Waiting for a Chicken Tenders Platter at Applebee's...

One night last week, I had a work-related evening appointment which lasted until nearly 9 PM. I wasn't thrilled about having to fix myself dinner at that hour, so I went to an Applebee's near my house. Lately the Applebee's chain has been hosting live music at some of its locations (along with other odd variations on the “family restaurant” theme, such as face painting.) I ordered my usual and waited.

As I waited I heard a young woman, a solo acoustic singer-songwriter type who was strumming away on her guitar and singing lyrics of the “confessional” sort. Most people were oblivious to her, but because she was situated next to the bar, some of the patrons there applauded her at the end of each song she sang. One middle-aged man was paying particular attention to her, repeatedly asking her if she would come away to Australia with him. Later on he began to harmonize with her, contributing “oohs” and “ahhs” that were actually in key, surprisingly enough. Still, his “contributions” got on my nerves, and I was glad that I was sitting several tables away. At one point, the man asked her, “Can you rock out?!” “Yeah, when I have my band!” was her answer.

I found myself asking myself why this woman was singing at an Applebee's on a week night. This led to the larger question of why there were so many people like her, both male and female, whose chosen ambition was to make it big as rock or pop stars or singer-songwriters. After all, the field is very crowded and after a while, everyone starts to sound the same. “Making it” in the business has come to mean being signed by some major record label, and becoming rich and famous shortly thereafter. But the music “industry” has many gatekeepers who have turned music into a standardized, commoditized package consisting of a limited selection of musical “flavors.” I am sure that it's very hard for an artist to be widely heard outside the dominant system.

What of those who are outside the dominant system? It seems to me that one key to their continued existence (and happiness) is that they've lowered or altered their expectations of what they want to get out of their music. They have turned their backs on trying to be famous. If they are trying to make a living, it's via teaching (or busking) or performing at weddings and other functions – and they have a backup “day job.” Otherwise, they play just for the fun of it. (Maybe that's what that woman at Applebee's was doing.)

This got me thinking about blogging. The same sorts of questions could be asked of many bloggers, especially the left-leaning, anti-materialist sort who write politically-tinged blogs. “Why do you do it?” And, “Don't you know that you all are a dime a dozen by now? Who pays attention to you, anyway?” “You think you're gonna change the world just because you went to Guitar Center and bought a guitar and an amp?” “You think you're gonna change the world just because you started a blog?”

There's an uncomfortable reality behind these questions. One blogger said recently that in the United States, we have the illusion of freedom of speech. This is because while anyone can say almost anything they want, the chances of any ordinary person being heard by a large audience are very small. The balance of media power is still skewed very much in favor of a small number of very wealthy people who have inordinate media access, and who use that access to unrelentingly hammer home their message, their worldview, and an agenda that is harmful to many.

But there is a further problem, namely, that most of America has been advertised to death by now. As a result, most of us are jaded. In the minds of many of us, anyone who has a message must have some ulterior motive which will cost us dearly if we allow ourselves to be persuaded by the message being offered. “Besides, we've heard it all before,” many of us say. “Why should I trust you?”

I don't have easy answers to any of these questions. I have to admit that when I first started blogging, I guess I had some half-conscious idea that “I could change the world” – maybe just a little. Now I'm much less optimistic. At this time in our national and societal history, when we are facing a comprehensive predicament that will require intelligence, maturity and the starting of adult conversations that most people would rather not have, the best I can hope for is that I can engage a handful of others in an adult conversation. And I appreciate the conversations of some of my fellow bloggers, conversations which I have been privileged to join. We can think of ourselves as participants in a “house concert.”

Citizen Media - The Stories We Must Tell

We come on the ship they call the Mayflower,

we come on the ship that sailed the moon;

We come in the age's most uncertain hours

and sing an American tune...

– Paul Simon, American Tune

As I have said in previous posts, corporate media is a tool of the present masters (owners of the major pieces) of our economic and political systems, and is used by these masters to enforce the present status quo. This is done by telling the story of the rich as if it was the only legitimate story, by marginalizing the stories of the poor, and by suppressing any dissent to the present system. Thus corporate media is unwilling to accurately depict the failings of and threats to the prevailing system, or to state the need for alternatives that threaten the power of the masters of this system.

So we hear of green shoots instead of plain evidence of continued economic collapse; Peak Oil is never discussed; major newspapers write editorials against genuine health care reform; and the threat of man-made climate change is not publicized. When alternatives to the present system are discussed, their discussion in corporate media is frequently in disparaging tones (as when describing those “frugal doomer/survivalist loonies riding bicycles and raising chickens!!!”). When the rich prosper (as in stock prices rising due to corporations cutting costs and returning dividends), this is held up as a sign that the economy is recovering – even though hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are still being thrown out of work each month.

