THIS IS WHY CITIZENS IN MARYLAND HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR DEMOCRACY. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS CAPTURE IF WE ARE TO RETURN TO A DEMOCRATIC, EQUAL PROTECTION, RULE OF LAW STATE.
FREE PRESS AND MEDIA IS CRITICAL FOR A DEMOCRACY!
I spoke of Maryland's public media captured by Johns Hopkins through WYPR and Morgan State is so afraid of being defunded and closed as an Historically Black College they have fallen into the Wall Street groove. I've never seen such a level of contempt for Rule of Law and balance in news coverage than with WYPR.....it is purely global corporate. Keep in mind WYPR not only controls the Baltimore public media market ----it has branches in Frederick and on the Eastern Shore all of which receives only this global corporate news coverage.
Maryland's College of Journalism is located at University of Maryland, College Park. When an NBC DC reporter at a university election forum tells me 'no one wants to hear your platform' and then makes sure they do not----they graduated from a journalism school that teaches election news can be selective with no idea of FCC and IRS laws regarding election coverage.
It is the governor who appoints and sets this tone so in the near term that is Erhlich and O'Malley. We need to run and vote for people that see labor and justice, a strong domestic economy ------strong civil liberties and Constitutional rights as paramount. Then we need to see the value in having corporations and the rich pay taxes and not 'donate' in general but particularly to our public schools. It is only meant to hand control of curricula to that corporate donor. Only a neo-liberal and neo-con would want to do this! State-funded schools operate in the public interest. The state does not save money with a corporate donation because these donations are written from corporate taxes and lost to government coffers. There is no WIN for the public with these structures.
BELOW YOU SEE NEO-CONSERVATIVE JOHNS HOPKINS CONTROLLING ALL PUBLIC RADIO MEDIA.
WYPR FM Radio Station Information (FCC)
This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Baltimore, Maryland
Service Class: FM
Frequency: 88.1 MHz
FCC File #: BLED-20080111AEE
Power (H): 15,500 Watts / Power (V): 15.5 kW
Height Above Average Terrain: 425 ft. or 129.6 m.
Antenna Radiation Center...
Above Ground Level: 300 ft. or 91.4 m.
Above Median Sea Level: 705 ft. or 214.9 m.
Antenna Structure Registration #: 1022765
Application ID: 1234001
WYPO FM Radio Station Information (FCC)
This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Ocean City, Maryland,
Service Class: FM
Frequency: 106.9 MHz
FCC File #: BMLED-20070803ABU
Power (H): 4,500 Watts / Power (V): 4.5 kW
Height Above Average Terrain: 384 ft. or 117.0 m.
Antenna Radiation Center...
Above Ground Level: 374 ft. or 114.0 m.
Above Median Sea Level: 397 ft. or 121.0 m.
Antenna Structure Registration #: 1227587
Application ID: 1198555
WYPO FCC Facility Location:
#39 THISTLE LANE/BETHANY MEADOWS #39 THISTLE LANE/BETHANY MEADOWS, FRANKFORD, DE 19945
WYPF-FM 88.1 MHz
This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Baltimore, Maryland
Station Format: Public Radio
Your Public Radio Corporation
find stations owned by Your Public Radio Corporation
this feature is only available to Gold Customers
P.O. BOX 205
Braddock Heights, MD 21714
WYPF-FM Technical Info:
If you talk to a Maryland media reporter you know that they are simply handed the material and told to write an article that fits into a news space----whether TV, print, or online. All news agencies now simply go to Associated Press or another global corporate news source and copies it. If that news source is wrong, every media outlet in America has presented wrong information and it happens all the time now. As with any consolidation----quality and choice goes. Americans receive the most narrow and skewed news coverage in the developed world and this is why......it mirrors what is happening in our schools-----teachers are simply becoming education techs serving up packaged online classes with a nationwide capture of information content and so are these 'journalists'.
