Donate Today! Help us help others.

Lynch Coaching


Thursday, March 20, 2014

Netflix is pro Net-Neutrality, despite being the first to pay for faster access to reach customers....

Netflix Blasts ISPs, Calls For “Strong” Net Neutrality And Explains Why It Pays Comcast

Leap Motion Lays Off 10% Of Its Workforce After Missing On First Year Sales Estimates

When Netflix agreed to pay Comcast as part of a peering agreement in the wake of the legal demise of net neutrality, the landscape of the Internet changed.
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings today published an extensive blog post explaining his and his company’s views on net neutrality and why it now pays an ISP that it feels should be better regulated. The reason? Because it has to:
Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection.
How does Netflix define strong net neutrality? Here’s its definition of “weak” net neutrality, to begin:
The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don’t restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.
Strong net neutrality is sterner stuff, according to Hastings:
Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.
So Netflix wants to take things further and demand that peering agreements akin to what it signed with Comcast to be unnecessary. That’s sensible, given that it’s a growing cost source for the media company.
Quo warranto, you might ask; it’s a fair question. The foundation that Netflix leans upon to dispute the fact that peering agreements are a bad idea is twofold. First, that if Netflix had to fold under pressure and pay up, “imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future.” This is a rebuttal of the idea that since Netflix can afford the fees, the situation must be just fine. YouTube would have been killed in its crib, I think, under the terms of Netflix’s current reality.

The second part of Hastings’ argument against peering is more complex:
Some ISPs say that Netflix is unilaterally “dumping as much volume” (Verizon CFO) as it wants onto their networks. Netflix isn’t “dumping” data; it’s satisfying requests made by ISP customers who pay a lot of money for high speed Internet. Netflix doesn’t send data unless members request a movie or TV show.
Interestingly, there is one special case where no-fee interconnection is embraced by the big ISPs — when they are connecting among themselves. They argue this is because roughly the same amount of data comes and goes between their networks. But when we ask them if we too would qualify for no-fee interconnect if we changed our service to upload as much data as we download** [** in other words, moving to peer-to-peer content delivery] – thus filling their upstream networks and nearly doubling our total traffic — there is an uncomfortable silence. That’s because the ISP argument isn’t sensible. Big ISPs aren’t paying money to services like online backup that generate more upstream than downstream traffic. Data direction, in other words, has nothing to do with costs.
Netflix here is being impish. The first paragraph above shifts the onus, I think fairly, on Netflix’s traffic quantity from itself to paying customers of the ISP. If those customers didn’t want Netflix, it wouldn’t comprise so much bandwidth. And as the customers are paying the ISP for Internet access, having them turn around and bill Netflix for what they already sold is an odd setup indeed.
The second paragraph is more of a middle finger in print, as you can see. The bit concerning ISPs peering amongst themselves is only applicable to a point.
Comcast released a stern but polite response:
“There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast. We supported the FCC’s Open Internet rules because they struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and reasonable network management rights for ISPs. We are now the only ISP in the country that is bound by them.
“The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades. Edge providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs. We are happy that Comcast and Netflix were able to reach an amicable, market-based solution to our interconnection issues and believe that our agreement demonstrates the effectiveness of the market as a mechanism to deal with these matters.”
Its point on peering is worth pondering.
I doubt that Netflix will get what it wants in regards to peering, given a lack of precedent for that sort of regulation. But its so-called “weak” net neutrality? That we need very much.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Even Superman can't save journalism

Read All About It: Superman's Alter Ego Quits Job

text size A A A
October 23, 2012
In the upcoming issue of Superman, the man of steel's alter ego — mild mannered reporter Clark Kent — quits his job as a reporter. Audie Cornish and Melissa Block wonder what this says about the state of journalism and what might be next for Clark Kent.

And the World Wide Web Was Born...25 years ago!

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the World wide Web. the internet goes back to the late 1960's however. The internet was a global connection of supercomputers and has became a connection of all computers today. Go to Marketplace Money for a detail on the difference and the birth of the World Wide Web in a paper published 25 years ago tomorrow. In 1994 Netscape made "The Web" available to the public using a common Internet browser.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Cynical View of Journlism

“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.” 
 - Oscar Wilde

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Are we losing control of our media, and what impact will it have on our future?