When left to itself, corporate media ignores the stories of the exploitation of the poor by the rich. When the poor rise up against such exploitation, their action is either not covered at all, or is too frequently called “agitation,” “terrorism,” “militancy,” or some other derogatory term. Corporate media portrays certain segments of humanity unsympathetically in order to legitimize the robbing, exploitation and general mistreatment of these segments by the rich masters of First World society.

Citizen media is a countermeasure to all of this, a weapon by which the poor and powerless can defend themselves. Citizen media is the means by which we can tell our story when no one else will. Here are some stories we should be telling:

• The general stories of our communities and of the people in them. This is especially important for poor people and minority neighborhoods. When mainstream America sees that we are just as human as the subjects favored by the media, they can't easily oppress us in good conscience. They can't so easily write our neighborhoods off as merely another “high-crime” area or “blight district.” Create a biographical sketch of the people of your place, of their hopes and fears and struggles and humanity.

• The things we are doing to make our communities a better place. This includes not just general betterment, but also steps to make our places resilient in the face of economic collapse and resource constraints. Show the world your care for your place by showing the investment of time and effort that you are putting into your community.

• The actions taken by some of our economic and political masters to break our neighborhoods, destroy our resiliency and exploit us. By publicizing these stories, we make it harder for the big people to get away with what they are doing. Talk especially about the things being done by the big guys (both corporate and governmental) to thwart the things ordinary people are doing to make their communities better and more resilient.

These stories must be told in a format that is of high quality, regularly updated and readily accessible. This will mean hard work for would-be citizen journalists if they want to turn out a quality product. (I can testify that trying to write a quality blog is hard work! It takes a serious investment of time.) But those who rise to such a calling will find that it's quite rewarding. A case in point is the example of Ralph Kennedy and those with him who founded the Fullerton Observer, a local independent paper based in Fullerton, California. The Observer is available both in hard copy and on the Web as a free download. I recently asked Ralph's daughter Sharon Kennedy for some background information on the Observer as well as thoughts on running a community newspaper. Here is her response:

“The Observer was started on a shoe-string by a group of friends after the OC Register bought up the local hometown paper (and 31 others) and turned it into an advertising rag. The friends each had their interest in a certain part of the town such as city hall, police relations, homeless issues, affordable housing, transportation and bike trails, education, keeping some open space, etc. or accomplished other tasks such as pasting up (before computers), driving to the printer, picking up the papers and distributing them.

“Each reported on meetings and happenings around town on their issue and each contributed money to the paper for years before it became self-sustainable. Over the years the paper has had an influence on numerous issues and has made the town of Fullerton, one of the better towns in OC. It also created a sense of community by offering citizens a place to sound out and find others with the same concerns. And since it is read by Fullerton officials, these concerns reached city hall in a different way and built support or opposition which improved our town in one way or another. The paper helps keep officials and institutions accountable to the people of the town.

“The paper also served local entertainment by letting people know what was offered right here in town and local businesses by providing inexpensive ad space so they could offer their services and products. It is a very rewarding all-volunteer community written paper which makes it unique. All towns used to have a hometown newspaper. Another effect of the paper has been to make the OC Register have to create a more adequate version of the Fullerton paper they bought. My father, the founding and longtime editor Ralph Kennedy felt independent newspapers are necessary for a healthy democracy.”

One final note is in order. Citizen media now relies heavily on Web-based tools such as blogs. But we must also begin to look beyond the Web to other means of cheaply and easily broadcasting our stories. This is especially true now that the freedom of the Web in America is coming under increased scrutiny from the United States government (as in the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009). Of course, the governments of several other nations, including China and Iran, are already trying to restrict the freedom of Internet communication for their citizens. Therefore we must not put all of our citizen media eggs in one Web basket.

Citizen journalists may therefore need to rely more exclusively on “old-fashioned” means of distribution such as hard-copy community newspapers. But there are other means of sharing electronic media beside the Web – especially with the availability of cheap memory sticks, CD burners, and such. We may see the revival of the “sneakernet,” as described in the following link: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/02/sneakernet-beats-internet.html.

Citizen Media In Action - A Few Examples

Here are some links to citizen media in action – namely, citizen video being used to publicize important issues and to defend groups of poor and marginalized people now threatened by our official economy.

• “Minnesota Homeless Denounce Health Care Cuts...on YouTube!”, Allvoices, http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3924443-minnesota-homeless-denounce-health-care-cutson-youtube. Evidently, activists with cameras are teaming up with homeless people in the Twin Cities area to raise the issue of lack of medical care for the poor. This is a fitting antidote to the spectacle of shouting right-wing shills at “town-hall meetings” now being shown by the mainstream media. There is a link at the bottom of the article that allows people to see all the YouTube videos produced by the homeless advocacy group.