As our school teachers learn to install online lessons and testing they need to know the technology and data....that's all that required. Below you see that journalism schools are moving towards the same format-----journalists taking the time to code because they are no longer out gathering news. Rather than have a coder and a reporter-----you eliminate both job categories by combining them. The skills needed for coding are completely different from those needed for journalism. These policies have as a goal to eliminate strong public interest investigative journalism......NO HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE IN THIS PUBLIC POLICY!
Media and Democracy
The media have tremendous power to influence our nation's political discourse, and a free and open media is essential to a healthy democracy. So Common Cause works on multiple fronts for media reforms that include a free, open and accessible Internet for all, slowing media consolidation and transparency.
There's nothing wrong with adding computer language to our K-12 just as with any foreign language as it is indeed useful for all to know how an electronic product works. What you are seeing is an elimination of original thought coming from anywhere but those feeding us this information. Think of how universities are closing public access to research funded by taxpayer money because this research is now patented. Public policy written behind closed doors because corporate partnerships make the information proprietary so they say we might as well have journalists spending their time writing code. Are journalists really learning how to be journalists in these corporate schools?
I hear all the time-----'there's an old-school reporter back when news rooms had real journalism'. Freedom of press and holding power accountable demands journalism schools stay separate from the corporations they need to be monitoring!
Reporting is more than writing; newsrooms are shrinking so the idea of separate coding staffs will die.
To code or not to code: What do journalism students need to know?
Posted in Journalism Education, Online Journalism
By John Kroll
On October 21, 2013 Journalists should know at least enough to recognize this as HTML, not Sanskrit.
Olga Khazan has stirred up the “should journalists learn to code” argument with an article on the Atlantic that says, bluntly, no. This must mean that the debate had been shifting toward the “yes” side, since the Atlantic sites are among those that have gone past search-engine bait and even social-media bait right to contrarian bait, the next frontier of online journalism.
Everyone likes a good pick-your-side Twitter fight. But reading between the tweets, this sounds like one of those battles where both sides have to work very hard to ignore the fact that they don’t disagree on much. Do the no-code people really believe that technical skills won’t play an increasing role in journalism? Of course not. Do the code people believe that inability to use MySQL will keep a great reporter from getting a job? Lord, I hope not.
So, while the Twitter debate continues, here’s my boring, humble take.
My take: Knowing HTML and CSS these days is like knowing proofreader mark-up was when I got out of journalism school: potentially useful and relatively easy to grasp. I did all my professional journalism on computers rather than typewriters, but we still marked up proofs. As an online editor, I worked with a site whose fairly rigid template was set by corporate, but we still used HTML and CSS to add things to individual stories. And the blogging software we used wasn’t perfect; it was very helpful to be able to look at the source code for a blown page and figure out what went wrong.
Will they ever use code on the job? Khazan offers a couple of arguments: First, that in larger newsrooms, coding is a separate job from reporting; second, that in smaller newsrooms, free online tools eliminate the need to code and are as good as you’ll need them to be.
A counterargument is that jobs are changing: Reporting is more than writing; newsrooms are shrinking so the idea of separate coding staffs will die.
My take: I can’t see a day when even a bare majority of people working in journalism will need to know real programming to do their jobs. On the other hand, there are already reporting jobs for which programming, if not a requirement, is certainly a major plus.
I got a minor in computer science in college partly because computer-assisted reporting was becoming popular. Turns out I neither worked on CAR nor used the specific programming languages I learned, but basic skills I learned — debugging, programming essentials — helped me pick up HTML, CSS and Flash scripting more easily later on. Similarly, the four years of Latin I took in high school don’t have a direct use today, but they’ve helped me do reasonably well at understanding signs in Paris and Barcelona.
Similarly, the databse software I first used is extinct. But the principles of database work — cleaning up data, creating calculations and comparisons — remain with me and enable me to figure out what we should be able to do with today’s software.
