Class April 28

End Times

Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

There are so many historic and international examples of satirical news. In Iran Kambiz Hosseini and Saman Arbabi are the most (in)famous.

Other examples from other cultures?

1.What’s do the terms satire and parody mean?

2.What does satire and parody have to do with journalism?

3.Why was Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire so popular and what did it signify?


4.What is ironic citizenship? And what do you think of it as a concept to help explain engagement today? 

5.What is the appeal of satire and irony?

6.What’s the spectacle?

Other related examples:

http://www.scrapedplate.com/

http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/

Satire and Parody: Doing What Traditional Journalism Can't

-The debate between the use of objectivity within journalism can be applied to the use of satire and "fake news". Shows such as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report utilize remixing and conduct their shows in the same form as a TV news station would with one exception; they do not have to worry about objectivity.
- The public views it under a more authentic light and the use of humor draws in particular audiences to contemporary mainstream news who would otherwise not be exposed to current political and social issues
-Herrington argues that Jon Stewart can be viewed as a catalyst for change; especially in his guest appearance on CNN's Crossfire talk show where he makes an appeal for media's civic responsibility
-Departs from the conventions of traditional journalism to provide a unique and  significant opportunity for the interrogation of power
- Calls out mainstream news outlets such as FOX News who do not follow traditional conventions of journalism in an upfront way but rather they present ultraconservative propaganda


References:
Scholarly Articles
The uses of satire:Unorthodox news, cultural chaos, and the interrogation of power 

The Daily Show and Crossfire: Satire and sincerity as truth to power

Discussion Questions:
How does the lack of objectivity both hinder and help get the message across?
How likely is it for you to seek out "real news" after hearing a specific story from "fake news" first?

Panama Papers: reminding us that bad guys still exist

As a species, humans naturally like to think the best of things. Whether we putt he silver lining in little clouds like getting a bad grade, or getting broken up with, to assuming that the people in power and those with money are not terrible corrupt people. We recently were reminded about just how corrupt our little world really is. The Panama Papers revealed to us an entire world of corruption, collusion and under-the-table deals that beforehand, had gone completely unnoticed.

            Although the papers did name some major players in Western politics, it also showed us just how terrible some people in the world really are. For example, the papers exposed a man who ran an illegal sex-slave ring in Russia. Mossack Fonseca apparently knew about this illegal and immoral activity and, instead of reporting it, decided to let it slide under the table and keep making money. Another example, Mossack Fonseca helped a company in Uganda avoid paying taxes by simply putting them in a different zone. Had the company paid their taxes, it could have led to incredible improvements in the country's health, education and infrastructure. 

               Although there currently are, and always will be bad people in this world, we sometimes forget about them. The Panama Papers have reminded the entire world to stay on their toes and to question what the people in charge are doing.

https://panamapapers.icij.org
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/08/mossack-fonseca-law-firm-hide-money-panama-papers

Snowden Advanced Encryption Technologies "7 years"

NBC Article- Intelligence Director Clapper: Snowden advanced encryption technology seven years

Encryption played a major role in the NSA leaks  provided by whistleblower, Edward Snowden, that still today almost three years later, the government continues to speak on the matter. Encryption in the world of journalism can be seen as a major breakthrough for potential sources and whistleblowers since it allows secure communication in an internet age where it is impossible to keep a sense of privacy. Without encryption tools, Snowden would not have had as a secure of a connection when contacting the press and the possibility of him being monitored thus preventing the leaks would have gone up significantly. However, with a major breakthrough such as this one that gives the public a sense of privacy, the government becomes very awry and thus make accusations of how this endangers the public.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper claims that Snowden advanced encryption technologies  7 years and said that "it is not a good thing", so much so that he also stated that it stops the government from monitoring terrorist activity from the Islamic State. When looking at this from an objective standpoint one must consider that James Clapper is part of the government therefore he sincerely sees encryption technologies as a threat and will continue to push for further control over the public's information. On the other hand, one must consider the other side to this breakthrough and take a step back from drastic claims that include the Islamic State. Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation states that encryption allows people to protect themselves from vulnerabilities and also claims that there has been no incident where "but for strong encryption, we could have stopped a terrorist attack". Reflecting on these claims further reiterates how the government will continue to exercise their power and draw a thin line between privacy in the public. Encryption is a tool that must be embraced not limited, especially within the world of journalism.