• “Homeless fight back with high tech,” St. Petersburg Times, 2 February 2007, http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/02/Southpinellas/Homeless_fight_back_w.shtml. This story is a bit old, yet it shows how homeless people were able to fight the breakup of their encampment by shooting video of police actions using cheap, disposable, 2007-vintage digital cameras.

• “Jailers Accused of Forcing Recorded Inmate Boxing Matches,” Inmatesworld, http://www.inmatesworld.com/news/weblog/1441.html. It appears that last year, jailers at the Grant County Detention Center in New Mexico forced inmates to engage in multiple boxing matches with each other (yet another evidence of the corrosive effect of our prison system on the prevailing American culture). The jailers were caught and indicted due in part to videos taken by a cell phone belonging to one of the jailers.

• “Citizen Videos Spread Online Showing BART Police Officer Shooting Unarmed Man To Death,” boingboing, 6 January 2009, http://boingboing.net/2009/01/06/citizen-videos-sprea.html. This was an horrific event; yet the good thing about the abundant citizen video is that the wicked man wearing a police uniform – the man who committed this murder – now has no cloak or excuse for his deed.

Lastly, allow me to introduce a term many readers may not have encountered before: “sousveillance,” which can be loosely translated as “watching from underneath.” Sousveillance is inverse surveillance in that, as surveillance is typically understood as the watching of ordinary citizens from above, that is, by people in positions of power, sousveillance is the watching of the holders of power by ordinary citizens. It is the act of keeping tabs on people in high places and their agents, by those who are underneath. Sousveillance is a form of self-defense for poor and working-class people.

Most of us can now engage in a bit of sousveillance, due to the availability of cheap yet capable digital cameras and cell phones with video capture capability, along with YouTube and blogs in which video can be embedded. And there are vendors selling digital cameras optimized for output to YouTube (see the Slippery Brick review of an entry-level camera: http://www.slipperybrick.com/2009/08/casio-ex-z33-digital-camera/). And for a more in-depth discussion of sousveillance, see these articles: http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3b.t-3.html and http://www.sousveillance.net/.

* * *

Some other items: I have taken a few more steps to reduce my dependence on the breaking systems of the official economy and its energy sources. This week I got LASIK surgery. So far, everything seems to have turned out fine, and hopefully I'll never need glasses or contacts again. I am also superinsulating my house. (Sooner or later I've got to finish building that chicken coop...) It's good to make oneself resilient and to prepare oneself for doing without, as I think most of us are going to have to do without shortly.

Our office had warned me that I might be laid off. That was over a month ago. Yet miraculously, work has continued to dribble in. I feel a bit like a man on death row who's been given an all-you-can-eat buffet ticket for his last meal, and who likes to chew a hundred times before swallowing each bite. Anyway, I still have a job...

Dave Cohen of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO-USA) has written a really interesting article about the huge inequality in income between the richest 10 percent of Americans and the rest of us. It's titled, “The New Gilded Age,” and it can be found here: http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/08/the-new-gilded-age/. It's a good read if you want to see yet another example of our thanatoeconomic system and how the fortunes of the rich rise whenever the livelihoods of the rest of us are taken away.

Telling Your Story As Self-Defense - Necessary Tools

I'd like to rejoin a theme I first took up in my post titled, “A Safety Net Of Alternative Systems - Citizen Media.” That post dealt with the fact that most major media outlets in the United States are owned by a mere handful of very rich corporations, who have a vested interest in presenting a view of life in this country that does not line up with reality. Rather, what they present is designed to maximize profits for advertisers and to support the policies of those who hold political power. Therefore they tell us that “most Americans don't support single-payer health care,” or that “the economy is turning a corner,” or “the signs show that the recession is ending,” or “green shoots of economic recovery are starting to sprout.”

Yet there is a much harsher, grimmer, contrary reality inhabited by a large and growing population of Americans. Millions of us are on the verge of experiencing this reality, or have already begun to experience it. Although the mainstream media occasionally covers some of its less controversial aspects, there are stories that are almost never probed by any mainstream news outlets. Many of these stories deal with the barriers created by governments and corporate masters to prevent ordinary people from becoming resilient in the face of economic collapse, and the ruin that comes to ordinary people as a result.