Where and when should learning take place? One of the questions in journalism education now is the extent to which coding should be part of the curricula. Khazan suggests that time spent on coding is time taken away from more important skills:
[I]mpressing editors who are hiring reporters, or even progressing in your reporting/writing career, just requires a mind-boggling amount of practice at writing and editing. If you truly want to compete with the hundreds of other j-school applicants for a reporting job, you should be writing stories until you dream in active verbs, not making ugly code creations.
On the other hand, school are under pressure to produce job-ready graduates, and my decades in newsrooms don’t give me much confidence in the ability or willingness of editors to provide on-the-job training.
My take: Software doesn’t have the shelf life or portability of good interviewing skills. Programs change; different companies adopt different software. I think of college as providing knowledge and skills that will last longer and be universal.
There are plenty of ways — cheaper than college tuition — to learn specific programs or programming languages. And there are lots of free, simple tools that would allow students to learn the principles of interactivity and multimedia reporting without having to learn how to build things from the ground up.
On the other hand, learning one sophisticated tool can, like my college COBOL, provide a strong base to acquire other skills later on.
This question leaves me the most conflicted. I know that pro-level software produces the most polished product, just as a pro-level camera can produce a better image than an iPhone. But: If I teach students to use a pro-level camera and high-end video editing software to produce a TV-quality story, how many of them will use that skill? On the other hand, if I teach them to produce web-quality video with an iPhone and Videolicious, how hard would it be for those who want to do more to find other ways to upgrade their knowledge?
Even if we put aside the question of whether time spent on coding and specialty equipment or software is time taken away from more basic skills, I’ve got another worry about coding for college journalists: The fear factor. Programming is hard; mistakes are easy, and the consequence of even minor errors can be fatal. Back in my day (he said, tugged on the long white whiskers of his beard), we did our programming on punchcards, wrapped the stack in a rubber band and put it into one of the hundreds of slots in the wall of Northwestern’s Vogelback Computing Center. Then we’d sit around drinking Mr Pibb, eating Doritos and waiting. Eventually the stack of cards would be shoved back into the slot with the printout of results wrapped around it. The relief of finally having a result would be tempered by fear of a Goldilocks error — a printout that was too slim (fatal error) or too thick (infinite loop) rather than just right.
I’ve worked with excellent journalists for whom even basic HTML was panic-inducing. I hate the idea that people who could do terrific journalism would get disenchanted in journalism school because they were failures at Final Cut or couldn’t pass PHP.
All of this leaves me in the same place as most people (from what I can tell via Twitter reactions and such):
- Journalists should be familiar enough with website coding to recognize it and repair simple mistakes.
- Journalists should have experience with databases.
- Journalists do not need to know any one particular programming language, but experience with some programming language is a plus.
- Journalists are more likely to devote time to learning in college than on the job, and opportunities for graduates with technical skills will be wider than for those without.
Think about how corporate media capturing journalism schools and demanding these schools be 'innovative and tech-centered' pushing more journalism online squares with an equal push to end net neutrality. Ending net neutrality means that most people will not be able to afford to access websites that have streaming video-----the cost for access will climb with most people being stuck with dial-up speeds and locked screens. So, if you have corporations pushing all media online with journalists putting much time into presentation----who is generating news and how are people getting that news. The answer is that Americans are now the most uninformed people in the developed world and it is neo-liberals and neo-cons and the policies I shared these few days doing it. Consider as well the US Constitution does not now have FCC regulation of internet content so none of the Constitutional protections of media and coverage will translate online.
Dismantling democracy and moving a first world nation like the US to third world status needs to be done with people not knowing what is happening. This is why leadership positions are being taken by people connected to these Wall Street policies----private non-profits do not say a word about what is really happening. A public community association would be all over it as would a public university. See why they are getting rid of the public sector and why Common Core and education privatization is pushed? As with journalism and the media IT'S ALL ABOUT CAPTURED INFORMATION.
ALL OF THIS CAN BE EASILY REVERSED IF PEOPLE ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND RUN AND VOTE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS OUT OF OFFICE!
