Slashdot Mirror

We really need more people filming the police.

It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera . (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)

What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video.

The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct , so we neeed more people taping.

Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents , even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning .

In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight".

Cameras are getting tinier and tinier all the time, and now we have Wi-Fi enabled storage cards. When cameras get so small the cops can't see them, and people can record the content wirelessly to hidden devices, it will be a lot harder for the bad cops to stop the filming of the brutality.

This liquid lens technology sounds like it might really help create tiny and cheap cameras that people can use to bring more justice to the world.

It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera . (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)

What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video.

The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct , so we neeed more people taping.

Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents , even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning .

In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight.

Stuff like this happens all the time, and it will be a great day when we can start getting more of it on tape. Then the police can keep policing the citizens, but the citizens can also police the police.

It isn't a matter of free speech, its a social contract. Yes you have freedom to express your views but being a member of the "press" and broadcasting "News" provide certain rights that should be balanced by some simple rules like "not lying". Isn't their a rule that informercials have to have a disclaimer at the beginning to announce that they are paid advertising? Perhaps many of your news shows should have this disclaimer:

"The following program is paid propaganda brought to you by Philip Morris and the Southern Baptist Convention. Any resembelance to actual news is purly coincidental."

And by "people" you are refering to the small handful of companies that own most of your media right?
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

Senator Bids to Extend Indecency Rules to Cable

  Cable television shows packed with sex and profanity, such as HBO's "Deadwood," FX's "Nip/Tuck" and Comedy Central's "South Park," would be subject to the same indecency regulations that govern over-the-air broadcasts if the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee has his way.

Currently, the Federal Communications Commission has the authority to fine only over-the-air radio and television broadcasters for violating its indecency regulations, which forbid airing sexual or excretory material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are most likely watching.

But Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) told a group of broadcasters yesterday that he wants to extend that authority to cover the hundreds of cable and satellite television and radio channels that operate outside of the government's control. In addition to basic cable channels such as ESPN, Discovery and MTV, that would include premium channels such as HBO and Showtime and the two satellite radio services, XM and Sirius.

"We put restrictions on the over-the-air signals," Stevens said after his address to the National Association of Broadcasters, according to news reports confirmed by his staff. "I think we can put restrictions on cable itself. At least I intend to do my best to push that."

Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations.

First, I don't understand what the statistic is talking about -- "100" what? Second, I think it's probably wrong by vastly understating the problem.

The top media corporations in America include Advance Publications, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. You can go here to see who owns what. Where in 1983 it took 50 large corporations to accumulate control of half the media outlets, today 5 corporations control over half the outlets. Don't forget that there are also vastly more outlets today that were two decades ago.

Some examples: Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting unit alone owns 184 radio stations. The infamous Clear Channel puts that to shame with over 1200 radio stations. As Clear Channel notes, there are over 13000 radio stations, not to metion the other types of outlets. The statistic in the question is at least confusing and probably badly wrong.

This is an important topic, but please fact-check the question.

Who needs the NYT when we have the esteemed publication of the Reverend Sun Moon!

Of course, how many of you knew this.

There are plenty of news networks out there that are as impartial as the BBC (the BBC is not 100% impartial) that are not funded by a licence fee.

Name one.

No, the BBC isn't funded at all by the government, it's funded by the licence fee payer.

Wrong. The BBC collects the licence fee, pays it all to parliament, who then grants most of it back to the BBC. It is a Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation, which operates under a Royal Charter and government appoints its head.

The BBC may not be 100% impartial but it does have a duty, as stated in it's charter to provide full, impartial and accurate reporting and programming, especially when dealing with controversial matters. Often impartial means telling people stuff they don't want to hear, which perhaps is why conservatives often accuse it of being left wing, and visa versa.

All commercial news networks editorialise to tell people things that reinforce their worldview. They have to keep their audience happy. Thus The Sun is reactionary and opinionated, the Times is conservative and serious, and Fox is noisy and patriotic

Rupert Murdoch isn't just an arsehole; he's a dangerous, manipulative man. Tony Blair got elected because Rupert Murdoch decided to throw news international behind him. Why, we can but guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blair was now to some extent in his pocket. We will never get a majority for a federal Europe because Rupert Murdoch is vehemently opposed to it, in part because many European countries won't let him own media outlets in their borders.

Can I suggest you look at this chart of media ownership, and tell me how the ownership of the means of distributing all the news and entertainment most of us hear by six massive corporations is a good thing.