These stories must be told. Telling these stories – as loud as possible, to as many people as possible – is one of our best defenses against the system of predatory capitalism in which we live. The widespread telling of such stories makes it harder for the rich to get away with continuing to prey on the poor. In my earlier post on citizen media, I talked a bit about how ordinary people can tell their stories, as well as the digital tools they can use to get their stories out to the public. In today's post, I'll talk a bit more about tools for capturing the real stories we see happening all around us.

The importance of pictures

We've all heard the cliché, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” In reporting controversial or contested events, pictures serve as an important element of verifying the truth. For instance, the abuses of Iraqis by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were documented in pictures taken by cell-phone cameras. (Source: http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/cat_the_military_and_iraq_images_and_issues.htm)

If a still picture is “worth a thousand words,” videos are worth much more. Videos capture incidents as they are happening, and they can do so in such a way that there is no room for alibis for perpetrators of evil deeds. This is very important when the perpetrators of evil are agents of the government. Some good examples of video capture of government evil are the video of the Rodney King beating, the videos of the G20 protests (including the one which showed British police attacking Ian Tomlinson), and the videos of the recent Iranian protests. Of course, the most effective videos have reasonably high resolution and high quality. Shooting such videos requires suitable equipment.

Tools for video capture

What qualities should should a citizen journalist look for in a video camera? Such a camera should be rugged (or at least not fragile), unobtrusive, and easy to use without having to read a lot of books. It should provide clear images, moderate to good low-light capture, adequate optical zoom, and smooth video (in other words, not excessively jerky). And it should have a low price. Nowadays there are many video capture devices available, including cell phone (and iPhone) cameras with movie capability, “point and shoot” digital still cameras with video capability, and actual camcorders. How do these devices measure up?

I was thinking hard about this question around three or so weeks ago, when on a sunny Saturday afternoon, my own camera came to mind. It is a Sony Cybershot DSC-W70 with a 7.2 megapixel sensor, and I bought it in 2006 for under $200. I have been entirely satisfied with its still picture capabilities including low-light picture taking. But I had tried capturing video in low light shortly after I bought it, and noticed that it could only produce extremely grainy videos below a certain light level (not good if someone had to shoot an outdoor nighttime scene). I decided to see how it did in broad daylight.

On my front porch, I did a couple of panoramic sweeps, including one in which I captured one of my neighbors pulling out of his driveway and going down the street. Then I captured a kid on a skateboard passing by. The neighbor and the kid were at least thirty feet away from me at the point of closest approach. Then I uploaded the video to my computer.

As I watched the video, I noticed that most objects were broadly recognizable. I could read the license plate on my own vehicle in the driveway, which was about eight feet from me. However, I could not read the license plate number on my neighbor's car as he pulled away, nor could I recognize the face of the skateboarding kid, whose motion was rather jerky in the video. Also, though the camera allowed for changing zoom during still picture capture, the zoom was locked while recording video.

It seemed that my camera's limitations would prevent capturing video of the quality seen from citizen journalists who covered the G20 protests. Would such video require a camcorder? Or were the video capabilities of digital still cameras evolving to the point where they could compete with camcorders? I decided to visit a digital photography store to find out.

My Interview at Pro Photo Supply

Armed with questions about citizen media and digital video, I called on a few stores to arrange an interview. One store unfortunately only sold film cameras, and another store which is part of the Ritz Camera chain was unwilling to take time for an interview. Then I called on Pro Photo Supply, a locally owned, well-stocked digital photography store located in northwest Portland. (By locally owned, I mean that not only is the store in Portland, but so are the owners.) There I met with sales associate Judd Eustice, who was very helpful and knowledgeable.

We talked about modern camera trends, which are leading to the eventual creation of a one device that can do both still picture and video capture, and can do both well. At this time, there are camcorders that can provide single frames, as well as camcorders with a dedicated “still photo” button. Their still image quality is not yet at the level of some of the better point-and-shoot digital still cameras, but it is adequate for most work. As an example, Judd showed me a Canon consumer camcorder (I think it was the FS21) with flash memory that sells for around $450. This camcorder has the “still photo” button and a decent optical zoom. It is also relatively small, though it's too big to be “pocket sized.” And it has the ability to receive audio signals from external microphones.

We compared this to a Canon digital still camera with HD video capability, the SX-200IS. This camera has an optical zoom of up to 12X, and is advertised as being able to take HD quality videos. It sells for around $350. We checked out its long-distance zoom capabilities. Faces viewed from around 30 to 40 feet away were recognizable, but a bit blurry. (Also, another reviewer noted that the zoom is locked and can't be changed while shooting video.) As far as low-light capture, it has an ISO 1600 rating. It also seemed a bit more rugged (and far less obviously noticeable) than the Canon camcorder.