- Ending net neutrality makes it impossible for grassroots journalists and community groups to build online communications.....which is the point. It forces the people's voice out while again only those corporate media voices -----THE PROFESSIONALS----- are able to afford to operate on the web. The democratization supposedly fueling the internet is now being compromised with this attack on net neutrality.
- FIGHT THIS CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF MEDIA!
- Saving the InternetBroadbandCableCybersecurityDeclaration of Internet FreedomGlobal Internet FreedomMobileSurveillanceVerizon/Cable DealSpectrumSOPA
- On Jan. 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order.
And on May 15, the FCC voted to propose a new “open Internet” rule that may let Internet service providers charge content companies for priority treatment, relegating other content to a slower tier of service.
Under these rules, telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications.
We must stop the FCC from moving forward with these rules.
Here’s how we got here:
The open Internet rules, adopted in 2010, were designed to prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing users’ connections to online content and apps.
This ruling means that just a few powerful phone and cable companies could control the Internet. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online — and easier for companies to censor our speech. The Internet could come to resemble cable TV, where gatekeepers exert control over where you go and what you see.
Without Net Neutrality, ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic (reserving the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest).
The tools ISPs use to block and control our communications aren’t different from the ones the NSA uses to watch us. Whether it’s a government or a corporation wielding these tools or the two working together, this behavior breaks the Internet as we know it and makes it less open and secure.
We must fight to ensure that the Internet we love won’t simply become a platform for corporate speech or another tool for government spying. We must protect the Internet that lets us connect and create, that rejects censorship and values our right to privacy.
The Internet shouldn’t be a walled garden. It should remain a forum for innovation and free expression. As so many startups and political activists know, open, affordable, fast and universal communications networks are essential to our individual, economic and political futures.
For our 101 on Net Neutrality, click here.
This is what the 'professionalism' of the press is all about. If you listen to Bill Clinton and his neo-liberal political machine he always uses the term 'professional' when identifying neo-liberal candidates. Professional means Wall Street. So, a neo-liberal pol is one that works for Wall Street. Below you see how strong the effort to curtail any information from coming from government sources is these days. Remember, government is now run by corporations through two decades of outsourcing and public private partnerships so all information at Federal, state, and local level is now being called classified. The information handed to the public by government watchdogs and whistleblowers is less about government secrets and more about Wall Street and corporate espionage.
- This is what drives the corporate takeover of journalism schools and public university media----and it is what has silenced dissent and activism in the very places political discussion thrives in a democracy!
Associated Press: Sources Won’t Talk Anymore
- By: DSWright Thursday June 20, 2013 6:14 am
Apparently the war on whistle-blowers is working as the CEO of the Associated Press now says sources will no longer talk out of fear. It seems the program of intimidation by the Obama Administration is a success.
Associated Press president Gary Pruitt on Wednesday slammed the Department of Justice for acting as “judge, jury and executioner” in the seizure of the news organization’s phone records and he said some of the wire service’s longtime sources have clammed up in fear.
Pruitt said the department broke its own rules with the seizure, which he said was too broad, and by failing to give the AP notice of the subpoena. Pruitt questioned the DoJ’s actions concerning the subpoena — had the DoJ come to the news organization in advance, “we could have helped them narrow the scope of the subpoena” or a court could have decided, he said.
Pruitt does not seem to understand – or is pretending not to understand – that sources not talking was the entire point.
“The actions of the DoJ against AP are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case,” he said. “Some of our longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us, even on stories that aren’t about national security. And in some cases, government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone, and some are reluctant to meet in person.”
“This chilling effect is not just at AP, it’s happening at other news organizations as well,” Pruitt added. “Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them. Now, the government may love this. I suspect they do. But beware the government that loves secrecy too much.”
It’s a feature not a bug. Now all leaks will be official leaks (never to be investigated) and if the AP wants to report the news it will have to do it as the government wants it to or not at all. It’s a free press, kind of.