The Panama Papers and the Role of the Journalist

The Panama Papers is the biggest leak of information in the history of the world. A 2.6 terabyte leak of files held by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca was investigated by journalists in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and more than 100 other news organizations. It took the journalists over a year to sift through all of the information, but what they discovered a host of scandal and corruption all perpetuated by some of the world’s political and economic elite. Some of the richest and most powerful people in the world are avoiding taxes and hiding their money in offshore accounts, and companies are moving their money to these so-called tax havens. These tax havens are countries/independent areas wherein taxes are levied at a low rate, which allows companies to hide their money there in order to save millions, or even billions, in taxes.

The Panama Papers uncovered an entire network of scandal and corruption among the world’s elite, but what can be done now? The journalists can only present the story, but have no say over what happens to those involved or those exposed. A recent article on The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists website discusses this idea, and digs into how the ICIJ was even approached by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office about a criminal investigation the office has opened regarding those who are a part of the scandal. The ICIJ declined to be a part of the criminal investigation, and ICIJ Director Gerard Ryle even said “ICIJ does not intend to play a role in that investigation. Our focus is journalism.” This is an important idea for journalists to keep in mind, as the media should be focused on presenting the story and gathering the information. The media should not be attempting to punish or harm someone, regardless of the information they uncover. The role of the journalists, in leaks especially, is to get the information to the people in an unbiased, correct manner. The role of the journalist is not to help decide the punishments of the people he or she is reporting on, especially when considering the power and prominence of modern day media. In no way is media an extension of law enforcement, and like Ryle said in the ICIJ article, “ICIJ, and its parent organization the Center for Public Integrity, are media organizations shielded by the First Amendment and other legal protections from becoming an arm of law enforcement.” No media organization has to comply to release evidence or assist law enforcement, and this is the way things need to stay. Leaks like the Panama Papers always come with some sort of consequences do to the scandalous nature of what they are bringing to light. There will always be some sort of effort by the government to fix what was presented, and the government might expect the journalists to assist in “fixing” these issues that they have brought to light. However, this is an unfair role for the journalist, and should not be expected, as the journalist should present information as opposed to acting upon it.

Sources:

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160421-us-investigation-hongkong-editor.html

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/4/11360290/panama-papers-findings-document-leak-explained

Snowden’s process to leak information involved a significant amount of internet communication like IMs and emails. In order for him to stay protected, he needed a high-level of Internet security brought about through sophisticated encryption technology.  Since Snowden was acutely aware of the NSA’s intelligence operations, he knew he was not safe. He knew he needed to block their surveillance. Although Snowden had never worked with the media or journalists, he knew how the communications should take place.

This changed the role of journalists when it comes to protected sources. Since most communication between journalists and sources happens over the digital landscape, the communication is not protected. Snowden’s story showed the world of journalists that (1) for sources to be protected they must communicate through encrypted channels and (2) that most American’s are already being observed. Therefore, the story of the leak itself with the measures Snowden and others took to protect their communication, alerted journalists to the sensitivity of information. Also, ironically the leak was about how insecure our private lives really are.

Journalism has changed in regards to source protection. It was stated in the New Yorker article that investigative reporters often do not have the skills necessary to protect their sources. This puts a new responsibility on responsible journalism.      

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/snowden-changed-journalism

http://www.newsweek.com/year-after-snowdens-leaks-journalism-adapts-253683

Who do we trust?