Canon is by no means the only manufacturer worth consideration. We also talked about Ricoh and Panasonic cameras. And Judd also showed me an example of video capture using an iPhone.

So is there a single, relatively inexpensive ($350 and under) digital device that can capture both still pictures and video, at decent distances and in most light conditions, and that can do these things adequately? Answering that question is partly a matter of individual judgment. If you're in the market for a new camera or camcorder, I'd suggest the following tips for checking out a camera or camcorder before leaving the store – try it out, ask if you can upload images to a store computer to see how they look, try going to the store at night and shooting a low-light scene, then make your decision.

And don't count the cell phone out as a video capture device; even though it has its limits, it can still be quite useful, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id3C8GC78dA. (Although the resolution of distant objects is not very good in this video, it is still possible to identify the general features of the police who are abusing an emergency medical technician.) And don't count older digital cameras out, either. My Sony Cybershot camera's video and audio quality is at least as good as the Youtube video of the police assault which I just mentioned.

For more on capturing digital still pictures, there is an excellent essay titled, “Digital Cameras for Cyclists” by Carsten Hoefer at crazyguyonabike (http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3Tzut&doc_id=5447&v=CQ). (By the way, bike tour journals are a form of citizen journalism. Camera needs for touring cyclists are likely to be the same as for other citizen journalists). And for emerging legal barriers to citizen video, check out these links: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/congress-gets-bill-to-make-cell-phone-cameras-go-click.ars, http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/28/the-war-on-cell-phone-cameras-begin/ and http://thephoenix.com/boston/News/56680-Echoes-of-Rodney-King/.

The Bars Of Our Intended Cage

I have often stated our dependence on the breaking system known as the “official” economy, and have pointed out that the masters of this system are waging a war against anyone who tries to create a safety net of alternative systems. Recent posts discussed how this war is being waged against ordinary people who want to become self-reliant in regard to food. However, there are many other fronts to this war.

One such front is the war over the Internet. The Internet has emerged as a powerful example of citizen media and a powerful expression of free speech. Therefore it has become a powerful threat to the established media of our modern industrial society. Anyone who is the least bit savvy knows that the established media have largely become mere propaganda outlets – mouthpieces of the elites who run our society. Often they don't report the very important news which has a significant bearing on the course of our society, and the news they do report is usually slanted to promote the aims of rich corporate masters.

A case in point is the media coverage of the protests which took place just before and during the G20 economic summit in London at the beginning of April. When the protests were covered at all, they were usually covered at the “10,000 foot” level, that is, in a very generic manner almost devoid of detail. On the few occasions when the mainstream media focused on individuals and specific places, they painted the protesters as vandals and lawbreakers, while portraying the British police as dedicated men just trying to do their job. (Examples: “Spirit of 'the Mob' lives on in London,” CNN, 2 April 2009, http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/spirit-of-the-mob-lives-on-in-london/; “Police Attacked As They Try To Save Dying Protester,” Fox News, 2 April 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512171,00.html)

The “official” line was roundly discredited, however, by the appearance of citizen-shot video posted on Youtube which showed police initiating violent and unprovoked attacks on protesters and innocent bystanders (See “Earl Street Raid During G20 Protests,” http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNrf2GIRO4&feature=PlayList&p=C1659084B50463CD&index=20; “G20 Armed Police Raid On Seated Protesters With Their Hands In The Air,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqdE0lXcxk&NR=1; and many, many others). And it turns out that the “dying protester” whom the police had been “trying to save” according to the Fox News report had actually been shoved to the ground by the police. Moreover, he had not been a protester at all, but simply a man trying to get home from work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrpdrn5kb0s). I can guarantee you that CNN, Fox and the Associated Press didn't break these stories. The Oregonian didn't break these stories. They were not discussed on KPOJ, “Portland's only progressive talk station.” (Ha! That's a laugh. When it comes to chasing money and hawking stuff to buy, KPOJ is no more progressive than any of its Clear Channel sister stations – including right-wing KFI in Los Angeles.)

The result of the appearance of citizen media which so roundly discredits the “official” news line regarding such key events has led to a swift and sharp drop in the credibility of the official media. It has been wryly amusing to follow some of the editorial pieces written by major newspapers decrying the death of the modern newspaper in America, and the supposed inferiority of blogs and other citizen-generated means of publishing news. Often these editorial writers talk of mysterious psycho-social forces and new technologies as being the cause of the demise of the traditional newspaper. I think the truth is far less comfortable to these people. That truth is that more and more people are seeing that the traditional mainstream media predominantly tell either fluff (“Did you hear that Britney Spears' psychotherapist is dating Joaquin Phoenix??!”) or outright lies.

