From Me to You: Activist Project

There has been one cause that I have always supported, and donated to in the past. The Sea Shepards are a group that were established in 1977, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization. "Our mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species." They are a very interesting group who physically take action to fight for what they believe in, they literally put their lives at risk each day defending those who cannot defend themselves.
There is a popular show on the discovery network called "Whale Wars" where their fight is caught on camera and aired for the world to see. The main message; awareness. If these people don't go out there and fight for the cause, then who will? This organization has something that most activists groups are missing, to physically go out and fight for what you believe in. Taking donations and making a few calls to over seas governments is a start, but sometimes you need to take initiative in what matters.
The people in the group spend months at sea on a ship called the "Steve Irwin" and chase illegal whaling vessiles around the worlds oceans for weeks at a time, deploying non-fatal projectiles at the ships which are either filled with tear gas, or a certain chemical that chases the marine wild life away from the ships. I believe in this project because it is a cause worth fighting for, each day countless whales are illegally slaughtered in international sea's and the governments are doing nothing to stop it.
Groups like these are really the only protection Earth's oceans has, and I believe it's up to us to keep funding these projects and maybe give a hand ourselves. The "Steve Iriwin" is always lookin for new recruits, and when I'm done my post secondary education, I would love to be a part of their mission.

"Whale Wars." Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.
.

From Me to You: Who owns what?

This topic struck me as maybe being one of the most difficult topics to research, I thought how in the world am I going to gain access to what a company owns? I'm just a university student with no pull in the media, there is no way I'm going to see the private companies and brands that a corporation owns. Until I went to canwestglobal.com and clicked on the heading "our brands." I never thought it would be that easy, apparently Canwest media has nothing to hide. I also learned why assumptions are wrong, I figured they may own a couple radio stations, maybe one or two television networks, wrong. Canwest media owns 37 seprate media companies all ranging from websites, to broadcast media and publishing outlets.
The main implications for media Hegemonies are the obvious ones like, what about the little guys? What are the chances that the average Joe can start up and maintain a television network when towering companies like Canwest media can swoop in anytime and by it from under your feet? One company owning several others leaves little room for any new material to be entered into the media, even if it is in dire need. Another obvious factor is where is all the money going? Ultimately, right back up to the top, to the Canwest corporation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but not a good thing either. Because Canwest dominates most of Canada's media outlets, there is little chance that big changes will come easy, and rarely without the consent of the CEO.
Although I do not currently have a PhD in business or marketing, I do however know that Canwest media currently bankrupt. So what then will happen to the over 10 news papers that the company currently owns, it will then be up to the public shareholders to decide what is best for the publishing company, if it is to be saved at all; newspaper have been shutting down left, right and centre the past decade and I don't believe the trend will be coming to an end.
Ultimately, the pros of one corporation owning several is that consistency can be expected throughout (when not in debt) and they are all 'linked' through common grounds, giving each network the financial support they need. All the workers probably have solid salaries and pensions, and when the main company isn't going under, there is usually growth and development. However, this also creates a monopoly in the specific industry where these partnerships exist, leaving almost no room for public opinion, which is what the media industry should be all about.

"Our Brands." Canwest Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
.

"Canwest Media debtholders offered stock." CBC News 6 Oct. 2009: n. pag. CBC
News. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. canwest-bankruptcy.html>.

