THESE ARE HUGE ISSUES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOU DO NOT HEAR ANY OF THIS IN CORPORATE MEDIA AND INDEED IN THESE SCHOOLS OF JOURNALISM AND THEIR MEDIA.
This is why all of the media coverage of the Maryland Governor's Primary failed to cover platforms that endorse policy that works against all of the above.
WHEN CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO DONATE DIRECTLY TO UNIVERSITIES AND WRITE THE CURRICULA MORE OR LESS----THEY KILL FREE AND FAIR -----BALANCED AND DEMOCRATIC JOURNALISM.
Taxes need to support public universities.
Anyone who has listened to NPR over the decades easily saw the transition of NPR in 2010 when corporate media took control.....it literally built a global corporate headquarters and morphed into Global US Chamber of Commerce NPR. No longer public media but corporate state media. The Knight Foundation is tied to this and as you see below its funding keeps journalists up on global markets and terrorism........not so much domestic labor and justice. Corporatization of our public university schools of journalism is the next capture of global corporations and control of information in the US.
IT IS A BAD THING AND A DEMOCRATIC POL WOULD NOT APPOINT PEOPLE THAT CREATE THESE STRUCTURES. NEO-LIBERALS ARE NOT DEMOCRATS!
If you notice everyone gets sent to Harvard for training now-----our police commissioners, our health officials, our politicians.....that's because Harvard, like Johns Hopkins is Wall Street. So, NPR journalists sent to Harvard to learn the neo-liberal approach to global market reporting. Is this what the 'public' wants and needs to know? Neo-liberalism is killing America and THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW. Since NPR was taken corporate we never hear any labor and justice policy other than hearing how poor US citizens are becoming and how they are adjusting to being fleeced. We are being subjected to international news journalism to the complete silence about the attack on US democracy and the crime and corruption impoverishing Americans.
THE INTERSECTION OF BIG DATA IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISTS NEVER MEANS 'TURN THE SUPER-COMPUTERS ON WALL STREET'!
This is not zenophobic-----we want international news coverage but it would be good to hear that millions and millions of people around the world are protesting and voting neo-liberal and neo-cons pols out of office......which they are....demanding an end to neo-liberalism.
NPR JOURNALISTS SELECTED BY
KNIGHT-WALLACE, NIEMAN FOUNDATION
FOR 2013-2014 FELLOWSHIPS
STUDIES EXPLORE INNOVATIONS IN DATA ANALYSIS TO FIGHT TERRORISM;
THE BUSINESS OF THE ARTS; AND MODERN CHINESE POLITICAL SYSTEMS
NPR journalists have been selected to participate in prestigious fellowships, to begin in the fall of 2013. Counterterrorism Correspondent Dina Temple-Raston and Senior Editor for All Things Considered Alison MacAdam are both heading to Harvard to partake in the Nieman Fellowship program; and Beijing Correspondent Louisa Lim attends the University of Michigan as a Knight-Wallace Fellow.
The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard offers fellowships to mid-career journalists, encouraging participants to design an individual course of study to hone their skills and professional knowledge. Temple-Raston will study the intersection of Big Data and intelligence, to better understand how such information might predict events or pinpoint terrorists in the future. MacAdam will spend her year studying the business of the arts – from funding, to legal issues, to the influence of digital innovation.
The Knight-Wallace Fellowship at Michigan provides seasoned journalists the opportunity for reflection and growth through personalized study plans with an emphasis on international dexterity. Lim’s studies will examine the sustainability of China's current political structures.
The current fellows join a growing number of NPR staffers who pursue opportunities to expand their knowledge of a particular field. These most recent Nieman participants follow Boston Correspondent, Chris Arnold, who spent the 2012-2013 school year examining how the housing collapse will shape the future of homeownership, and obstacles to technological innovation in consumer product safety. NPR Berlin Correspondent Eric Westervelt spent the past year as a John S. Knight Journalism fellow at Stanford, exploring new media and advancements in digital international news platforms.