Citizen media, captured by inexpensive consumer electronics and broadcast cheaply over the Internet, is a huge threat to the official propaganda machine of the corporatists who control our society. It is therefore no surprise that members of the United States Congress are now very “concerned” about Internet security and Internet vulnerability, and are introducing legislation to provide for increased “cybersecurity.”

Senate Bill S.773, “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009,” is sponsored by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). In a videorecorded speech, Senator Rockefeller justified the need for this bill by speaking of the increased threat to the American economy resulting from vastly increased attacks on America's information technology infrastructure, and he cited “secret” briefings he had received describing these attacks. During that speech, he asked rhetorically whether it would have been better for us if we had not invented the Internet at all. (A most interesting question, which provokes another question: why is he asking this?)

The proposed Cybersecurity Act establishes the usual huge new Federal bureaucracy customary for such bills, but it also establishes a new cybersecurity certification for IT professionals. Any IT professional who cannot obtain this certification is to be barred from IT security work in the U.S. Perhaps the most chilling part of this proposed new law is the granting of power to the President to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network...”

One would hope that if such a law was passed, a “critical infrastructure information system or network” would not be defined to include the general Web structure, including such things as Google, YouTube, blogs and other means of disseminating citizen media! Otherwise, during a time of domestic tension and deployment of armed Government agents, the President could shut down citizen media sites by declaring a “cybersecurity emergency.”

We don't need such a law to provide an IT infrastructure that is more secure from attack. We could instead take such simple measures as breaking up Microsoft, switching critical IT hubs to Linux or Unix-based operating systems, and insuring a diverse supply of software vendors instead of the monoculture we have now. And there is already a loud and increasing protest and backlash against this proposed law. But I have a prediction: that as protest against this proposed legislation increases and its chances of passage diminish, other members of Congress will be induced to quietly introduce legislation that seeks to set up the same regulatory power proposed in this “Cybersecurity Act.” After all, this is the same strategy that is being employed in corporate attempts to establish Federal control over “food security.”

A Safety Net Of Alternative Systems - Citizen Media

(Warning: this will be a long post. I am writing this post in a very different frame of mind than the cautiously optimistic frame I held at the end of last week, when the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the first attempt to pass President Bush's $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. That House vote had led me to believe that I still had something of a voice – that the vast majority of Americans still had a voice – in deciding the direction of our country, that our system of participatory democracy still worked, even if only somewhat.

But now the bailout package has passed both houses of Congress and has been signed into law, though some polls and surveys indicate that a majority of Americans still oppose the bailout, and a larger majority believe that it will not solve America's economic crisis. It may be that participatory democracy is essentially dead in the U.S., and that the real rulers of this country are the rich and those connected to the rich. Still, I feel the need to consider this next aspect of safety nets for the small and the poor. Who knows, it may do some good.)

The times now upon us will be very disruptive, due to such things as infrastructure breakdowns and resource shortages, the effects of natural disasters, and efforts by certain interests to capitalize on the opportunities created within society by systemic disruptions. In such times it is vital for small, regular private citizens to have access to good information and high-quality journalism, in order that they may make intelligent decisions in response to the events taking place around them. Yet over the last few decades, standard American media outlets have increasingly become unreliable as sources for useful, informative news. This is seen in recent reports of media bias, inaccurate reporting and fabricated stories. (Sources: http://gaia.world-television.com/wef/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2007/default.aspx?sn=19572; http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/index.php?p=341; http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/feb/17/mondaymediasection.iraq) It is therefore critical for small, regular private citizens to develop their own networks for obtaining news relating to the present economic, ecological and resource-based difficulties – and not just personal stories, but big-picture analysis as well.

Why You Can't Get The Straight Story Anymore

When I was growing up I used to hear that there are always two sides to every story, but the newspapers, radio and television stations available at the time carried many more sides than just two. Nowadays there is what is known as the “mainstream media,” which carries just one side to any story. Most of the outlets of the media “industry” are now owned by a handful of very rich and powerful companies. This wasn't always the case; between 1941 and 1975, the Federal Communications Commission issued a number of rules designed to insure a large number of diverse media voices by preventing the consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a few large corporations. One such rule prevented a corporation from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market. This large number of diverse voices served to raise the quality of journalism and hindered any one news outlet from easily spreading false news.

But in the 1980's, President Reagan and the Congress initiated a program of business “deregulation” that reversed the protections of the previous FCC rules. Limits on media consolidation were lifted, as were requirements for a minimum amount of “non-entertainment programming,” One particular rule that was eliminated was the “Fairness Doctrine” which required that any television or radio station that broadcast one point of view had to allow time for spokespersons for an opposing point of view to make their case.