Michael Copps is leaving FCC
From the LA Times Company Town: click here for this story and other industry news.

FCC's Michael Copps worried about media landscape

 April 4, 2013

The media has for the most part put serving the public interest on the bottom of their to-do list.

For over 10 years, Democratic Federal Communications Commissioner Michael J. Copps played the role of Howard Beale at the regulatory agency. Like the TV anchor from the movie "Network" -- the role made famous by the late Oscar-winning actor Peter Finch -- he was often mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Copps, who is resigning from the FCC at the end of the month, has always been far more outspoken than the typical regulator. He was unafraid to offend the powerful companies he was charged to keep in line.

Much of Copps' venom was directed at the handful of big media giants -- CBS, News Corp., Comcast Corp., Viacom, Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner -- that own the majority of broadcast and cable networks as well as the local television and radio stations.

While there are hundreds of cable and broadcast outlets, the bulk are controlled by just a few companies. "There are a lot of different puppets, but it is the same ventriloquist in control," Copps likes to say.

It was not unusual for Copps to be the lone vote of dissent when it came to big deals at the FCC. He gave a thumbs down to Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal this year, saying it put "too much power in one company's hands."

Consolidation, he constantly argued, has led to a lack of diversity both in the executive suites and on the air. Minority and female ownership of television and radio stations is in "abysmal straits," he said in a recent interview with Company Town.

In his view, the mainstream media has for the most part put serving the public interest on the bottom of their to-do lists. Last year, he said television news was "in its hour of grave peril" and not "producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue."

The reason, he suggested, is that consolidation in the local television and radio business resulted in stations "owned by mega-companies and absentee owners hundreds or even thousands of miles away -- frequently by private equity firms totally unschooled in public interest media."

Copps said that the new owners "often look to that newsroom and the number of reporters there and say we can get by on fewer." The end result, he added, is that "resource-rich investigative journalism hangs by a very thin thread." Copps noted that many television and radio stations, as well as newspapers, have cut down on the number of reporters covering the nation's capital as well as their own local governments. 
"In too many cases we have dumbed down the civic dialogue," he said.

Copps would like to see broadband become a bright spot for new voices in the marketplace. However, he fears that the same consolidation that took place in traditional media will happen online as well.
"We're letting broadband go down the same road we let television, cable and radio go down, controlled by too few people," he warned, adding that is a "huge danger to our democracy."
Copps points the finger for much of this at his own agency.

"The FCC has endorsed just about every merger and transaction that has come before it; we seldom meet one we don't like," Copps cracked. The agency, he said, is walking away from oversight of the public interest.

As an example, Copps points to the relaxed rules for television station owners to renew their broadcast licenses. In the past, broadcasters had to renew their licenses every three years and provide comprehensive reports of their news and public affairs efforts. Now it is eight years between renewals and there is much less enforcement of public policy requirements, according to Copps.

"You send a post card and get a license," Copps said.

Copps attributed his brashness to the 15 years he spent working for former Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), who was chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the FCC.
"He was a man who told you what was on his mind," Copps said, adding that Hollings "viewed politics in large part as a process of educating. I kind of got in that mind-set too."
Another factor that gave Copps the freedom to speak his mind was that he wasn't worried about his next job while doing his current one. There is a revolving door between government and business in Washington.

For example, Copps' former colleague Meredith Attwell Baker left her gig as a commissioner to go work for Comcast earlier this year and former FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell has had stints in private equity and now is head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., the lobbyist for the cable industry.

President Obama has nominated Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel to replace Copps and Republican Ajit Varadaraj Pai to succeed Baker.

Copps, who is 71, said he plans to hit the lecture circuit to make the case for "a media that reflects the needs of the people."

FCC's Copps says journalism is in hour of 'grave peril'
FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker defends move to Comcast
Sen. Rockefeller says media is dumbed down

-- Joe Flint

Photo: Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg News

Is Journalism Dead? Can Democracy survive in todays business model for news?



"Nowadays, when stations are so often owned by mega companies and absentee owners hundreds or even thousands of miles away — frequently by private equity firms totally unschooled in public interest media — we no longer ask licensees to take the public pulse. Diversity of programming suffers, minorities are ignored, and local self-expression becomes the exception."