NPR is an award-winning, multimedia news organization and an influential force in American life. In collaboration with more than 900 independent public radio stations nationwide, NPR strives to create a more informed public – one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures. To find local stations and broadcast times, visit www.npr.org/stations
American media a few before Reagan/Clinton and neo-liberalism was the best in the world for free press......democracy and political debate and open discussions. AMERICA DID FREE DEMOCRATIC PRESS BETTER THAN ANYONE. So, why are we reinventing 'innovative' media? Innovative means we need to build a new product for people to buy to stay connected to mainstream media habits. It doesn't mean anything about quality free press and strong, truthful journalism.....just the opposite. As you see below these 'media foundations' like Knight Foundation are telling our academic deans that the schools of journalism must become research product start-ups just as the other departments. Get that media online and get people buying products.
Obama and neo-liberals passed a law a few years ago with the NDAA law that ends Due Process and Miranda in America by allowing indefinite detention without charge of domestic US citizens. At the same time they gave the President the ability to shut down the internet with a broad definition for why a President might do that. At the same time they started pushing a law that says Journalist must be defined as 'professional' in order to be protected by freedom of press laws. The American people do not want all media online-----we need a diversity of communications and information-sharing venues. We do not want journalism professionalized. It is the grassroots media that is real journalism. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SIMPLY AN EXTENSION OF CONTROLLING INFORMATION AND IT IS VERY AUTOCRATIC.
Aug 3, 2012
An Open Letter to America's University Presidents
Related Link "Journalism funders call for ‘Teaching Hospital’ model of education" on Knight Blog by Eric Newton
We represent foundations making grants in journalism education and innovation. In this new digital age, we believe the "teaching hospital" model offers great potential. At its root, this model requires top professionals in residence at universities. It also focuses on applied research, as scholars help practitioners invent viable forms of digital news that communities need to function in a democratic frame.
We believe journalism and communications schools must be willing to recreate themselves if they are to succeed in playing their vital roles as news creators and innovators. Some leading schools are doing this but most are not. Deans cite regional accreditation bodies and university administration for putting up roadblocks to thwart these changes. However, we think the problem may be more systemic than that. We are calling on university presidents and provosts to join us in supporting the reform of journalism and mass communication education.
Curriculum changes have been summed up in the "Carnegie Knight Initiative for the Future of Journalism Education," a book published by Harvard's Shorenstein Center in 2011. In the “teaching hospital” part of the initiative, News21, students get special topic classes that prepare them to cover news with the help of top news professionals. This better connects journalism schools with the rest of the university, encourages deep subject knowledge and involves the teaching of digital innovation and development of open collaborative work models. Arizona State University has developed the "teaching hospital" form of journalism education to become one of the state's leading news providers.
Schools that do not update their curriculum and upgrade their faculties to reflect the profoundly different digital age of communication will find it difficult to raise money from foundations interested in the future of news. The same message applies to administrators who acquiesce to regional accrediting agencies that want terminal degrees as teaching credentials with little regard to competence as the primary concern.
We firmly support efforts by The Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications to modernize standards. The council recognizes that schools need to provide students the ability to pursue career paths as journalist-entrepreneurs or journalism-technologists.
Furthermore, we believe ACEJMC should develop accreditation standards that spotlight the importance of technology and innovation. University facilities must be kept up to date. Currently, many are not.
Journalism funders agree that academia must be leading instead of resisting the reform effort. Deans must find ways for their schools to evolve, rather than maintain the status quo. Simply put, universities must become forceful partners in revitalizing an industry at the very core of democracy.
We also agree universities should make these changes for the betterment of students and society. Schools that favor the status quo, and thus fall behind in the digital transition, risk becoming irrelevant to both private funders and, more importantly, the students they seek to serve.
It's funny that all these media conglomerates are all using these foundations to strengthen our democracy and free press!
'The Scripps Howard Foundation is the corporate foundation of the E. W. Scripps Company, an American media conglomerate which owns newspapers, television stations, cable television networks, and other media outlets'.