Shortly after Snowden revealed himself as the whistle-blower behind the 2013 NSA leaks, Glenn Greenwald wrote 15 June 2013 in The Guardian that “the purpose of whistleblowing is to expose secret and wrongful acts by those in power in order to enable reform. A key purpose of journalism is to provide an adversial check on those who wield the greatest power by shining a light on what they do in the dark and informing the public of those acts.” I strongly believe that Greenwald’s comment speaks broadly to the idea of journalism as a social phenomenon of trust and transparency. Journalism in the era of leaks and networked media has definitely become a profession of trust, in which actors and the system itself must perform with trust being both a prerequisite for action as well as a constraint.

It has become a normal reality that journalists and their sources can be targets in an effort to hunt down whistle-blowers. The reason? Journalists often have to reveal uncomfortable truths, about politics, about national security, and sometimes about topics that are barred from entering spheres of debate. Often times, as EuroNews reports, we do not want to trust journalists because we do not want to face reality. For example, today the so-called LuxLeaks trial opened in Luxembourg City, in which three journalists will be evaluated for their role in leaking information about international tax deals for multinational European corporations. Many Europeans see the exposure of the deals as an important part of cleaning up the business world, but find that the trial affronts press freedoms. In this sense, the risks that the LuxLeaks journalists took to expose these secret deals is communicated as exacerbating the lack of trust between government and the press, thus damaging the already-difficult relationship between national security and how much the public should know.

GIGAOM notes that it is, indeed, difficult to identify something as “trustworthy.” On the one hand, in Quartz, Akshat Rathi discusses the issue of “why [people] cannot trust journalism,” drawing comparisons to the separate fields of journalism and science. Rathi argues that journalists are often not trusted because it is difficult to provide “truths,” unlike in science. On the other hand, some people suggest that we turn to trust journalists because we have lost trust in everything/everyone else, as a Canadian survey recently revealed. Others, like Wired, suggest that the degree of trust in journalism and news outlets is dependent upon the style of reporting. For example, ICIJ Director Gerad Ryle called the Panama Papers a solid trust effort on the part of everyone involved, demonstrating a shift in reporting style and collaboration: “We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly.” Ultimately, I think that trust, like journalism itself, is a process of (re)construction. Who we are willing to trust says a lot not only about ourselves, but also about what we are willing to risk in trusting that person/outlet. 

Whistleblowers and Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning (originally born as Bradley Manning) was assigned in 2009 to an Army unit in Iraq as an intelligence analysts. Having access to classified databases, in early 2010 she leaked three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified, sensitive military/diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks and confided this to her online acquaintance, Adrian Lamo. She was arrested in May of that same year and convicted in July of 2013 on the bases of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses.

While in prison, Chelsea is still actively publishing documents and tweeting out (her most recent tweet being April 21st) about her life in prison, and her area of journalism. You can find her twitter here. One of her most recent articles When will the US government stop persecuting whistleblowers? posted on March 18, 2016 on a support network for her, goes into depth about the National Insider Threat Task Force, which was formed after her arrest, under the authority of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other US government agencies. The broad mission of the program is to deter any threats from anyone who willingly or unwillingly misuses their access to government documents. In her article she states that this program, "works against innovation, creativity and the prevention of institutional corruption. Perhaps this is the real intent of the intelligence community and the Insider Threat Task Force – to instill fear and project dominance throughout the intelligence community, the military, and among government employees and contractors at large."

How Chelsea is still able to actively tweet while in prison, I'm not sure. However, there are many support sites on her behalf advocating for her freedom, and just on Twitter she's accumulated 71.6K followers. Through The Guardian Chelsea has her own column, in which she publishes articles mostly about her life in prison, LGBTQ rights, and basically whatever she knows on national security debates.

Although Chelsea is imprisoned she is still able to contribute and write about what she feels is valuable and important information. She has accumulated more readers/followers while being in prison, and for her reasons sending her to prison, then maybe she had before. She leaked massive amounts of information and was punished, however she will more than likely survive her sentence (35 years) and will be released, and while in prison she is still able to work. This makes me wonder if it will inspire more journalists/analysts who have information they feel should be public, to make the jump and actually leak it based on her situation.