Journalism is in hour of 'grave peril,'

Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps is taking aim at the state of television news, which he says is "in its hour of grave peril." In both an interview with BBC World News America that airs Wednesday and in a speech at Columbia University's School of Journalism he is to deliver Thursday, Copps charges that the media is falling far short when it comes to serving the public.

American media is not "producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue," Copps said in an interview with the BBC's Katty Kay. That trend, he added, has to be reversed or "we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about the future direction of their country.”

COPPS But Copps, who has never been shy about criticizing big media, doesn't just point the finger at them. He says his own regulatory agency allowed much of it to happen through deregulation that cleared the way for a massive consolidation in the industry.

In his remarks to Columbia, which his office provided to the Los Angeles Times, Copps writes: "The place where I work — the Federal Communications Commission — blessed it all, encouraged the consolidation mania, and went beyond even that to eviscerate just about every public interest responsibility that generations of reformers had fought for and won in radio and TV."

As for the digital revolution being able to fill any void left by traditional media, let's just say Copps' Columbia remarks reveal a bit of skepticism:
“What,” you say, “peril in a 500-channel universe? Peril when the touch of a search button delivers a veritable library of mankind’s acquired knowledge to our various digitally fueled devices?  Peril when we can chat online with strangers on the other side of the planet as easily as our parents talked with their neighbors across the backyard fence?”

Though Copps acknowledges there is much to celebrate, he notes, "Increasingly, the private interests who design and control our 21st century information infrastructure resemble those who seized the master switch of the last century’s communications networks." Furthermore, he argues that though there may be many more platforms both on TV and online, the news itself is coming from fewer sources.
In his remarks, Copps paints a grim picture of today's media. He notes that more than half of the 50 states have no full-time reporter covering Capitol Hill. He cites a study by the USC Annenberg School of Communication & Journalism's Norman Lear Center showing that the average 30-minute local news broadcast has less than 30 seconds devoted to local government news. (The research was focused on Los Angeles news broadcasts.)

"If it bleeds it leads, but if it’s democracy’s lifeblood, let it hemorrhage," Copps cracks.
The FCC has oversight over local TV and radio stations but not the broadcast or cable networks. Local stations get licenses from the commission to operate. Copps wants to toughen up the renewal process, which he says today is a "slam-dunk, no-questions-asked" procedure.

Copps wants stations to commit to covering more debates and issues-oriented programming during election years. He also wants stations to be more in touch with the communities they serve.
Writes Copps: "Nowadays, when stations are so often owned by mega companies and absentee owners hundreds or even thousands of miles away — frequently by private equity firms totally unschooled in public interest media — we no longer ask licensees to take the public pulse. Diversity of programming suffers, minorities are ignored, and local self-expression becomes the exception."
-- Joe Flint
For the rest of the story and additional meidia and showbusiness news click here to go to Company Town at the LA Times.


Daniel Schorr on the perils of the poor

"It took a recession to reveal the full effects of the welfare restrictions. It's hard to get people to go from "welfare to work" when there is no work" reported NPR Senior News Correspondent Daniel Schorr, a seasoned newscaster and commentator going back six decades. At 94 he may be the oldest and most experienced working American journalist.

On Wednesday's "All Things Considered"
Schorr speaks honestly on the network about his views on welfare, social security and the way our society is shifting to very poor and very wealthy. His view is an educated one, having lived in various countries, worked under the tootilage of "Edward R Murrow's boys", lived and reported through over a half a decade of history and interviewed most every president during his tenure as a reporter.

I suggest you listen to the full commentary rather than simply read the text summary.

What are your feelings and/or observations on what he has to say?

How do you feel about the topic covered?

Photos from inlude Daniel Schorr just before his 90th birthday in 2004, and Schorr on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 2001.

Since this was first posted, Daniel Schorr has passed way and is missed by NPR listeners, the journalism community and all of those who respect history, facts, and percpective. Click here for photos, audio and obit from July 23, 2010. Schorr was 94 and still working.

What will our society become?

What we have lost is the sense of obligation to cover the news, even if people are not interested, it is boring, it is costly, it is complex or it is unpopular.

Journalism of the Internet age has become about what people want to believe, not what they should, about being mad at the other guy rather than understanding them, finding what supports what you think rather than what may be true or at least need to be known to move forward.

It has contributed to stalemate in government, both parties, students telling teachers what they can and cannot teach, broadcasters showing only what the majority or mean common denominator want to see and hear instead of that needs to be seen or heard.