Eric Newton, senior adviser, Knight Foundation
Clark Bell, journalism program director, McCormick Foundation
Bob Ross, president and CEO, Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Mike Philipps, president and CEO, Scripps Howard Foundation
Linda Shoemaker, president, Brett Family Foundation
David Haas, chair, Wyncote Foundation
Are the students of University of Maryland Merrill College of Journalism-----one of these pushing for this high professional standard-----really adhering to this standard when the university's media will not mention Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland or her platform issues? Of course not. These media conglomerates are what broke down the integrity of US journalism by ending fair and balanced and allowing media to offer only narrow viewpoints. What we need to fight is the idea that one needs these degrees in order to be protected by 1st Amendment rights----which is where this goes. Right now it is bloggers like me that offer the few outlets for real news.....we have always had schools of journalism AND GRASSROOTS JOURNALISM.
Mission Statement The Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications is dedicated to excellence and high standards in professional education in journalism and mass communications. The Council endorses professional education that recognizes and incorporates technological advances, changing professional and economic practice, and public interests and demands.
The Council believes that students can best prepare for careers in journalism and mass communications by studying in accredited professional programs at colleges and universities. The Council embraces the value of a broad, multidisciplinary curriculum that nurtures critical thinking, analytic reasoning and problem-solving skills that are the essential foundation for journalism and mass communications education.
The Council is committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of expression and freedom of the press as indispensable values in a free society. It expects the professional education offered by accredited programs to encourage inquiry, dissent and free expression.
To serve this mission, the Council has established educational requirements and standards and provides a process of voluntary program review by professionals and educators, awarding accredited status to programs that meet its standards. Through this process, the Council assures students, parents, journalism and mass communications professionals and the public that accredited programs meet rigorous standards for professional education.
The Council recognizes and safeguards the individual nature of each accredited program. It encourages educational innovation by programs in their efforts to meet accreditation requirements and standards to prepare students for careers in journalism and mass communication around the world.
-- Revised and approved by the Accrediting Council Aug. 23, 2013
THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU---WORKING FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT BY BUILDING STRUCTURES TO CONTROL INFORMATION FROM EDUCATION PRIVATIZATION TO CONSOLIDATED CORPORATE MEDIA.
Sen. Dick Durbin: Journalists Deserve Protection But We'll Decide Who's Actually A Journalist
from the trade-your-laptop-in-for-a-notepad-for-extra-journo-cred dept
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has penned an editorial for the Chicago Sun-Times in which he argues that journalists need some form of government-granted protection, but that the government should decide who is a real journalist and who isn't.
As he points out, there is currently no national "shield" law that protects journalists and their sources, although a bill along those lines is slowly making its way through the system. Durbin seems to feel a great many people should be excluded from this protection, though -- possibly for no other reason than the platform used.
The media informs the public and holds government accountable. Journalists should have reasonable legal protections to do their important work. But not every blogger, tweeter or Facebook user is a “journalist.” While social media allows tens of millions of people to share information publicly, it does not entitle them to special legal protections to ignore requests for documents or information from grand juries, judges or other law enforcement personnel. There's your new have-nots, if Durbin's deciding. Here's the list of who Durbin feels actually deserves the "journalist" label and its associated protections. A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined “medium” — including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news website, television, radio or motion picture — for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism. The internet: illegitimate journalism. Journalism isn't a static object with a single definition, it's something people do, with or without the title, and the dissemination of these endeavors spans many platforms. While there are a lot of old school journalism outlets listed, Durbin also includes "news website," which covers a whole lot of gray area (Buzzfeed? TMZ? Vice?). Without further details, it would appear a "news website" will probably have to be anchored by one of the other "time-honored" journalism outlets.
If a newspaper journalist writes a blog on the side or maintains a Twitter account, are those sidelines protected because of his or her position, or is it only what appears on the printed page/associated news website? Or conversely, if someone's journalism efforts are mainly relegated to platforms not covered by Durbin's list but occasionally contribute to "legitimate journalism," does that cover the non-associated online work as well? No matter how these instances play out, "journalism" is being defined by media form rather than by the activity itself. While the government should recognize freedom of the press and grant protection to journalists, it becomes problematic when the definition is narrowed to pre-existing forms that don't truly reflect journalism as it exists today.