From Me to You: Net Neutrality

Finally! A topic I can speak about in my own terms, with my own information. I can finally vent about a topic without having to worry about my information being incorrect. Lets start with the basics, we pay for our internet by whatever means, we then gain access to browse any and every website on the world wide web. We have no restrictions (unless it's subscription and we're too cheap) on which websites we can visit, and which we cannot. There is no service charge on how many sites we visit per day, and we have the freedom to say what we want, and when we want. (not always a good thing)
However, this concept is all going to change; the internet as we know it will never be the same. Giant corporations, like at&t, think that because they're the original installers of the internet, they have some pull in what is to be the future of the internet. And I'll give them some credit, they are the ones who maintain it and supply it, but we're the ones who pay them enormous amounts of money to do so, so why do they need more money?! The answer is simple, their greedy, ignorant morons who always want more. Some companies, like Rogers for example, supply cell phone coverage, internet, home phone and even cable tv; so in reality is it even possible for this corporation to be hurting in the money department? I'm going to take a wild guess and say no.
Internet service providers will be the ones to decide which websites we view, and when. No longer will it be the consumers choice of which search engine they prefer, it will be the ISP's decision because they may have signed an exclusive deal with a search engine that isn't your current one. Could you imagine not being able to google something? I for one would not be able to finish most of my assignments. Despite the fact that net neutrality may come to an end, that really isn't even the scariest fact; the scariest fact is that it's already happening. A small example, one for the best interests of the students, is the fact that file sharing software has been disabled by Guelph Humber ISP in residence, and in the GH building. This is just a small example of the power that ISP actually have. They really can pick and choose which services or websites you can gain access to, and the speed at which you access them.
The general public is not even aware of this, a few friends who I discussed this issue with have no idea what is was. The public needs to be aware so that they can try and put an end to corporate ownership of the internet. We discussed a radical idea in class of an Internet Bill of Rights, though it may seem out of the box, it really is a valid idea to stop the end of net neutrality. Really only one law needs to be made, net neutrality remains; case closed.

From Me to You: Fake News

I'm really not sure if I even fully understand the concept of fake news, I get that it is a parody of actual events and there are popular tv shows that are based on this concept; the colbert report, the daily show and Saturday Night Live. According to the only definition I could find on the topic, "Fake news, news satire or mock news, is a type of parody presented in a format typical of mainstream journalism, and called a satire because of its content." Not to get this topic confused with the impersonation of main stream media, fake news usually takes on a more purposeful meaning and the general public is usually aware of the fact that it is fake. (in most cases) But really, what is the point of fake news?
Why should we as the audience want to waste our time watching or listening to information that really isn't even correct. To someone who had no idea what fake news was, they would listen intently and absorb all the information in thinking that it's real; propaganda? I can think of a few famous propaganda scandals from world war II that pretty much started the war, so how can we differentiate fake news from propaganda. In today's standards, fake news is usually a form of entertainment, it is simply a passtime that pokes fun at current on going events. When a US senator or congressmen or some sort of political figure gets caught trying to provoke someone to have an affair with them, the mainstream media is not going to risk their reputation making fun or slandering this figure, that is the job of the fake news media. They really have no reputation to uphold because all of their news is fake, it is there for entertainment not for the record.
Fake news is not a recent phenomenon, the practice has been around since mainstream media itself, and the purpose has remained the same; to entertain the public and to get a message across that most 'real' news publications cannot or will not publish. In 1835 there was a hoax using a newspaper called the Great Moon Hoax, where one author published articles that claimed a then famous astronomer had built an entirely new and powerful telescope and had it aimed at the moon, the articles then went on to say that they had discovered life there. The articles described the creatures in vivid detail and said they had seed oceans and forests as well. A smart move by the New York Sun as after their fake news story, their circulation was the highest of any newspaper in the entire world; 19, 360. Even after the event was released as a hoax, the paper never lost popularity. This is not the only time fake news has persuaded the public, some may disagree with me but I believe that the famous Saturday Night Live skits which bashed Sarah Palin helped to lose her the election, and gain popularity in the ratings department.
It really is amazing how much power the media has over the public, I think it's because when society looks for information that they know everyone else is going to also hear, they look to the media. It is a trusted source of information, even fake news is sometimes taken as accurate. When an event happens in the world, we turn to our media sources for the information, then we turn to our fake news sources for the entertainment and to see what they have to say about the issue. Most of the time we can relate to what Colbert or Stewart are saying, we have thought the same things; but hearing it on television really solidifies our judgments, and I believe as long as the news exists, there will always be fake news to make fun of it.


Brown, R. J. "Great Moan Hoax of 1835." History Buff. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .