After our interesting discussion via blackboard virtual classroom got me thinking more about the notion of citizen journalism. I think in a sense, most journalism is considered citizen journalism. Whether or not the writer is receiving compensation for their story, they are reporting their perspective of a specific event or public opinion. I think that depending on where the reader wants to look for their information, they will either choose citizen journalism or traditional journalism. For me personally, I think that reading someone's personal blog is more "real" and "raw" than reading an article in a newspaper or magazine that has a biased medium (they are always trying to skew their viewpoint in order to target a specific audience).
I could talk about the bias of journalism for an eternity, because ultimately everyone has a preconceived notion that they are trying to convey and mask in a "unbiased" facade. I think that the average citizen knows what type of journalism they are looking for, and have the right to shop around, read a combination of CJ and TJ as well as do their own research in order to create their own pieces of citizen journalism.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Who decides what causes are "good" causes?
After reading Chapter 6 in CauseWired, I couldn't help but think about the notion of deciding what is a true and undefiled "cause." Is it right to call a political campaign a "good cause" and put it in the same category with Kiva's lending organization? This caused me to think through my definition of a cause and what I think is justifiable.
If someone believes 100% in a political candidate and chooses to give money to their campaign via the internet, I think that's acceptable. Watson reported that the 2008 primary election campaign introduced an innovative way of gaining supporters, the internet. Clinton & Obama used the internet as a tool to not only gain "political supporters" of their campaign, but gain monetary support from those activists. Obama put forth the notion that "we all need to put our money together for the campaign, hold our own political rally events, and combine our resources" in order to succeed.... and evidently his theory was a great success.
I'm not sure if I would agree wholeheartedly that by supporting Obama's presidential campaign (which the total amount spent on his campaign made me want to throw up) you are supporting a "cause" in life.
Is his multi-million/billion dollar campaign a cause worth supporting? I would argue not. Realistically he could gain monetary support from a plethora of political resources, and Americans could in part, donate their money for a cause that is actually making a difference in this world.
I know it sounds like "bashing the president" talk here, and to clarify my initial support for the president, I voted for him in the 2008 election and support his ideas and motives.... now if he would just follow through with what he "promised" before election, I would be a happier and more content American citizen.
I think it's interesting that political activism was presented in Watson's text as a nation of being "cause wired." I want to look into the 2008 campaign in a bit more detail in order to decipher how much money was dontated through the internet and if the internet and use of technology truely made the difference in the campaign.
If someone believes 100% in a political candidate and chooses to give money to their campaign via the internet, I think that's acceptable. Watson reported that the 2008 primary election campaign introduced an innovative way of gaining supporters, the internet. Clinton & Obama used the internet as a tool to not only gain "political supporters" of their campaign, but gain monetary support from those activists. Obama put forth the notion that "we all need to put our money together for the campaign, hold our own political rally events, and combine our resources" in order to succeed.... and evidently his theory was a great success.
I'm not sure if I would agree wholeheartedly that by supporting Obama's presidential campaign (which the total amount spent on his campaign made me want to throw up) you are supporting a "cause" in life.
Is his multi-million/billion dollar campaign a cause worth supporting? I would argue not. Realistically he could gain monetary support from a plethora of political resources, and Americans could in part, donate their money for a cause that is actually making a difference in this world.
I know it sounds like "bashing the president" talk here, and to clarify my initial support for the president, I voted for him in the 2008 election and support his ideas and motives.... now if he would just follow through with what he "promised" before election, I would be a happier and more content American citizen.
I think it's interesting that political activism was presented in Watson's text as a nation of being "cause wired." I want to look into the 2008 campaign in a bit more detail in order to decipher how much money was dontated through the internet and if the internet and use of technology truely made the difference in the campaign.
Peer-to-Peer Philanthrophy
The whole notion of the Kiva organization really intrigued me while reading. Who would have thought that we could loan a farmer across the world money that he or she needs to continue farming, feed their families, as well as grasp the concept of borrowing and repaying a loan. People can go on their site, read a real story about a person who is trying to seek funds in order to expand their businesses and find out who you (the donor) can sign up to become a virtual lender.
The part that baffled me while reading was probably the sick reality of American selfishness to some extent. I looked on some websites to get feedback on Kiva, and responses from Americans basically summarized the notion that, "why are we worrying about other countries survival when we are in our own economic crisis. The developing countries should be lending us money, not the other way around."
These statements sadden me because I think that when people "give" money to a good cause it makes them feel as if they are contributing to the welfare of another human being. Instead of thinking of it in a selfish manner, have Americans ever contempleted the notion that maybe if they established a lender relationship with entrepenours in developing countries now, and it caught on, we would not only be investing our money, but the world would slowly but surely begin to rebuild the economny.
The part that baffled me while reading was probably the sick reality of American selfishness to some extent. I looked on some websites to get feedback on Kiva, and responses from Americans basically summarized the notion that, "why are we worrying about other countries survival when we are in our own economic crisis. The developing countries should be lending us money, not the other way around."
These statements sadden me because I think that when people "give" money to a good cause it makes them feel as if they are contributing to the welfare of another human being. Instead of thinking of it in a selfish manner, have Americans ever contempleted the notion that maybe if they established a lender relationship with entrepenours in developing countries now, and it caught on, we would not only be investing our money, but the world would slowly but surely begin to rebuild the economny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