Durbin says that those who think the government shouldn't be able to define journalism need to be reminded that 49 states already do just that. That doesn't make these definitions better or more acceptable and certainly shouldn't be taken as some sort of tacit permission for the federal government to define what media forms it will protect and which it won't.
He goes on to cite recent events as evidence this protection is needed. The leaks of classified information about the NSA’s surveillance operations and an ongoing Justice Department investigation into who disclosed secret documents to the Associated Press have brought this issue back to the forefront and raised important questions about the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and how our nation defines journalism. Journalists should certainly be shielded from those who think they should be prosecuted for exposing leaked documents. But this administration isn't interested in protecting whistleblowers and, if it wasn't running up against existing "freedom of the press protections," would probably be punishing journalists as well. Allowing the government to pick and choose who is protected will likely result in a large number of unprotected journalists, thanks to an inadequate definition. And even this additional protection is unlikely to prevent entities like the DOJ from violating the Fourth Amendment in a search for sources and whistleblowers. If you're already violating civil liberties, breaking a law isn't much of a concern.
We are glad to see a concerted response from grassroots media against a move towards funding from corporate media foundations. The goal of these foundations and their outreach is only more control of even grassroots media so please stay away from these money sources. We need the American people to be the media----community newsletters and organizations that discuss public policy and share it. Do not allow global corporations and their pols to further restrict information!
REBUILD FREE PRESS THAT HOLDS POWER ACCOUNTABLE!
Resisting the Corporations: Indymedia and the Knight Foundation
A $200,000 grant proposal, submitted by a group of Indymedia volunteers to the Knight News Challenge contest, has been blocked by other IMCs and subsequently dropped due to the abiding ethos that Indymedia is a counter to corporate, money-fixated media entities.
The grant application to the Knight Foundation was to fund technical development work for Independent Media Centres (IMCs), also known as Indymedia, and has caused much controversy within the global network. The debate has also encapsulated, once again, the thorny issue of how to sustain radical projects without compromising that radicalism by accepting tainted money.
A small group of Indymedia volunteers from various IMCs, but mainly from IMC Boston, USA, had hastily applied to the Knight Foundation's News Challenge contest, with the aim of developing an 'Indymedia Drupal prototype'. Drupal is an open-source Content Management System (CMS), which is a free software to manage the contents of websites more easily that has a wide community of developers worldwide. Many Indymedia sites already run on Drupal and many Indymedia techies have been working on Drupal Indymedia sites. The CMS, however, is said to be unable to cope with high-traffic sites or provide the decentralisation that sites like Indymedia require to avoid repressive measures enacted by states when confronted by dissenting content, including confiscating the servers that host such sites.
Earlier this month, Indymedia volunteers worldwide were surprised to discover that the Knight grant proposal had been made, seemingly in the name of the whole global IMC network, and taking credit for the work of other IMCs that have nothing to do with the Drupal group. 13 IMCs across the globe, including IMC UK, were listed as 'participants' in the project, even though some of them had not seen the proposal before and others named are not even currently active collectives. The applicants say there had been a 'miscommunication' and that they did not fully understand how the 'complicated' IMC structure worked. The proposal has since been blocked by IMC Rosario, Argentina, who expressed their dismay at the handling of the matter. Other IMC's across the world have also joined the block, including IMC Netherlands and IMC London. A statement by the latter, which is part of the IMC UK network, said: "Please, never make an application like this in our name without asking us."
While some questioned why "sooo much money" was needed to do a Drupal site, many were angered by the idea of paying IMC volunteers to do work others do for free. "I think paying people to do Indy work is one of the very core problems here," one IMCer said. "Why do you think techs 'deserve' to be paid? What about all the other IMCistas? What about the people who publish to the [Indymedia] sites? What about people who do the less glamorous work of keeping the sites useful day after day? What about people who have bled in the streets to tell the stories that must be told? Why privilege some IMCistas over others? Once we begin down this road, we start saying that some people are more valuable, more important, to this work than others."
