"The Internet is Dangerous for Democracy" – The Mexican Spring

This article posted in 2012 details a mexican protest surrounding two key issues at the time. The first is the President.  The second is Televisa - the massive Mexican media conglomerate.  The protestors were enraged due to the corruption of the media and the television "news" organizations favoring the President - a bias that was not coincidental. The President has been accused of paying off news organizations for favorable coverage.

One of the most important features of a healthy and functional democracy is a diverse, honest, and informative media. This was the simple demand of the "Mexican Spring" – a democratic protest if there ever was one. They had trouble spreading the word of their movement initially however. The very institutions they were protesting were also responsible for their fair and accurate coverage. Unsurprisingly, Televisa did not cover the democratic protests.

Here is the importance of  the internet. Lacking in mainstream coverage, the movement needed to rely on "alternative" means of mass communication. Through blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other independent media the protests were able to get the word out considerably more effectively than if they were to rely on traditional media.

“The Internet is a danger for democracy,” these are the words of Jean-François Copé, the French politician. What can I say that will convey the depth of Copé's confusion, and the vital importance that the internet has on today's democracies?

An Unacceptable Business Model for Indy Media

Staying Alive came out in the American Journalism Review. The article talks about the struggles of old media to keep journalists, and steady revenue streams, and how new media has had a similarly difficult time financially. One of the differences is the adaptability of new media, and the fact that its costs can be extremely low relative to a large scale operation like the New York Times. The impetus for this post is regarding a comment made by Stephen Engelberg of ProPublica in "Staying Alive." He said that the ideal business model for ProPublica would be something, "like a very good museum. It charges people to come in and also raises good money."

I believe there is something deeply wrong with this model.  Journalism is a public service - a requirement for every voting member of a democracy to consume.  Information is not a privilege, it is a right. I am not ignorant of the financial realities confronting media of all types. New business models are required to meet the technological and social developments of our time. However, charging admission for journalism is not an acceptable business model. The cost to consume an organization's journalism would eliminate the readership of at least some of the poorest of this country, and the world. This would keep the poor ignorant, and therefore effectively disenfranchise significant portions of our voting population. What's more, this is the same population that is the most vulnerable to political outcomes.

Simply put, a cover charge for journalism keeps political information away from the individuals that most need it because they are the most affected by political goings on.

Whistleblowers and Watchdogs

I'm coming late to the game, but I want to comment on an article that came out on August 20, 2012 in The New York Times By Michael Moore and Oliver Stone: Wikileaks and Free Speech. The article sheds much needed light on the Julian Assange "Sex Scandal" revolving around allegations of sexual assault. Sweden has issued a warrant for his arrest, though he has not been formally charged of any crime. The article takes care to note that Dr. Assange has, on multiple occasions gone out of his way to encourage investigations in accordance with this allegation to clear his name. He has made it clear that he can cooperate from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, however the Swedish government has requested that he come to Sweden under arrest. Dr. Assange has expressed willingness to comply under the condition that Sweden pledges not to extradite him to the U.S. to be tried for criminal activity. Sweden has made no such pledge which leads Moore to argue that the entire point of the sex scandal was to get Assange to Sweden to get him to the States.

This was the impetus for this post. I would like to see where in the Constitution it says that the United States can legally try a citizen of another country for crimes that were committed outside of the United States. Moore highlights this point arguing that if the United States has the legal authority to conduct such a trial, what is to stop other world powers from legally trying whomever they feel is a criminal international. This, to me, is a perfect instance of the kind of American foreign policy reasoning that Jeremy Scahill has called, "A twisted logic - a logic without end."