fast rising to the top of the list as a major player in the modern news market, with users following who they find entertaining, intelligent, or simply wrong. The SEA's decision to hack into major news servers shows how quickly politics such as the civil war raging in Syria can overlap into the various agencies who deliver our news, further blurring any lines separating politics from the media outlets that report the issues. 

The Syrian Electronic Army has been utilizing the new media in order to further its political agenda. Through the effective utilization of technology they have managed to alter media outlets messages (at least temporarily) and spread their specific cause and message worldwide through managing their Twitter account. Today, they were able to hack into the US Marine Corps website and display a message warning visitors of consequences to be faced if the US attacked Syria. While this attack did not target a media outlet, it will almost certainly be promulgated through outlets such as Twitter or Facebook. 

For more details see:

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/new-york-times-hacked-syrian-electronic-army-suspected-8C11016739

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/tech/web/new-york-times-website-attack/index.html

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/02/syria-hackers-hit-marines-site/

AJAM- No Longer Just Something That Grows Between Your Toes

America seems to be stuck in a rut when it comes to news. Whether we are complaining about media bias, spin, lack of investigative reporting, or plain old celebrity gossip, there is no shortage of criticisms directed toward the main stream media. But what can be done about it? Has the gnashing of teeth towards the agenda's of MSNBC or FOX News contributed to any significant programming changes? If it has, it is difficult to see, and I must have missed it in between Kim Kardashian's show and the latest from Geraldo Riviera. Perhaps what is needed is a new entrant into the crowded arena of multi million dollar news outlets, a fresh face to stir things up a bit.

One week ago today Al Jazeera America launched a new news outlet on Al Gore's failing Current TV channel. While they already had an Al-Jazeera English outlet, this will be the first to specifically cater to the the American market. With promises like "six minutes of commercials per hour" to start with and in depth news analysis rather than just glossing over important issues then new contender stands poised to make significant ripples in our current news lineup; if America gives it a chance.

Many Americans view Al-Jazeera as a "terrorist" news organization, or sympathetic to the jihad cause at minimum. Based in Doha, Qatar, AJ has had a long history of covering stories from different angles than those traditionally found in Western media coverage, such as airing Bin-Laden speeches. This conjures up deep seated hatred and fear in the hearts of many Americans, whether it is justified or not. For this reason, the future of AJAM is already in jeopardy before it even begins. Maybe the six minutes of commercials are all they could actually contract with vendors? Multiple advertising firms have already said they would not work with AJAM due to its negative image in many households. Although they have deep pockets to sustain their network for quite some time, it will prove interesting to see if AJAM can operate a successful American branch by offering something that the other competitors seem to have forgotten, namely news.

It is still too early to tell what effects AJAM and their preposed offerings will have on other domestic news agencies, but I am excited to see what happens. Maybe it will be the swift kick in the pants to reset the current state of the media, or maybe it will fall on its face and fail miserably only to retreat back to the Middle East. Whatever the outcome, I look forward to a new contender in the world of news agencies, and hope that they are able to follow through with their promise of delivering in depth, fact based news and wish them good luck. They will probably need it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/08/2013820104744903852.html