This week’s assignment was to monitor an Alternative Media Source and compare and contrast it with a Corporate Media Source. Now, part of this task involves figuring out what Alternative Media is…
According to Urban Dictionary, the word “Alternative” means… “Someone who does whatever the f**k they want and doesn’t care about what anyone else says.” Hmm… So, based off of general assumptions, an Alternative Media source doesn’t sound very reliable. However, according to Brenna Wolf (our Graduate Teaching Fellow) an Alternative Media Source is one that: seeks a broad and non-elite audience, does not aim to sell the audience to advertisement companies and does not seek to gain major profit. This sounding very inspiring and a bit more legitimate, I decided to continue with the assignment.
Over the weekend, I compared articles from both CNN and Wiretap, an independent “information source by and for young people.” Although both websites offered interesting opinions and insight, they covered very different subjects, which made it difficult to compare. Each one had a completely different web layout presenting different stories and audience options. The CNN site offered articles in six different languages with categories such as “Politics,” “Crime” and “Health” while Wiretap only offered English writings in subjects like “Youth Activism,” “Building A Movement” and “War and Peace.” Even though these are only a few examples of the many things both sources had to offer, it can give you an idea for how radically distinctive the two were.
Wiretap covered a random variety of articles that were extremely interesting, but not very up to date. The most recent article was called, “Top Eight Voting Myths Dispelled.” This piece was very informative, offered many cited sources and was extremely appropriate for the time being. However, for a front-page main article, I would have enjoyed something with a bit more news substance. The second most recent article was from the previous week called, “Rallying The Vote,” an informative essay and interview on Keesha Gaskins. While I gained a lot of insight from reading this piece, I struggled to call it “news” because the first half was constructed in biographical essay form, and the interview portion was merely taken from separate source called “Rock The Vote.”
All of the Wiretap articles I read were very well versed and immensely educational, but I found myself wanting more. More updates. More facts. More on the scene action!
…And then I realized something. In a world where mainstream media is a political monopoly, how could an independent source like Wiretap even survive? I began to search deeper into the text and notice how difficult it would be to cover a story with no support beneath you. No expensive cameras. No news crew. No public recognition. I gained massive appreciation and respect for the work that these journalists were able to scrap together.
On the other hand, CNN was very easy to navigate. I could find anything I wanted! There were both opinion-based and factual articles, so bias wasn’t really a problem. However, all I could envision was a young Wiretap journalist in his small office desperately making phone calls to find out information while there was a CNN database around the corner. A huge building filled with nice offices, a plethora of facts and quotes and a corporate sized paycheck. “Life is good” when you have a company like Time Warner telling you it is =)
Sarah Miller's Weblog 