Earlier this evening, a friend of mine posted this transparency report from Google on his Facebook page. I was extremely intrigued when I read one of the bulleted items on the page:
Observations on Content Removal Requests
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.
The fact that YouTube did not comply with law enforcements' requests is a huge victory for independent journalism. We've already heard cases this semester of citizen journalists capturing unethical or illegal police behavior; YouTube was often responsible for bringing the travesties to light. Kudos to the video-sharing website for protecting citizen and independent journalists over government and law enforcement agencies. Let's hope that these priorities remain even after YouTube begins offering mainstream-like television on its website next year.
Google has announced that its video website, YouTube, will soon add over 100 channels of original television programming. The company promises big names in its lineup, including Madonna, Jay-Z, and Ashton Kutcher. According to the Wall Street Journal article, the new television programs will offer over 25 hours of original programming, all available for free to Internet users.
YouTube's expansion into mainstream television begs to question if — and how — the website will change for citizen and independent journalists. Currently, YouTube allows anyone to post videos; those that go viral are featured on YouTube's homepage. This, in turn, exponentially increases the video's exposure. The formula has brought about immense social change in the past.
With YouTube pushing for more professional, mainstream television, will their homepage be infiltrated with sponsored programs, leaving average individuals without the opportunity to be seen and heard? Will YouTube convert to the "mullet strategy" — like the one used by the Huffington Post — where professional videos will be housed on the homepage and amateur videos will be hidden within the site? We won't know for certain until the channels launch next year, but I would bet that YouTube will certainly place priority on its multi-million dollar television deals over its non-profit posters.
In today's class, we viewed a YouTube video of Asmaa Mahfouz, an Egyptian woman who posted a viral YouTube video calling for protestors to gather against Mubarak in Tahrir Square on January 25, 2011. Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now!, shows clips from the video on her program:
In class, we compared Mahfouz's video with "Common Sense," a pamphlet distributed by Thomas Paine in 1776 that condemned the British monarchy. There are certainly similarities, but perhaps the biggest difference is the way in which the protestors' information was delivered. While Paine relied on pamphlets to spread awareness of liberty, today's technology — such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, for example — allows for viral videos and mass consumption at a much more rapid rate.
Brian Rank raised an interesting question in class: What would happen if these social media outlets were shut down in an effort to prevent viral videos from reaching the masses?
The shutdown is not impossible. In 2009, China shut down access to social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and Blogger immediately before the 20th Anniversary of the massacres at Tiananmen Square. In January 2011, Egypt shut down "virtually all internet access" in an effort to control Mubarak's protestors. Libya, too, shut down internet access in February 2011 to keep protestors at bay.
According to an August 13, 2011 article on Wired, Britain is also considering a legal clause that allows the government to shut down social media websites in times of crisis. The reason, according to British Prime Minister David Cameron, is that social media often "[amplifies] panic, [spreads] misinformation and [causes] already-stretched police communications channels to be overloaded by people worried about some rumor they’ve read online."
It will be interesting to see how quickly a new method of dispersing information is developed in the event that the public is permanently disabled from using social media. In fact, I would bet that some of today's leading independent journalists have already considered this scenario. For now, we can only hope that our government does not follow along in other countries' footsteps.
After reading Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon's article, "Press Critic George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage," I was intrigued by Seldes' determination as an independent journalist in the 1900s. The article mentions Seldes' attacks on the biggest press barons of the decade, including the well known William Randolph Hearst, for their "assisting [of] Hitler, Mussolini and Spain's Gen. Francisco Franco."
I searched YouTube and found an interesting video interview with Seldes that was filmed in January 1983. In it, the independent journalist discloses the exact role of the mainstream media in aiding Hitler.
It's fascinating to hear this account directly from Seldes, and I'm both impressed and inspired by his courage as an independent journalist. Based on our class discussions, it is evident that today's indy media journalists are aspiring to be — whether aware of it or not — in the same realm of Seldes in regards to publishing news free of government influence. I can only hope that this trend continues as our technology and resources evolve.
An alarming article from the New York Times tells the shocking story of police officers hunting down French citizen Dominique Broueilh for commenting on a video clip of a French cabinet official with the simple words, "Oh, the liar."
It's a classic case of censorship and overwhelming government control, but its a paragraph that appears further into the story that really caught my attention:
Politicians here have filed lawsuits like Ms. Morano’s, organized in-house Internet surveillance teams — Mr. Sarkozy receives a nightly report detailing the day’s online chatter — and roundly denounced the Web as a breeding ground for disinformation.
Internet surveillance teams? Nightly reports of online chatter? While the Web seems to be, at least for now, the French government's only target, it's terrifying to think about where these beginnings of government surveillance could lead to in the coming years. I can only hope that bloggers stay brave to keep it from further spiraling out of control.
In a time where blogs are popping up all over the web, it's an interesting debate as to whether or not those bloggers who rise to fame seemingly overnight should be given the same -- or even better -- treatment than those esteemed newspaper and magazine editors who claw their way to the top of the editorial food chain.
According to an article from the New York Times, Bloggers Crash Fashion's Front Row, young bloggers dominated 2009's catwalks by scoring front-row seats to the shows of some of the world's most elite designers. An even bigger blow? They were seated next industry experts (read: Anna Wintour).
In a country where the mainstream media have been slow to accept blogging, it is interesting that fashion designers and public relations agencies have been so quick to scoop up bloggers as some of the most influential writers and reporters of the 21st century. In the Times article, Kelly Cutrone, one of the industry's top publicists, best sums up the shift in power:
“Do I think, as a publicist, that I now have to have my eye on some kid who’s writing a blog in Oklahoma as much as I do on an editor from Vogue? Absolutely. Because once they write something on the Internet, it’s never coming down. And it’s the first thing a designer is going to see.”
