Look at me, I'm Sandra D.

That is, if "D" stood for destruction.

As funny as all the Grease spoofs have been during the coverage of Hurricane Sandy, it is a natural disaster that should not be talked about lightly. Ten people in NYC have already lost their lives. Nationally, over 20 people have been killed by Sandy. There are millions of dollars in damages and reconstructive costs.

In this recent coverage, we have heard plenty about damages, destruction and death. We have watched live radars of the storm. But what slipped mainstream media's news radar that directly affects those being rained upon by Sandy's unforgiving wrath? The fact that Governor Romney reportedly wants to eliminate funding to FEMA.

According to the Huffington Post, Governor Romney wants to allow states and private sector groups to take control of disaster relief as of a GOP primary debate last year. When asked recently what he would do and if he was going to go see some of the storm damage, Romney ignored the questions-- 14 times actually.

“Governor Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” said campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg in the Huffington Post article. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”

But how will this help the average American? If relief aid is privatized, isn't there a chance of an increase in price, which could be detrimental to a family who has just lost everything from a disaster?

And who are the people who usually stay or are living in the lower areas prone to flooding? People in poverty. But we don't talk about poverty in mainstream media, as pointed out in IC Senior Mariana Garces's article on Fair.org. So I guess it makes sense that we would not talk about how cutting FEMA would affect people in poverty because we don't address poverty in general. Yes, that is completely rational.

Sarcasm aside, this is a huge issue we need to address not only in election 2012, but also with news coverage in general. For now, I guess I will continue to go to independent news outlets like Huffington Post who will give me more of the whole story on Sandy and its greater implications.

An Undefinable Profession

Things are not always simple, not always black and white.

Media today has evolved from the naturalized and normalized way we think about journalists and news in general. This change is largely thanks to the internet. Now virtually anyone can contribute content and news stories, and then spread them to a global audience. However, many bloggers are facing opposition when seeking the same rights and access as other professional, mainstream media outlet journalists.


Mark Brunster of Laske Oswego is a blogger who understands this opposition greatly because he is currently facing it.

According to Oregonian: "As the author of political blog Loaded Orygun, Bunster insisted at a Lake Oswego City Council meeting that he was a member of the news media and therefore, under Oregon statute, allowed to sit in on executive session meetings. Lacking a clear policy on the issue, Lake Oswego city councilors asked Bunster to leave...Lake Oswego is considering adopting a policy that would define who qualifies as a member of the news media." 

Bloggers represent a myriad of local voices. They also do reporting and can sometimes get access into events that mainstream press cannot. Just because all bloggers may not be professional journalists, it doesn't mean they are not committing acts of journalism. Who are we to censor voices trying to get news out-- which by implementing this policy they would be legalizing the discrimination against bloggers and other smaller media outlets in their event coverage thereby censoring their content?

Look at one of the most influential political blogs today: Talking Points Memo. It started as a one man band, and was built to the huge success and large staff it has today. Would TPM have been able to succeed if a similar policy was in affect on a national level? Probably not.

People in support of Lake Oswego's policy have concerns about defining open and closed meeting sessions, City Attorney David Powell included.

According to the Oregonian, '"Does it mean that any individual can come into closed session?" asked Powell, who penned the policy based on one Columbia County uses. "It's not a closed session anymore. It's not saying individuals can't report on the news or City Council, but is that the individual the Legislature meant?"'

The Legislature defined the "individual" during a time when the Internet was not even a twinkle in technology's eye. I believe we should take a loose interpretation because of this change in times.

I am not sure if I would call bloggers or citizen journalists actual, professional journalists,  however if someone is willing to commit an act of journalism than government (big or small) has no ground to stop them. We need to stop trying to define everything and come to accept that with the emergence of the internet also came some confusing shades of gray.

Reflections from the Buzzcave

With production weekend for Buzzsaw Magazine approaching, I have been realizing how many connections from this Independent Media class can be made to my experience with this alternative magazine.

Buzzsaw Magazine is the premier alternative magazine on the Ithaca College Campus. It is independent from the Park School of Communications for funding, but instead goes through Campus Progress, an organization that trains and supports the next generation of young progressive leaders. We also get funding from the Student Government Association. This allows us to have a more critical eye of not only Ithaca College in general, but also our own communications department.

This is the main value of independent media, one that Buzzsaw Magazine also shares: to report on the silences and cover policies of the school with a more critical eye and through a different lens. Buzzsaw was formed by editors of IC's "mainstream" media outlet, the Ithacan, who did not like the way the outlet was run or how they reported stories. Not only does Buzzsaw still do critiques against mainstream media on campus, but it also covers topics and sparks discussions about topics that may not be in the forefront of most students minds. And we cover it extensively. Take the Militarization issue; not only did articles cover many interesting and varying aspects of militarization, but Buzzsaw also hosted a panel on the issue and other events on campus to spark discussion.

But in my opinion, our most important coverage within the past year has been on the Park School of Communications.

Last year, a Buzzsaw Asks Why column, on the subject Park thinking professionals in the field of communications also translates into professor, sparked a lot controversy. The column was an opinion piece, but things got heated when the Dean of the Park School of Communications started defensively commenting online on the piece as well. She ended up writing her own article in response to the column, which we posted on our website. However, it got the administration and students thinking about what constitutes a good professor and why students may be feeling this way.

This year, our coverage of the new media policy enacted by IC has taken center stage. It has been the focus of our newsletter, Haircut, which was distributed to the student body community. However, because we favor advocacy journalism and are independent from the school of communications, Buzzsaw was able to go one step further and formally take a stance on the media policy. There was an official call to repeal the policy signed by all the editors, as well as some staff writers and alumni. The mainstream outlet remained neutral in its official stance.

