On Monday my television
received Current TV (though by that time it was mostly showing mostly the
penultimate and final days of people like Jim Morrison and Richard Pryor - or
maybe it was non-stop episodes of Vanguard, which is has been among the best
American journalism in the past eight years or so). On Tuesday, when that
channel had transitioned to Al Jazeera America, it was no longer available for
my viewing pleasure.
We are in the throes of
a debate about information and the power of information, though that may not be
obvious to most of us. Sure we've all watched the spectacle of Edward
Snowden's escape to Russia, though much of our attention has been
centered on Snowden's weirdness (he's got sort of a 'foreign vibe', even though
he was born in North Carolina... or it may just be a 'geek vibe', though I,
myself, am a bit of expert with that and it doesn't usually trigger my
odd-radar), but the real debate about who ought to have access to what
information and how much that should cost (if anything) is raging. This
debate is also not just a debate, it's a battle and has already had casualties.
In the era of WikiLeaks, the
end of internet privacy (at least for people cool enough to have twitter
followers or loads of Facebook friends), and corporate data-mining, information
has become a commodity (and to say so, a cliche).
The other side of #openInfo, though, is, necessarily, the free
dissemination of all perspectives. Right now, corporations have access to
all manner of information about our everyday lives, preferences, and activities
(governments may also be privy to the same), however, as soon as a private news
organization, with a stated desire to broadcast all perspectives and
de-centralize American journalism, begins its broadcast (or even its earlier Western Hemispherical
movements), American corporations say, "no, that information is
not suitable for your consumption" to its customers.
This has been largely covered by the mainstream
infomedia... (the Slate article I link to here focuses on the
unusual financial situation of Al Jazeera and raises the "problem" of
non-profit news [though I, for one, cannont understand why anyone would think it a problem that an organization whose purpose is to disseminate information is not primarily focused on profits. To me it's a
similar no-brainer to the {non}question of for-profit colleges or health care
companies that are more interested in profit than patients]).
Al
Jazeera America reveals another obvious pitfall of American
journalism, which is its inherent 'coastalism.' Coastalism has,
necessarily, been a problem of our nation since its inception, but the
continual focus on our geographic extremes has lead to our polarized political
standing today. The disintegration of hard news and the
'talking-head-ification' of news broadcasts has re-centered journalism on the
conversation and not the content. Just imagine what it will mean when
there are journalists in news bureaus in Chicago, Nashville, New
Orleans, and Detroit (DETROIT!) to name a few, who are
vying to get their stories on the air.
AJAm will approach
American news, I hope, with a fresh set of eyes, realizing that their is a
whole middle of the country, which is under-represented in most American
journalism. Reactionary companies like Time Warner and AT&T should be
boycotted as much as possible until they come to understand that restricting
the type of information available to people is immoral if not criminal.
In the end, I expect AJAm will be available on U-Verse, but the attempt
to destabilize the launch makes AT&T yet another American corporation
worthy of scorn. Not that that's really news to anyone...