What direction will the world go? What world are we leaving our grandkids and great grandkids?


Freedom of the press

"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." 

-- Edward R. Murrow

Originally posted in October, 2009

Should we have free access to information or be made to pay for it? Would that create a wealthy elite running a country of easily let sheep? Do you believe in the free flow of information or should it be controlled and limited? How about blogging, text messages, Twitter, FaceBook, and other social media? Does it bother you that those who write may not know what the heck they are writing about? Or that others can spy on you and access the information even years or decades later? Is the media dead and dying? How do you feel about the loss of newspapers and the trained journalists they employ? Or the evolution and changes from journalism to entertainment news?

What will be the impact of media convergence? What are the trends shaping what you think you know, where it comes from and who decides what is the truth? What direction will our right to information take? Or will we lose it as a right, replaced by a privileges for the wealthy or educated elite who are willing to pay for information? What would happen if we lost free access to information, and the ability to reason and make decisions based on open and accessible information? What happens to society if we stop the free flow of news and needed information?

It has long been said that students do not consider anything that happened before they were born worth studying and learning about. But time should be spending covering and learning about societies where information was carefully controlled, crafted and manipulated. From William Randolph Hearst in the US, and the Spanish-American war, to Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin’s masterful use of propaganda, modern societies have shown themselves a susceptible to being lead and misinformed by, and gladly believing and following those who decide what is right, or true or worthwhile. We face that same reality if we do not defend our freedom of information, speech and ability to seek our divergent, contradictory and even controversial ideas, thoughts and versions of reality.

Free speech must be defended, and open and diverse professional news media, the rights of citizens to report and share news and ideas and our ability to make our own decisions, in the ballot box, in court rooms, in our everyday lives. Informed decisions.

This was written in November, 2009 and updated several times up to and including the posting you are reading.

Why do we hear only what we want to hear?

In our heavily mediated world, with sound bites, slogans, small groups able to build support and communicate using everything from cell phones to Internet, sociologist have identified the formation of  "communities" where once they could not exist. No matter what your view or your ideology, you can find others who believe with you on a world wide scale.

The more you invest in communicating and being a part of this group defined by "special interests", the greater the feeling that these beliefs and perceptions are far more universal then they are. You begin to view the world through a prism that tells you that you are correct, right, and that "everyone" agrees with you.

As that develops, in social groups, a wall develops around the group and the individual, not unlike the walls that were built around Medieval cities or the fences we build around our homes, schools and communities. The need develops to keep out those who might not agree or any threat to the group.

So, why do we hear only what we want to hear?

Because in an age of mass communication we are bombarded with messages and our natural reaction is to erect walls, and allow only what or who we wish to have come through the gateway. We have no choice, but in doing so we close ourselves to others and the universe becomes "us" vs. "them", or "right" vs. "wrong" without any room for compromise or even a willingness to let others into our sphere, unless they are converted to whatever we believe or say.

So we are, in an age of far greater access to information than ever before in history, drifting toward a "dark age" of walls and defensive barriers.

One theory is that the volume and access of information is making these walls possible, and reinforcing them with steel and barnacles.

We can now read only what we want to read, see only what we want to see, hear only what we want to hear.

Is there a parallel to declining verbal literacy? To declines in education? To rapid shifts in politics and a lack of willingness to work with opposing views?

Do you think we listen to all views?

If you do what do you do to open the windows and doors?

What gets in the way in your life? In the world around you?

This topic is very current in communication, sociology, psychology, political science and all forms of liberal arts social studies, because the trends and evolution will impact our future.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Media is "dumbed down"...Rockerfeller sees the decline of an educated electorate

From the LA Times Company Town, click here for industry news.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) used a Senate Commerce Committee confirmation hearing for two new nominees to the Federal Communications Commission as a platform to do some media bashing.

At the end of a two-hour confirmation hearing for Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel and Republican Ajit Varadaraj Pai, who have been nominated to succeed Michael Copps and Meredith Baker as FCC commissioners, Rockefeller said the television news has been "dumbed down" and entertainment programming has become too "obscene" and "promiscuous" for his taste.

"Everybody yells 1st Amendment so you never get very much done about it," he griped to the prospective FCC commissioners.