So as I mentally prepare to head to the Buzzcave (aka the basement of Bogart in a room with no windows) to edit, copy and print another great issue, I feel I have a new found appreciation for the alternative publication I love so dearly, as well as a greater understanding of its importance on the Ithaca College campus.

Can I has blog fans?

In 2007, Business Week put out a slideshow about the most financially successful blogs at the time. These blogs cover a wide range of topics, from politics to entertainment to design to funny cat photos. Yes, I am talking about the well known and loved, I Can Has Cheezburger?, the grammatically incorrect and adorably goofy cat memes that have taken hold of the blog world.

So how can blogs so different in audiences all be so successful? They have activated their community. The most important factor when building any blog is to build your fan base. The beauty of blogs is the conversations and the engagement fans can have with the site, making them feel like they are contributing to the content.

Or contributing to basically all of the content, in the case of I Can Has Cheezburger? This blog has a what could be considered a perfect business model. Advertisers fund the site, and their dedicated fan base constantly submit new memes that they then post. According to Business Week, a week of ads on Cheezburger, via Blogads, starts at $500 and tops out at $5,400 for a premium position.

It is silly to imagine Eric Nakagawa, blog creator, and staff running around filming this video of cats and lasers. The fan's devotedness and engagement with the blog saves the staff more time to focus on building the site and expanding the fan base further, rather than creating the actual cat pictures. Cheezburger has provided the space where its fans can come play, all the while providing content. Nakagawa said, "If you hit a niche and you can build a community, you might not have a $1 million idea, but you might have a $10,000 or a $100,000 idea." 

Cheezburger's success is truly thanks to its loyal fans. With every successful blog, it is important to have a concrete group of followers that will check your blog daily. The next challenge is to convert those devoted fans into promoters and educators to potential new fans, expanding your page views and your name recognition on a larger level. And fans keep emerging because they feel invested in Cheezburger and important to the blog's progress.

And that is the common thread between all of the financially successful blogs Business Week highlighted in 2007. Whether the fans are producing the actual content, or engaged in discussion via comments, they are somehow involved in the process, in the discussion, about whatever subject is at hand. Depending on your interest, for some that involvement may be a lively debate about Romney's 47 percent video, for others it may be creating a silly cat picture that goes viral. Whatever it may be, its active and that's what counts.

We love Candy!

Candy Crowley, American news anchor currently employed as CNN's chief political correspondent, was the moderator for last night's presidential debate, town meeting style.

Following these debates, I am usually frustrated by the lack of difficult questions or follow up questions by the moderator. The candidates are never challenged, and as a result the viewers learn nothing new about the important subjects at hand. However, Candy was not as sickly sweet as her name would suggest when questioning these candidates-- a refreshing quality I really enjoyed. 

Not only did she ask great follow up questions, but she also kept the feisty candidates in line and within the time limits. She also caught falsities said in answers-- specifically during Governor Romney's response to the Libya question. This is what a good moderator should be doing. I was pleasantly surprised to see mainstream media stepping up to the plate and living up to its journalistic values for at least one night of good discussion about binders full of women and other domestic policies.

Is IC's New Media Policy Censorship?

I closed my laptop, dumbfounded at the email I had just read. Effective immediately, Ithaca College changed their media policy for student media on campus. A list of 84 faculty members now must be contacted via the media relations department, specifically David Maley, if a reporter would like an interview with them involving Ithaca College or their policies. In an email, President Tom Rochon said:

"Note that this policy is strictly limited to the administrators listed here AND to instances where you want to interview them about IC policies or college developments.  The procedure for speaking with all faculty, all students, all third parties and all staff not listed in this document is unchanged -- you simply contact them. The procedure for speaking with anyone on this list about any topic not related to IC policies or college developments is also unchanged -- simply contact us."

This is the first problem I have with this new policy. One of the reasonings for the change is to not distract faculty bombarded with requests from their work. Yet, they specify the type of requests that have to go through Media Relations and which ones do not. Journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs to their government. Bringing the scale down to the college level, shouldn't we student journalists then be acting as the watchdogs for the college and its administration?

This reminds me of the CNN/war general controversy we discussed in class. CNN boasted they spoke directly with the White House and got all of their sources for commentary on the war approved by the governemnt. CNN was under direct fire by many journalists, especially those in the independent media field, because the government could coach the sources on exactly the perspective on the war they wanted spread to the masses. Isn't this exactly what can happen now when sourcing must go through the media relations department? Why else would interviews involving IC policies be the only interviews they care about setting up? All other interview requests that do not have to do with Ithaca College policies can go directly to the administrator without the middle man. Is this a form of censorship?

President Rochon continued in the email to say this would not effect the quality of student reporting.

"It is explicitly NOT the intention of this policy to limit access to IC administrators, to prevent you from pursuing certain stories, or to cause an unwarranted time delay in completing your interviews. The practice of working through Media Relations is long established at IC for all independent media external to the college, and it works well.  In applying this policy also to media affiliated with IC (in the varying extent each of you are), we are simply applying a common professional standard and procedure on media access generally." 

Problem No.2: We are taught in all of our journalism classes that news is 24/7. Even in this Independent Media class, we are always talking about timeliness and the importence of putting news and spreading ideas on the internet-- the great part of the web being the instantanious aspect of it. But according to the policy, there must be at least 24 hours notice for any type of commentary. Doesn't this then inhibit our abilities to be professional journalists and thrive in an age of instant news?

To me, I see this policy as a setback for student journalists initiated by our school-- a school that is supposed to be extremely supportive of media and the fourth estate it represents. To me it seems that Ithaca College wants us to be critical reporters, just not critical of the college itself or its policies.