Slate's article, Non-profit journalism comes at a cost, makes a great point that investors are still investors, and their decision to back a news outlet usually comes with a hidden agenda. My problem with is is why is this a surprise?
Non-profits and corporate media are both funded by the same type of person: people with money to spend. The only difference is that Corporate media does it for the money and non-profits do it to feel as if they've done something good for whatever cause they're supporting. But, a billionaire is not going to throw money at a publication for the sake of good journalism, they're going to do it to support a cause, a political ideology or their needs as humanitarians and achieve that through good journalism thanks to the widespread opinion that journalism is at a downfall. The New York Times has some of the best reporters in the world, but what they decide to report on and their lack of transparency in their bias is the issue, not their quality of work. What makes corporate news and non-profit news different at the end of the day is that when you go and read The Intercept you understand what the end-game is, what they're going to talk about as well as who runs it: you have enough context to know why they say the things they say. When it comes to something like NBC or The New Yorker, a reader does not have the context behind why NBC or The New Yorker say the things they say. Understanding the publication is very important when trying to understand the news they report. Being disgusted at the fact that non-profit news will follow a certain agenda is naive when thinking about human nature. No journalist came into journalism without an agenda or bias, and if a person sees the merit in journalism to support a cause they will throw money at it to support whatever that cause may be. The article is right, however, that good journalism doesn't make money because people don't see it as a commodity, and it shouldn't be. The business model of news has always made me uncomfortable because even though I want to be paid as a journalist to make a living, I understand the basic function of journalism is a need to the basically functionality of democracy. Many would say it is a right. People should have access to information without a cost, making it hard to pay journalist or keep a site going without someone or something funding the outlet. I can't envision a society in which profit or non-profit journalism isn't sponsored by an agenda if the people writing the news need wages to survive. And right now, envisioning a work without wages or need for them is not even possible.
0 Comments
This past week, TheWarHorse.org broke a story on a Facebook group with a total of 30,000 Marine Core active and veteran midshipmen that shared naked pictures of women in the Marines. Pictures of the female marines social media handled were also shares, comments about how these women should be raped soon followed.
Thomas Brennan, an Iraq and Afghanistan combat veteran and Purple Heart is the founder of The War Horse and is also the man who wrote the story. He has been getting death threats from people in the military because of his story. The great thing about this story is that it's not the military protecting its own, but the military not putting up with misogynistic and sexist behavior. Although Brennan is a veteran, he is still a part of the military and a traditional aspect of military culture is that you don't "rat out" your colleagues and you protect the reputation of the military in order for it to be held to the highest regards. Many of the military's arbitrary laws such as not being able to talk on the phone and walk at the same time when you're in uniform or not being able to hold the hand of your significant other are set in place to keep a pristine and decent image of the armed forces. Anything that makes midshipmen or cadets look like degenerates will be sunk. This time, it wasn't. This is why I think Brennan publishing this story is admirable. Sure, it was just a Facebook group, but the Marines have the highest rate of sexual assault and abuse than any of the other branches. They are also notorious for not wanting women amongst their ranks. Brennan publishing this story cracks the sexist issues within the Marines - and to an extent the Navy - to the public eye. Most of the times cases like these are Court Marshaled, the military's judicial system, and a lot of the details are not disclosed to the press. Since this story was taken to the press first it will lift a veil in the corruption found within midshipmen. My problem with the story is how everyone else is talking about it, focusing it on the Facebook group itself and not the fact that both the Navy and the Marines have had multiple cases of sexual abuse resulting in officers keeping their jobs and midshipmen being damaged for life. The hierarchical system within the Military makes it hard for women and men who have been victims of abuse and harassment to press charges against their superiors. The bigger picture this is the patriarchal and sexist nature of the military as a whole. The military has been trying to push towards a more inclusive, an effort spearheaded by the Army, but there are obvious flaws with the plan and the biggest one is the culture surrounding certain branched such as the Marines. We now have the story, it's time to look deeper. |
AuthorHi! I'm Isabella Grullon. I am a junior journalism major at Ithaca College from the Dominican Republic and Colombia.
ArchivesCategories |