Local news has a responsibility to report relevant local stories and national news with a local perspective. If I wanted to know that the judge in Dancing with the Stars labeled two dancers as a “strumpet and a gigolo”, I would have watched the show. ABC 7 Los Angeles chooses to push corporate interests by masquerading ABC network show promotions as news stories. This is not just a local problem.
How is America to know which individual running in this election will be the best commander and chief executive officer? If we were to use ABC’s democratic debate on Wednesday, April 16 as a sample interview, we might confuse a presidential campaign for a soap opera audition. ABC promoted the debate with images of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the big guns. Watching the promos I inferred that these two seasoned journalists were to ask hard hitting, vital policy questions. Instead, both, perhaps fed by company agendas or the gossip appeal of certain topics, pounded away for the majority of the debate about non-issues.
I worked for a small internet startup for just under two years. The company’s management was smitten with the potential of online media distribution and community generated content. In the way that cable allowed content creators to appeal to more focused demographics, the company hoped to connect with the most niche of audiences. The company struggled to make the connection with its first targeted demographic.
Starting in 2002, PBS Frontline “has streamed most of its documentaries free…part of an effort to reach younger audiences.”1 The New York Times reports that as a result of a MacArthur Foundation Grant, Frontline has been able to develop a much richer video experience. I cannot argue. After stumbling on the recently released Frontline documentary, Bush’s War, I found myself engaged in the layers of content on the site. Then I branched out to see some of the other projects completed with the same comprehensive coverage (The Medicated Chile, Bad Voodoo’s War, and Cheny’s Law).
The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Number 4 was introduced in response to the writs of assistance that helped fan the flames of the American Revolution. The writs were open-ended warrants granted by the British parliament to search the American people and their property indefinitely.1 These writs could be passed between authorities and granted immunity to authorities for any damage they caused using the writ.