I've always loved NMATV's animated videos that attempt to explain issues in the news. I stumbled upon this video from last week regarding SOPA. While watching the video might make it difficult to take the bill seriously, it does pack all of the news surrounding the issue into a clearer, more cohesive package.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Public Broadcasting
In Thursday's class, we discussed public broadcasting, both in the United States and around the world. I was really intrigued by Prof. Cohen's information regarding the coverage of the Iraq war. According to Cohen, during the time leading up to the war, the public broadcasting system's coverage was nearly as slanted as the mainstream coverage.
I was also fascinated by the statistics that Cohen offered regarding on-air guests. While most of the United States was in support of withdrawing troops from Iraq, the public broadcasting system remained biased in its coverage: for every one supporter in favor of withdrawing troops, PBS was required to air five people who said that we should stay in Iraq.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised by these statistics regarding public broadcasting. Prior to this discussion, I had assumed that PBS would at least be a bit less slanted than the mainstream media. Learning that even public broadcasting was a victim of the government's agenda was, admittedly, a bit shocking.
Cohen argued that the United States needs to instill insulated funding as a means of protecting the media. Insulated funding guarantees money regardless of the station's coverage; this would, in essence, allow media agencies to say whatever they'd like without fear of being shut down.
I found a 'Letter to the Editor' by Patrick Butler, president and CEO of the Association of Public Television Stations, on the Washington Post that breaks down the numbers regarding public broadcasting. There were quite a few interesting statistics in Butler's letter:
I was also fascinated by the statistics that Cohen offered regarding on-air guests. While most of the United States was in support of withdrawing troops from Iraq, the public broadcasting system remained biased in its coverage: for every one supporter in favor of withdrawing troops, PBS was required to air five people who said that we should stay in Iraq.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised by these statistics regarding public broadcasting. Prior to this discussion, I had assumed that PBS would at least be a bit less slanted than the mainstream media. Learning that even public broadcasting was a victim of the government's agenda was, admittedly, a bit shocking.
Cohen argued that the United States needs to instill insulated funding as a means of protecting the media. Insulated funding guarantees money regardless of the station's coverage; this would, in essence, allow media agencies to say whatever they'd like without fear of being shut down.
I found a 'Letter to the Editor' by Patrick Butler, president and CEO of the Association of Public Television Stations, on the Washington Post that breaks down the numbers regarding public broadcasting. There were quite a few interesting statistics in Butler's letter:
➤ "Public broadcasting represents a little more than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget."It's really fascinating to see how little American public broadcasting is funded in relation to other countries. Knowing this information, it certainly makes sense to follow through with the financial plan that Cohen proposed in class: three or four tiny taxes would make American public broadcasting more financially supported than the BBC.
➤ "Public broadcasting costs about $1.35 per citizen per year in America, a tiny percentage of comparable figures, among them $31.13 in Canada, $67.34 in Japan, and $85.52 in Great Britain."
SOPA and its Implications for Indy Media
The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, is a new bill that hopes to stop online copyright infringement by cracking down on social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr. Under the bill, companies and copyright holders could order court injunctions that ask for the immediate removal of websites which allegedly "encourage" piracy.
If passed, SOPA would completely change our Internet experience as we know it. According to an article on the Huffington Post, the bill would mean that all websites with user-generated content would have "no choice but to pre-screen every posting to comply with the law." The implications of this requirement are tremendous: According to statistics on Twitter, the service handles over one billion tweets every week.
SOPA has gained national attention since Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook announced their disapproval of the proposed legislation. Regardless of the objection, court decisions are already being made based on the bill's standards. Last month, a Nevada judge ordered the immediate shutdown of over 228 websites, asking that their "domain names [be] transferred and their listings [be] removed from search engines."
The case centered around fashion company Chanel, which "investigated 228 sites it suspected of counterfeiting goods, ordered from 3 of them, internally confirmed the counterfeit, and then extrapolated from that. The judge ordered all 228 domains to be seized." The above news article on this case offers an interesting point:
For the sake of the Internet, freedom of information, freedom of speech, and freedom from censorship, I sincerely hope that SOPA is left on the Senate room floor.
If passed, SOPA would completely change our Internet experience as we know it. According to an article on the Huffington Post, the bill would mean that all websites with user-generated content would have "no choice but to pre-screen every posting to comply with the law." The implications of this requirement are tremendous: According to statistics on Twitter, the service handles over one billion tweets every week.
SOPA has gained national attention since Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook announced their disapproval of the proposed legislation. Regardless of the objection, court decisions are already being made based on the bill's standards. Last month, a Nevada judge ordered the immediate shutdown of over 228 websites, asking that their "domain names [be] transferred and their listings [be] removed from search engines."
The case centered around fashion company Chanel, which "investigated 228 sites it suspected of counterfeiting goods, ordered from 3 of them, internally confirmed the counterfeit, and then extrapolated from that. The judge ordered all 228 domains to be seized." The above news article on this case offers an interesting point:
"It is unclear how and why this Nevada judge purports to exert powers over hundreds of separate defendants internationally and order relief from parties only tangentially related to the case, such as search engines."Internet censorship at its finest? I certainly believe so. It seems not only unfair, but illegal for a judge to punish all 228 domains for the actions of three, especially because neither Chanel nor the court confirmed that the remaining 225 domains were counterfeiting goods for profit. It is easy to see how this cases parallels to SOPA's jurisdiction: under the bill, any website which is even suspected of participating in piracy or copyright infringement will immediately be served a cease-and-desist order.
For the sake of the Internet, freedom of information, freedom of speech, and freedom from censorship, I sincerely hope that SOPA is left on the Senate room floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)