That deregulation really accelerated during the Clinton presidency, with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Prior to this law, a radio network could own no more than 40 stations; afterward, gargantuan networks were created, such as Clear Channel which owns over 1200 stations in all 50 states. The current President Bush has accelerated media deregulation even further, leading to the following result:

• Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corporation, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric together own more than 90 percent of the media holdings in the United States, according to one source. (Independent verification of this statement is not possible, because information on media ownership is not in the public domain.)

• CBS Corporation owns CBS, CBS Radio, Simon & Schuster (a book publisher) and other media assets.

• Time Warner owns CNN, Time Magazine, AOL and other assets.

• Rupert Murdoch owns at least two dozen newspapers, as well as Fox Networks, MySpace, Sky Television and DirecTV, among other assets.

(Sources: “Concentration of Media Ownership,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership; “Media Regulation Timeline,” NOW With Bill Moyers, http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html; “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership,” Global Issues, 29 April 2007, http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership#Concentrationofownershipiswheretheproblemlargelylies)

Some might say that media concentration in the hands of a few corporations is not a bad thing, and that reliable news is still reaching the American public. But history is full of countries whose citizens were deprived of all sorts of news and perspectives due to concentration of media power in the hands of a small elite. One case in point is Italy under former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, a media tycoon who forced Italian media to broadcast news and propaganda supporting his government. (For a source on this, see the Global Issues article cited above.)

The Story You're Not Getting

The result of this consolidation of media ownership is that most Americans are not getting the whole story on a variety of serious issues, and that when events force major media outlets to cover issues of national importance, most Americans are getting a strongly biased version of the issues. This applies to “crises” manufactured by powerful people, such as the case made for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, later events proved that the foundations of that case were largely false.

But it also applies to crises that result from accidents or acts of God. For instance, American petroleum product stocks had begun to drop even before Hurricane Gustav. But the combined effects of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike was to remove over a million barrels per day from American crude oil extraction, and to take several refineries out of service for an extended period. Gasoline shortages resulted throughout the Southeast, extending even to areas in the Midwest. There were no reports from American media for several days after shortages began to develop, and when reports finally came, many initial reports contained statements from state government officials denying that there was any problem. To this day, no one in the media has presented a clear picture of the extent of the problem, and most information presented is merely anecdotal.

This sort of coverage is as bad as media coverage of an accident in Minot, North Dakota in 2002 in which a train filled with anhydrous ammonia derailed. When authorities tried to use local radio stations to issue an alert to nearby citizens, none of the radio stations carried news of the accident. All the stations were owned by Clear Channel. The accident injured 1600 people and killed one person.

This failure of coverage extends to misdeeds committed by corporations or government agencies. In 1997, a Fox Broadcasting Company office fired two reporters for drafting a story about Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone. During Super Bowl XXXVIII, CBS refused to air an ad criticizing the federal budget deficit, but aired another ad from a Federal drug control agency.

There is still a strong media bias in describing the struggles and achievements of members of ethnic minorities. This is seen in how blacks are portrayed in news stories, as well as media support for targeted enforcement zones in minority neighborhoods, and the continuing belief promoted by the media that drug abuse is rampant in minority communities and much less prevalent everywhere else. (Sources: “Media and Its Portrayal of Black Americans,” The Black Image in the White Mind, http://racerelations.about.com/od/stereotypesmentalmodels/a/blackimage.htm; “Sirens Vs. Sirens: The Battle for 82^nd, The Oregonian newspaper, 14 September 2008; “The Media's Bias Against Black Men In America,” Newsmax, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/30/140755.shtml; “Drug Enforcement Racist?”, The Badger Herald, 8 May 2008, http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/05/08/drug_enforcement_rac.php) This bias, combined with the “targeted enforcement” tactics of the national “war on drugs” is creating a permanent class of disenfranchised, exploited slave labor and human capital to be exploited by the prison labor and private prison industry.

American media is doing a bad job covering the breakdowns of our present market-driven economic system and the risks posed to that system by climate change and peak oil. And since most local media outlets in America are owned by national or multinational corporations, the quality of coverage by local broadcasters and papers has deteriorated. But just as foreign news outlets often presented a clearer and more informative picture of the crises caused by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, foreign media is also doing a better job of covering the slower breakdowns in American society caused by the credit and finance crunch. The British newspaper The Guardian has done a particularly good job of describing the blight in Elk Grove, California caused by the mortgage crash, and the continuing blight of Detroit, and has openly discussed these as signs of the fading of American prominence.