I'd like to finish by suggesting that you turn off Sky for anything other than trivial drama etc, and watch more BBC news.

Given the 2002 selections (whether your favorite won or not, it was that close) there's a solution we can win with, and you all know it. Remember the old open spectrum stuff posted here several times?

Seems to me, the first candidate to oppose our own axis of evil stands to make it over the top if they have the sense to get their opposition plastered all over the p2p networks, most especially if they can make a quick and good case for the idea that the issues of p2p and open spectrum are one and the same. (I'd use the term "connectivity", since it seems to be the language of the open spectrum folk. Open spectrum is to current tv/radio what p2p sharing is to riaa's website, in more ways than one.) And of course, even if they lose, any dent in the numbers means no future candidate can afford to lose the advantage of a p2p presence, media contributions be ... lost.

It's a little out of date now, but the field is largely still the same:

Ultra-Concentrated Media

The law on that point is that the authors have already received all they can expect on the basis of the first sale of the book; they cannot expect nor deserve more. This was codified by the US Supreme Court saying exactly that, back in 1910.

The theoretics is this: secondary markets (used-X sales, for whatever X you choose) are a characteristic of free markets; attempts to suppress secondary markets are (technically) exercises in fascism.

The pragmatics are this: for all that Paragraph 1 says that the authors already have theirs, the reality is that probably the publishers got it but the authors never saw it. It makes me sad; an editorial on MediaChannel argues that the habits of publishers would make a good object for antitrust action: see http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/bookcontrac t.shtml

Grumble, grumble - To Michael Sims: I know it's an interesting article, and it's not censorship that all my recent anticensorware reports, as well as Jonathan Wallace's research have been rejected, maybe because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

But isn't it just a little absurd to be reposting two-year old editorials as "News", while good research ends up trashed suspiciously because of grudges?

Just wait til you dig a little bit deeper and start finding the reasons to really be scared.

Remember that most news agencies are now owned by content creators.. they have a vested interest in making sure the public doesn't get riled up about this.

Check out http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/ for more information.

All journalists, and all journals, are inherently biased. No single reporter or editor can hope to compile even an approximation of "truth," in its totality, for her or his readers.

Due to its ownership, most mass media around the world has either a corporate bias (the global big-6 media monopolies are more beholden to their shareholders and advertisers than to the public interest) or government bias (totalitarian nations and state-sponsored media outlets). Even non-profit and non-commercial media outlets suffer from the whims of their donors and owners.

The philosophies behind the IMC network is that technology and the open-publishing model are expanding media-access for everyone: the poor, the under-educated, activists, advocacy groups, fringe dissidents, working people - anyone. Meanwhile, the "consensus" process allows each IMC editorial collective to put together featured content that all participants endorse and stand behind (or, at least, stand aside). This still-experimental paradigm is radically different from the hierarchical editorial structure of corporate and government media.

(also answer to ghoti221 and borzwazie)

I completely agree that remaining unbiased is not possible. But it gets my goat when it's presented as unbiased: commentaries aren't.

Guerrillanews and mediachannel were mostly thrown in there for the interested reader to get a counterbalance. The Institute for Public Accuracy might have been a better addition to the list.

Guerrillanews is more of a commentary site than anything else. Of cause you can find speculative qoutes, if you look for them, but what I appreciate about the site, is they bring on people with non mainstream views. Sometimes they are dumb, but at least they don't read from a government press release. It's deliberately opinionated, but not presented as something else.

And for mediachannel, it links so many interesting articles on "both sides of the camp". Like interviews with CNN journalists and editors.

That being said, I don't look at Guerillanews for breaking news - for sure. I read news papers, magazines and check out a range of channels. I completely agree that one source won't give you the entire picture, and that all you can is look around and make up your own mind.

My biggest complaint about CNN is NOT lou dobbs. At all. Did you read the article I linked to? Here's another complaint. There's much more.

And for CNN being regarded as being liberal biased news - hmm... let me guess. You are American and you don't have a passport, right ;) ? And even if CNN is liberal biased news, who cares? That's really not the point.

I'm glad that you see the Fox bias, because Fox always claim that they are not.

> Please, just admit it that your biggest
> complaint about foxnews is that it shows a
> conservative voice. I would find it hard to
> believe that if a news

I'm more conservative than you imagine. I'm a capitalist, for globalization etc. If all the media was libral biased, I would have less of a problem with Fox, because it wouldn't be such a big problem in terms of ratings. I just don't see that as the case now, so if one is to seek "alternative" news sources, they will generally (in the US at least) have to look a bit to the left.