Rockefeller, who chairs the powerful committee that has oversight of the regulatory agency, asked Rosenworcel and Pai what the FCC could do to clean up the airwaves. Rosenworcel, who served as counsel to Rockefeller before her nomination to the FCC, said "video programming is really powerful stuff. Some of it is not so enlightening and not so healthy."

However, neither she nor Pai would go so far as to say the FCC needed to be harsher with regards to raunchy content.

Unfortunately for Rockefeller, the FCC's current indecency regulations are under attack from the courts. In June, the Supreme Court said it would hear arguments over whether the FCC's enforcement of its rules against foul language and overtly sexual content violate the Constitution. Last year, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the FCC's rules were "unconstitutionally vague" and had a "chilling effect."

Rockefeller also said he's "not a great fan of Facebook" and expressed concern about the role social media plays in the coarsening of society.

Both Rosenworcel and Pai are expected to be confirmed.

This is not the first time that the Democratic senator has been critical of the media. At a hearing last November, he ripped Fox News and MSNBC and suggested he wouldn't mind if both went away.
"I hunger for quality news," he said. "I'm tired of the right and left."

Senator Rockefeller rips media
Supreme Court to decide fate of FCC's indecency rules
Comcast makes rare mistep in handling of Baker hire

-- Joe Flint
Photo: Sen. Jay Rockefeller on Capitol Hill in August 2011.  Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press. 

Friday, March 7, 2014

The State of the News Media

Is Journalism Dieing? Or is a key element of our democracy on life support but still kicking.

This week, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism released its annual “State of the News Media” report, detailing the health, or in this case the frailty, of mainstream US media online and off. The report contained a litany of grim statistics about the consumption and economics of news. Bob talks to Pew Associate Director Mark Jurkowitz, who says the situation isn’t is bleak as it could be.

The State of the News Media 2013 is the tenth edition of our annual report on the status of American journalism. The study contains special reports on how news consumers view the financial struggles of the industry and how the local, cable and network TV news landscape has changed in recent years. It also includes analysis of the main sectors of the news media and an essay on digital developments. The report is the work of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. A subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world

In 2012, a continued erosion of news reporting resources converged with growing opportunities for those in politics, government agencies, companies and others to take their messages directly to the public.
Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since its peak in 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. 

In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007 to 2012. Across the three cable channels, coverage of live events during the day, which often require a crew and correspondent, fell 30% from 2007 to 2012 while interview segments, which tend to take fewer resources and can be scheduled in advance, were up 31%. Time magazine, the only major print news weekly left standing, cut roughly 5% of its staff in early 2013 as a part of broader company layoffs.  And in African-American news media, the Chicago Defender has winnowed its editorial staff to just four while The Afro cut back the number of pages in its papers from 28-32 in 2008 to 16-20 in 2012. 

A growing list of media outlets, such as Forbes magazine, use technology by a company called Narrative Science to produce content by way of algorithm, no human reporting necessary. And some of the newer nonprofit entrants into the industry, such as the Chicago News Cooperative, have, after launching with much fanfare, shut their doors.

This adds up to a news industry that is more undermanned and unprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands. And findings from our new public opinion survey released in this report reveal that the public is taking notice. Nearly one-third of the respondents (31%) have deserted a news outlet because it no longer provides the news and information they had grown accustomed to.

At the same time, newsmakers and others with information they want to put into the public arena have become more adept at using digital technology and social media to do so on their own, without any filter by the traditional media.  They are also seeing more success in getting their message into the traditional media narrative. Continue reading the Overview.

Questions about the Media. Part I

·       Identify five to ten forms of media (note that many fall under other   
        larger categories).

·       How are they used differently? What are the differences?

·       Which has the greatest impact on you?

·       Which has the greatest impact on society?

·       What are the shortcomings of each type of media?

·       What advantages do traditional media have over emerging media 
         and vice versa?

·       When does an emerging media become traditional?

·       What new media might the be in the future?

·       If you are a reporter with access to all forms of media distribution,
which do you choose first to tell a story?

·       Why? How? Target market?

·       Explain how you might have answered this question differently 
        20 years ago.

·       How might you have responded five or ten years ago?

·       How fast are media consumption habits changing?

·       How much of new media is simply a form or flexibility for older media?

·       What is media literacy? 

        Is it important to be media literate? 

        How does one become media literate?

