Review on "1,000 True Fans"

"A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce."

Having 1,000 true fans would prove to be quite successful as an upcoming journalists. And more than just 1,000 likes, follows or 'friends,' but actually people who are genuinely interested in seeing something I produce. However, converting those "lesser fans," into the 1,000 true seems almost more difficult than finding the 1,000 in the first place. 

When I read the section about those younger artists like me, though, I was more at ease. "You make a living instead of a fortune. You are surrounded not by fad and fashionable infatuation, but by True Fans. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there."

As one person, I would think maintaining 1,000 true fans would be difficult, but as a larger corporation, it seems much more easy. Either way, it's good to know that the "there is a place in the middle, that is not very far away from the tail, where you can at least make a living. That mid-way haven is called 1,000 True Fans. It is an alternate destination for an artist to aim for."

But then I saw that it actually is easier to get these fans as one person... There's lots to think about when you start producing a product that people are interested in and want to purchase, or want to follow. Now, with social media, there's no excuse not to have a hardcore fan base. 

I think that as an independent journalist, it's definitely something to consider if you're selling a product like your documentary on DVD and need to make up for production costs. But if you're simply just a journalist to help inform people, does it really matter? 

Review on "His Fans Greenlight the Project-Robert Greenwald Tapped a New Funding Source: The Audience" William Booth (Washington Post, 8/20/06)

"They got $267,892 in 10 days."

Wow. Jim Gilliam and Robert Greenwald must have a lot of people that like them enough to generate that kind of money...from the Internet!

Though the pair did generate larger donations, like $100,000 from an anonymous philanthropist and $82,000 from a medical equipment entrepreneur, "the rest, $185,000, came from 3,000 small donors giving an average of $62 each."

While the Internet has sometimes caused more problems than solved them, this is an instance where modern technology like the Internet is actually just a wonderful thing. Not everyone has Internet connections where they live, but most have access to it. And we're not just talking about the U.S., but on a much more global scale.

I'll admit, I don't think I've ever gone to see a documentary at a theater, or even bought one on DVD. However, once controversy ensues, I'd probably find a way to watch it if the topic interested me enough. The other thing about this is, while some people are totally against war, Iraq and a lot of political decisions, still, so many choose to stay in the dark about what's really going on. We've seen this so many times in history, whether it be Vietnam, the Holocaust, or 9/11, that people choose not to know, because they don't want to know how bad a situation truly is, or they even go as far to deny that certain events in history just never happened.

Anyway, I haven't seen Iraq for Sale, but it was uploaded to YouTube in 2010. The video has nearly 300,000 views, but that's 100x the amount of small donations that were given to create it! Baby steps.

Review on John Tozzi's "Bloggers Bring in the Big Bucks" (Business Week, 7/13/07)

John Tozzi's Business Week article was enlightening, to say the least. It's crazy to think "a personal obsession can turn into a popular favorite and maybe even a full-time job." 

That's how the I Can Has Cheezburger meme and website started, anyway. However, it's maintained its success by allowing its readers to be involved. I suppose that's kind of how a lot of websites work- allowing readers to contribute or comment keeps them actively engaged in the website. At Ithaca College, a similar meme website (Facebook page) was set up, cleverly named Ithaca College Memes. Conveniently set up during midterms, the Facebook page's likes grew drastically, hundreds of contributions per day were being made and no studying was done. However, after a few weeks, the site died down, and hasn't been touched since 2012. 

Since Eric Nakagawa was smart, he knew he had to "constantly tweak the site to see what draws readers and what leaves them cold." Nakagawa also knew they had to "try to time their new posts with when people are most likely to be reading: in the mornings, on their lunch breaks, or in the evenings."

The slideshow we viewed in class shows more websites that I never knew about and how they got their start, or how successful they are now. Websites like Boing Boing, Kottke, or Gothamist are a few to mention. Gothamist in particular is part of a larger website community that expands to cities as far as London. Gothamist is specifically about all things New York City- politics, culture, news, food and more. It had immediate success that allowed its expansion. 

Many websites started from just personal obsessions or passions came out to be quite successful, and while some host many ads in order to maintain financial stability, others have just gained a following large enough to make them great on their own. 

Review on Josh Marshall's talk "The Growth of Talking Points Memo" (Sept. 2008)

Talking Points Memo was something quite successful to come out of the Florida recount situation in 2000. Josh Marshall's discussion about how TPM started brought up three good points.

