Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Mayhill Fowler Case

After reading the stories on Mayhill Fowler, I would say her ethics are certainly not up to par to consider herself a journalist. She has certainly managed to get some interesting scoops with both President Obama and President Clinton, but her tactics for obtaining these stories are unethical.

When she approached President Clinton about an article written about him, Clinton said some less than flattering things about the author. Clinton referred to him as "sleazy" "slimy". Although this is a great media story, Fowler had never identified herself to Clinton as a journalist. In an ethical sense, we all know it is important for media to identify themselves upfront.

With President Obama, Fowler managed to almost destroy his bid for the presidency. Although she identified herself as an Obama supporter, she printed some less-than flattering comments that the President made during a press conference. The problem was that Fowler blatantly ignored that the conference was closed press. Fowler never should have been at the conference in the first place.

With citizen journalism constantly growing and spreading, we have to be more aware of issues like these. Although this type of reporting allows more people access to information, we have to keep in mind that non-professional journalists do not have the same ethical training that professional journalists are given. Although professional journalists are often caught in scandals like this as well, citizen journalists are not nearly as aware of the rules or practices of the media.

Net Neutrality

Over the past several years the issue of net neutrality has been a hot topic. People are concerned that large internet service providers could potentially screen what the public sees, or how fast they see it. Last Tuesday, Federal Courts ruled that the FCC could not force Comcast to provide equal internet speed to all of it's subscribers.

Comcast had been intentionally slowing down their internet services to some of their customers who had been downloading large files over the internet. In 2008, the FCC told Comcast that they would have to provide equal access to all of their subscribers. When Comcast brought this issue to court, it was ruled that the FCC could not require Comcast to grant equal access.

Although this specific case is not the type of web-access-discriminaton that most people worry about, it certainly sets the stage for large internet service providers to provide internet access based on their company's needs. Potentially, if the FCC backs-off from regulating net-neutrality, internet service providers could slow down access to certain websites. The big internet service providers are telling customers that they have nothing to worry about. However, if the courts continue to rule in favor of companies like Comcast, it would not surprise me if we are headed in the direction of restricted web access.

One bright spot in this court ruling is that many politicians are calling for new legislation to be drawn up that would guarantee net neutrality. With any luck, we will see laws like this coming into play in the next few years.


Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article on the case

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575167782845712768.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read