Thank you thank you thank you for pointing that out.

I have a grudge with Fox, and this article didn't help either. I totally avoid it for any "War on Terror" news.

Recently Fair And Accuracy in Reporting wrote a special report titled:
The Most Biased Name in News: Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt (note that's it's written before sep.11).

Now that I am at it, CNN is no saint either, that's for sure. I feel like screaming BIASED! at the TV when I see Lou Dobbs et.al. wearing Stars and Stripes on their suit. All reporting is "WE need to fight this enemy...", "Protect OUR country...". So much for International.

No thank you, I will stick with:
- guerrillanews
- mediachannel
- and for TV, EuroNews or even BBC

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

Well, that's what I was getting at, but apparently did a bad job of explaining, so "-1 Missing His Own Point".

With all of the consolidation that is going on these days, it's very simple to control the media. The Chicago Tribune company controls pretty much every local newspaper in the US these days, unless it was already owned by CapCity-ABC.

There are about 6 or 7 corporations that control most of the "entertainment" and "news" that you see, read or hear on any given day -- here is a convenient chart of who controls what. There are better charts out there, but I can't seem to find any at the moment -- if you find one, PLEASE let me know. (the site is a little slow)

So before you make your "informed decisions" on what is going on in the middle east right now, or how well your representatives are actually representing you, or how much more important the economy is than anything else, remember that before you make an "informed decision," you need to consider the source of your information.

It gets more difficult to do every day.

I'm going by the link I made, as far AT&T and Disney is concerned, they co-own a lot of things. If that page is inaccurate, the same conclusion can be drawn in plenty of other examples. AOL and Time Warner (Warner Bros Records) themselves, for instance.

I agree that they'll cave simply because it's in their best interests to, but they're not going to sue themselves. Internet users have fewer and fewer choices; the broadband market is dominated by AOL-TimeWarner and AT and as far as alternatives go, the big fish are eating the little fish. Most people connect to Napster to download music that is copyrighted by the music division of their own ISP's 'corporate-mothership'. AOL-TimeWarner will keep 'Road Runner' and @Home users on a short leash on behalf of 'Warner Bros Records', 'Walt Disney' will keep AT&T users on a short leash to protect 'Walt Disney Pictures' and 'Walt Disney Records'.

"I wonder what the future of microbroadcasting would be like were this to happen. What would you do if you could buy a little slice of your local spectrum?"

You won't, of course, be able to buy anything. You may, if you're very wealthy, be able to lease a small portion of the spectrum, over which you can transmit a small wattage to a localized area.

Forget about a protected band of public communications being used by hackers or do-gooders to provide a public internet to everyone. Such projects are only possible because the government has set aside those bands for the public good.

If such bands are owned by corporations, which have the choice between selling your entire city wireless internet access on their own terms, and leasing you a bandwidth license so that you can provide the net for free, which do you think they will prefer? How long do you think your lease will last?

And even if you do get a lease, do you honestly think it won't include terms like "lessee agrees that no illegal information shall be transmitted across the leased spectrum, including but not limited to MP3s whose copyright cannot be verified, pirated software, all digitally encoded movies, other intellectual property not owned by the transmittor, nor any decryption programs which are illegal under the DMCA. No access to FreeNet or other encrypted piracy havens shall be allowed, and the license shall be revoked if any unauthorized data transmission is detected."

I mean, we're talking about selling off the internet of the future to companies like Viacom, who owns both MTV and its "competitor" VH1, to Sony and other record labels, to Disney who owns Touchstone, Miramax, and Buena Vista Films. These are the companies that own all the good data. Why would you want to let them set up tollbooths and checkpoints at the on-ramps of the information superhighway?

I'm being silly, of course, because no sane company would lessen its stranglehold of control anyway, unless forced to by the government, but even if they did, do you honestly think that Sony would not bother to park a van outside your home office, monitoring your wireless communications to make sure you aren't trading encrypted MP3s?

Natural monopolies demand regulation.

Jamie McCarthy

I think Katz may be overreacting a bit here...and I'm not one of the Slashdot Peanut Gallery members who flash their street creds by bashing Katz.

Some sites set up recently to help facilitate coverage of political convention related news from an "outside the convention" perspective. The news is posted in a strictly "ground up fashion," and tends towards a leftist and anarchist user base. Unsurprisingly, I find it refreshing.

Indymedia LA

Indymedia Philly (a neat implementation of slash)

And if you want to bypass the corporate press:

The Media Channel