Privacy and Anonymity Tools

For all the talk of surveillance and spying I thought I'd post some links to some open source tools you can use to ensure online privacy and anonymity.

Tails (or The Amnesic Incognito Live System) is used by a lot of journalists, including those involved in reporting the Snowden leaks. It's a sort of uber mobile computer that you install on a portable memory drive that functions independent of you computers operating system. It comes with several preconfigured applications including a web browser, IM and email clients, office suite and image and sound editor. You can use it with a Mac or PC.

If you just want a protected browser you can download a TOR browser here.

Open Whisper Systems has free tools for private messaging and calling from your iPhone or Android.

And here is an article on how encryption was used by the US founding father and throughout history not just as a military tool but as a tool to protect the privacy of those fighting for democracy including by James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights.

The Privacy of Whistleblowing, Leaking, and Journalism

I have never fully understood the backlash that emerges from whistleblowers or leakers brought on by journalism. I was surprised to see how willing Snowden was to reveal himself to the world. How he didn't care to be defined as a leak. However, by exposing issues of privacy, he lost all of his privacy. I am curious as to how the role of privacy defines and evolves within whistleblowing and leaking through the media's representation.

A recent vice article  describes a whistleblower as someone who's only choice is to go to the press to right a wrong wherein a leaker is someone who is personally invested in a subject to use media to generate awareness. The article goes on to assert that a leaker is more protected than a whistleblower, but I've found conflicting beliefs within other news outlets. For example, in this story, the rights of a whistleblower are more protected via the Whistleblower Protection Act. More so, the article addresses the idea that the difference between whistleblowing and leaking emerges from the content of the information disclosed. Because the information disclosed by a leak is often more classified or of higher importance to the government, the protection and the privacy of leaks is compromised. Those in power will try anything they can to reveal identities and in a sense destroy the privacy of leaks.

With this idea in place, I believe that within the context of journalism, both whistleblowers and leakers live a life in the public beginning with exposing the private. While some sources are able to remain hidden, still, no source is erased from journalism. Anonymous does not exist anymore, and the world of leaking has evolved existing as a more present force of journalism than ever before. When I look at journalism's relationship to leaking, I now see a violation of privacy. This violation though is almost like a sacrifice. Whistleblowers and leakers risk or sacrifice their own privacy for journalism. Before learning about all of this, I never fully understood why coverage of whistleblowers and leakers was as extensive as it is, but now I see that journalism is just as hungry for exposing privacy as it is for protecting it.

Twitter as a new age news source

            As technology changes and improves, many aspects of daily life change with it. The question is whether these changes are improvements or if things are only changing for the worse. In journalism, this topic is highly debated. Some experts say that journalism is dying due to the fact that people are not reading newspapers or getting their news from sites like The Wall Street Journal anymore. I highly disagree with these experts and side with Stijn Debrouwere. Debrouwere claims that news today is as strong as ever and that it is just changing. Before the internet, people would read the newspaper in the morning, skimming headlines to try and pick out stories that were applicable to their lives. Once the internet was up and running, people would simply go to the news site that corresponded with their favorite newspaper. Now, there are sites that compile massive amounts of news and allow people to skim through the headlines of many news sources to find the best articles for them. Twitter.com is likely the most prominent and customizable of these sites. Users simply chose which news sources will likely interest them the most and follow them. The news accounts usually post the headlines and links to most, if not all, of their stories. This allows users to scroll through all of the news that they want to see. Not only that, but since users can follow other users, I can see what my friends are reading about. Somebody might follow a news source that I do not know about but will likely interest me. Twitter makes it much easier for users to discover new news as well. Back in the day, before the internet and all of these customizable sources, it was much more difficult for people to discover new sources of news. You essentially could only read the news that was in your area. Now though, thanks to sites like twitter, people can discover any side to a news story they want, as well as discover new aspects of the news that they never knew existed.

Discussion Questions:

1. Where do you see news gathering going in the future?

2. Can social media function as social media AND as a news site?

3. Where do you gather your news?