These things and many others are a sign that American mainstream media are an unreliable source of news. People in the 1950's and 1960's could get the necessary information for informed decisions by reading the Los Angeles Times or Herald Examiner, or by watching Huntley and Brinkley or Walter Cronkite on television. But nowadays it is not enough to watch TV news or read most major American papers, and those who rely solely on these as sources of information haven't exercised “due diligence” in their decision-making process. Those who rely on mainstream media are being programmed to continue to rely on our breaking American system while fed a constant stream of reassurances that the system continues to work, and are being dissuaded from preparing alternatives for themselves. While this sort of programming benefits the rich masters of the system, it doesn't help people to adjust to sudden breakdowns such as those that occurred with gasoline after the recent hurricanes.

The Solution: Making Your Own Media

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The only security of all is in a free press.” Yet the agencies which we call “the press” in the U.S. are no longer free. This creates a crisis of legitimacy for the official mainstream media when people see things happening with their own eyes, yet find that their stories go distorted or unreported by the mainstream media. The rise of citizen media addresses this crisis of legitimacy.

Motivated citizen journalists can establish themselves as reliable sources of news, as long as they're willing to put some effort into their work and to produce an excellent product. In fact, by good work and excellence they may even establish themselves as a more reliable source of news than the mainstream media. Citizen journalists have a variety of new tools at their disposal. The blog is the easiest to implement, followed by the podcast, the video log, and the community newspaper. Blogs can be started for free. (Google's Blogger site has tools which can produce a very attractive blog that is easy to maintain and free of charge.) The other methods will of course cost more. The means used by any one citizen or group of citizens will depend on the amount of money, equipment and time at their disposal. But whatever the means used, it must be implemented with excellence.

For instance, someone may want to start a community blog. Such a person should establish the geographical boundaries which he or she can reasonably expect to cover during the time they can afford for gathering news. Next, when writing stories, the blogger must make sure that every detail is factually accurate. This cannot be stressed enough. No one will take you seriously if you don't get your facts straight. Grammar, punctuation and spelling are also very, very important. “If you cant spel rite, youl loose readerz!” (And just in case nobody caught it, “loose” should be spelled as “lose” in the previous sentence.) Your aim is to employ as many means as possible to get readers to take you seriously, to establish yourself as someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

If you have a digital camera, use it. When covering issues of concern in your community, be sure to take pictures and post them on your blog. Pictures and quotes humanize the subjects of your blog in the minds of your readers, and reinforce your message. And when you get permission to interview someone or take their picture, tell them the Web address of your blog and that they should expect to see themselves online shortly. It will boost your readership!

Podcasts and video logs (such as amateur YouTube clips) are also useful tools, but they require special equipment and time devoted to learning how to use that equipment. There are good books on these media forms, such as Digital Filmmaking 101 by Dale Newton and John Gaspard, Filmmaking for Teens by Troy Lanier and Clay Nichols, and Podcasting Now! by Andrew J. Dagys with John Hedtke. These are good references for those with the necessary time and equipment, although I realize that money for such equipment is probably tight for most people right now.

A group of citizen journalists can found a community newspaper. Publishing a hard-copy paper requires computers, software and an inexpensive printing house, as well as postage and staffers to mail papers, so this is not for the faint of heart. One good example of a community newspaper is the Fullerton Observer (http://www.fullertonobserver.com), a paper founded by Ralph Kennedy in 1978. Sharon Kennedy is the current editor. Her newspaper has published stories relating not only to Fullerton, California, but also to global warming, peak oil, the Iraq war, and the development of advanced crowd control technologies by the Federal government. She relies on a loose cadre of volunteer writers and columnists for many of the articles published each month. (She doesn't know this yet, but I may ask her one day if I can interview her further about the details of running a community newspaper.)

Lastly, there is the combination of two or more forms of electronic media into a multimedia presentation designed to highlight an issue that needs attention. This was done in 2007 by a team of “alternate reality game writers” who created the World Without Oil “game” website (http://worldwithoutoil.org/start.aspx) with funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. World Without Oil is described as an alternate reality game, but I tend to think of it as much more of a collaboratively written story than a game. It powerfully illustrates some of the societal breakdowns that could occur from a sudden shortfall in world crude oil availability (those living in the Southeast might want to check out the WWO website and compare its projections and stories to their own experiences in the aftermath of this year's hurricanes). WWO was a major influence on the decisions I made early in 2007 in my preparations for a post-Peak future. Collaborative multimedia presentations such as WWO can be an influential tool in raising public awareness of community and societal issues.

Concerned small private citizens can thus provide themselves with a voice and a means to tell the necessary stories that are swept under the rug by our mainstream media. But there is an urgency to this; citizen journalists must act quickly to start making their voices heard. You – be the teller of the story that must be told.