Although Indymedia's Principles of Unity do not specifically have a rule against paying people or against applying for grants, they do state that "all IMC's consider open exchange of and open access to information a prerequisite to the building of a more free and just society" and that "the IMC Network and all local IMC collectives shall be not-for-profit." In February 2003, the global IMC-Finance working group drafted so-called Principles of Funding for Indymedia and proposed them to the network. These suggested that "any group or individual that is attempting to get funding for Network-wide projects, on behalf of the entire network, must notify imc-finance in good faith, with enough time for a meaningful public commentary." Another principle stated that, "when a local IMC applies for funding, they must [make] sure [they] clarify that they are acting on behalf of only their local IMC, and should differentiate between an individual IMC [and] the Indymedia Network." The Principles of Funding have not been formally agreed by the global IMC network.
This is not the first time funding has caused controversy within Indymedia, which strives to maintain its independence and anti-corporate stance. In September 2002, the notorious Ford Foundation proposed to fund an Indymedia regional meeting. The proposal was eventually rejected as many IMC volunteers, particularly some from Argentina, were uncomfortable with accepting money from 'such a dodgy organisation', which is believed to have links to the CIA.
The Knight News Challenge is an international yearly competition that funds "innovative ideas" using digital media to "transform community news and information exchange." It was launched in autumn 2006 by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, with a $25m budget to be spent over five years. More than $11m went to 25 winners in the first year (2006). In 2007, there were 16 winners out of 3,000 applicants.
The Knight Foundation's principal work has been its Journalism Program. Since 1950, the foundation has invested nearly $400m in 1,000 'partners' to "advance quality journalism and freedom of expression worldwide." The program has in recent years focused on "leading journalism excellence into the digital age," which the Foundation define as "fair, accurate, contextual pursuit of truth."
The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation describes itself as "an American private, non-profit foundation dedicated to promoting journalism and supporting the vitality of 26 communities" where the Knight Brothers owned newspapers. It began as the Knight Memorial Education Fund in 1940. In its first decade, most contributions came from the Akron Beacon Journal and Miami Herald. Following the practices of their father Charles Landon Knight, John S. Knight and James L. Knight gave small grants for "journalistic causes." In 1974, Knight Newspapers merged with Ridder Publications to create Knight-Ridder Inc., at the time the largest newspaper company in the US. Lee Hills, former president of Knight Newspapers, became Knight-Ridder chairman and CEO. Its trustees include Paul E. Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a vice president at Dow Jones & Company. Until it was bought by The McClatchy Company in June 2006, Knight-Ridder was the second-largest newspaper publisher in the US, with 32 daily newspapers. Having purchased Knight-Ridder, the McClatchy Company is today the second-largest newspaper publisher in the US after Gannett. It owns 32 daily newspapers in 29 'communities' (or markets), with a total circulation of 3.3 million, in addition to a number of less-frequent 'community papers'. At the beginning of 2007, the company had 14,000 employees and $2.34bn in assets.
The Independent Media Centre, or Indymedia, is a global network of independent, alternative media activists and groups, offering grassroots, non-corporate and non-commercial coverage of social and political struggles. The first IMC was set up in November 1999 to report on the anti-WTO protests in Seattle, directly from the streets, and correct the distorted coverage in the mainstream media. The network has grown massively over the years and remains closely associated with the anti-capitalist and global justice movements. Indymedia is most famous for its open-publishing newswire, where anyone can publish their news without any editorial or political hierarchy, as well as its open and democratic process of decision-making.
So why would a mainstream media giant like the Knight Foundation fund an independent media project like Indymedia? As one IMC volunteer put it, "how are they going to get eager, committed geeks to help them design new, participatory, Indymedia-like, websites for their 2nd-largest newspaper empire in the USA, while, at the same time, stopping the participation from getting out of control? A competition by *their* foundation, the Knight Foundation, to fund some of the *best* people developing software for grassroots, geographically based, community media sounds like part of the answer." The long-time Indymedia volunteer adds, "In my humble opinion, the Knight Foundation competition is not just *a competition* by *a foundation*; it is a competition intentionally designed by one of the biggest DEpendent media companies in the USA with the main management goal of developing 'Manufacturing of Consent 2.0'."
Printed courtesy of Corporate Watch