·       Who are the gatekeepers

         Is there a way to circumvent the gatekeepers?

        Do you feel the gatekeeper is still or has ever been necessary in media?

·       What areas of media are you most interested in?

George Lucas on Teaching Visual Literacy and Communications

0:09>>The issue we're discussing here in terms of multimedia literacy is
0:14that we stress so hard learning English and learning English grammar
0:20and then we shove music and art
0:25and most schools don't even get into cinema.
0:30We move those over into some sort of artistic which means sort
0:34of therapeutic or fun thing.
0:37It's not approached as a very valid form of communication.
0:41Kids know this.
0:43When you take a five year old, they can speak, they can use words,
0:49they don't know how to write very well
0:50and they may not know much grammar, but they know how to speak,
0:54they also know music, they may not know the grammar of music,
0:58they know cinema because they spend a huge amount of time in front
1:01of the television so they know visual communication,
1:03they know the moving image.
1:05They intuitively know a lot of the rules,
1:08but nobody's actually taught them anything,
1:09anymore than they've taught them anything about grammar in English.
1:12So we go through school and then later on we start
1:15to learn the grammar of English, you have punctuation, capital letters,
1:20you'll run on sentences, what a verb is.
1:23But nobody teaches anybody about what screen direction is,
1:28what perspective is, what color is, what a diagonal line means.
1:34Those are rules; those are grammatical rules
1:37that appear in an art class.
1:39If you've taken art class, the first thing you'll do is get into graphics
1:42and you start learning well a jagged line means this
1:45and a blue color means this or red color means that.
1:48So if you're trying to convince somebody that what you want
1:51to do is excite them, then you use red or yellow.
1:55If you're doing it with music then you use a fast rhythm,
1:59not a slow rhythm.
2:01You don't have to teach them necessarily how to read music
2:04and you don't need to have to teach them how to be an artist,
2:08but you do have to teach them how to use the grammar of the language.
2:11Somehow we've gotten to the point where the words have gotten way
2:16up here and these other forms of communications, which all started
2:18out equal and at the beginning, much more equal before we had words.
2:23Somehow in the educational system they'll need to be balanced out.
2:28So the kids could communicate using all of the forms of communication,
2:32not just put it into little categories and say you really need
2:38to learn how to use a verb; that's much more important
2:41than learning perspective or learning screen direction.
2:46But it's not really, especially in this day and age where the power
2:52of multimedia is coming to the children.
2:55It used to be like with cinema,
2:59only the very elite professionals worked in this medium.
3:04But now anybody can work in it.
3:07>>Are we talking about a new way of teaching?
3:09>>It is a different way of teaching
3:11in that I think English classes should broaden themselves
3:15and my personal thing I think we should rename English
3:20to be-- I mean I know in some schools we call it language arts,
3:23but I think it should be renamed communication.
3:25It's a communication class and you learn the English language,
3:29learn how to write, you learn grammar, but you also learn graphics.
3:33If you take graphics out of the art department, take cinema and put it
3:36into the schools, take music out of the music department.
3:39If you want to learn how to play an instrument, if you want to learn how
3:42to be a composer, then you can go to the music department.
3:46If you want to learn how to do beautiful renditions of paintings
3:50and follow the great artists then you go into art class.
3:54But if you really want to just learn how to communicate,
3:56then what is the basic grammar of communication then
4:00that should be taught basically in the communications class,
4:02it shouldn't be taught in some esoteric arty thing,
4:05it should be taught as a very practical tool that you use to sell
4:10and influence people and to get your point across
4:15and to communicate to other people.

Guidelines for the "New" Journalism

Voice of San Diego: New Reporter Guidelines.
(Voice of San Diego is an on-line citizens/non-professional journalism project).

We only do something if we can do it better than anyone or if no one else is doing it.
* We must add value. We must be unique.
Three things to remember for each story: 
* Context
* Authority
* Not just what is happening, but what it means
There is no such thing as objectivity.
* There is such thing as fairness.
* But everyone sees everything through their own filter. Acknowledge that, let it liberate you. Let it regulate you.
* We are not guided by political identification, by ideology or dogma. But every decision we make, from what to cover to how to cover it, is made through our own subjective judgments.
* We are guided by an ability to be transparent and independent, to clearly assess what’s going on in our community and have the courage to plainly state the truth.

Click on "read more" to continue.