The first point being that TPM relied heavily on the community in order to be successful. People donated money, which was obviously helpful, but more importantly, people contributed their own research to help TPM in what Marshall described as "collaborative journalism."

Second, Marshall pointed out that TPM raised $100,000 from fundraising, but not in large chunks of donations. These donations were small; $50 were maybe the largest amounts people were donating. This only goes to show that TPM received many donations in order to hire new, young journalists. In the age of pay walls on websites like The New York Times or Newsday, less and less people want to pay for news, but rather for the hiring of new journalists to report it. People want free news, but they don't believe in it enough.

Lastly, Marshall says, "The point at which we succeed, we also lose the story," meaning that when the independent journalists have gotten the mainstream media outlets to notice and the story gets too big, it's not their story anymore. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means it's harder for Marshall's two investigative reporters "to make much headway."

Review: "Breaking Through The Information Blockade" by Gene Hyde

Espresso and journalism. Sounds like a great (and pretty typical) combination to me. I can only imagine what it was like in 1999 to be a journalist, let alone a journalist with less than amazing Internet. The creation of the Independent Media Center, an online alternative to corporate media was how journalists before the millennium started "to break through the corporate information blockade that results from corporate control of news reporting." The rapid growth of these IMC's shows just how much media backlash there was (and still is). Now more than ever, reporting is highly corporatized and much journalism is profit-driven. It's good to hear that Indymedia "will continue to research their stories, cover issues aggressively, and take time to report on issues shunned by the mainstream press;" good journalism is not dead yet. 

Review: "Press Critic George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage" by Jeff Cohen, Norman Solomon (7/12/95)

George Seldes is probably one of the coolest journalists to have ever lived, and not just because he lived for more than a century! He truly did leave a legacy of courage; his resume boasts impressive scoops, stories and coverage of things far beyond what any reporter in his day was doing. The fact that he so boldly wrote about historic figures like Lenin and Mussolini and "pulled no punches," is something that deserves a lot of recognition. If I were a journalist in that day (forgetting that I'm a woman), it would take a lot of guts to risk my life for reporting on such historic figures as Seldes did. I haven't received a death threat yet, but I suppose if I do, I know my journalism must be pretty good! (Jokes.) Seldes' blatant disregard for what people think is something that few journalists have these days. His way of reporting may not be the best way to go about it these days, but to some extent, would be refreshing. I think every journalist should bear Seldes' words in mind, that "uphill battles" are "intrinsic to doing good journalistic work." The average journalist may not face nearly as many as Seldes did, but it makes me think we should definitely complain a lot less about the minor setbacks that do come along. 

Robert McChesney- Corporate Dominance of Media and the Internet (Q&A Session)

Robert McChesney (left)  answers questions as Jeff Cohen (right) moderates the Q&A session. 

Last night, the Park Center for Independent Media brought Robert McChesney to campus for a talk about "Corporate Dominance of Media and the Internet." Aligning quite well with our class discussions in Independent Media, the auditorium was full of Independent Media students, anxious to pick McChesney's brain.

I'll talk about one of the questions in particular, as it is something that I have recently been fascinated by.

Some context: when I knew I wanted to pursue journalism, I obviously started paying attention to the media more closely, following as many stories as I could. My family grew up watching our local FOX affiliate, but once I got to college, I learned that FOX was bad, or at least didn't align with my views. CNN was my favorite, but I think it might have just happened because it was always on in Park, the dining halls and anywhere else IC has a television. I wanted to do broadcast journalism, and I was so sure I wanted to have my own show on CNN, or do something with them.

After watching for so many years, and being exposed to so much more new media, I'm not so sure. Getting back to last night, I'm not sure of what the question was, but it was something on the lines of what McChesney thought about mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

"They don't do journalism; they're just talking heads," said McChesney, "you're just going to watch the person you agree with."

And then it hit me. For so long, CNN is 'who I agreed with,' but after observing them, they're just who I've had the most access to! Is there ever original reporting at places like CNN anymore?

McChesney said that corporations are getting out of journalism, and getting our of paying reporters to cover things. He talked about how conversely, there are about four PR people for every journalist, and about 80-90% of the media reported has been spun. There is no original journalism.

I don't want to be a talking head, and I don't want to report something (or not report something) because it makes my company money. Corporations shouldn't control journalism, but journalism also shouldn't control corporations.