Is there a need for an alternative press or alternative media? It is a good question. A simple cop-out answer might be, "Truth is disbelief." This quote comes from a publication of mine entitled, "Provoking Thoughts, Questions And Writings" by Swami Harold.
In answering this question, I must draw on my own experiences as an underground editor. As a journalism student enrolled at Western Illinois University nearly 20 years ago, I was for the most part a happy student until I started to work for my college paper, the "Western Courier." As a beat reporter and regular staff member, I was covering student government meetings and writing other types of articles in general.
It wasn't until my last semester at WIU though, that I began to feel a need to do something with my writing. At the newspaper in which I was employed, I noticed a lot of improper editing taking place, not exactly censorship, but the stories were being re-written to fit the administration's and certain student groups purposes. It was in-effect a way also for the newspaper to save face.
Suddenly, from out of the blue, my stories started to be heavily re-written, including made-up quotes and quotes that were fused together from other places in the story. In the classroom, it wasn't any different. There were only a few journalism professors on staff and for the most part students, were taught to write like them (professors) or you wouldn't get ahead.
At the same time, I had begun to submit my poetry to the college literary magazine (Elements) and works that I had submitted started to be censored without my permission. A crucial word in one of my poems was spelled differently than I had originally meant for it to be. I was angry, yet angry enough to do something about it. It was at this point I began to search for an alternative.
In the spring of 1986, a short-lived Macomb-area fanzine appeared, entitled "Movement." While reading it through, I became slowly inspired to do my own. My thinking at the time was that it looked easy enough to do for a short time and it probably didn't cost that much to put out.
As I went about researching for my own fanzine, I discovered along the way that there were other types of alternative publications out there to draw from, particularly the underground newspapers from the late 1960s. The issues people were writing about drew upon oppression and the legalization of dope in San Francisco.
As I researched even further, I discovered there had been at one time quite a bit of activity in the alternative press scene in Chicago during the late 1960s. When it came down to publishing my first issue of "Cops Hate Poetry," I drew heavily from "Movement," "San Francisco Oracle" and "MaximumRocknroll, a punk fanzine originally from Berkeley (now San Francisco), California.
As I began to network, I learned that there were piles and piles of publications out there just like mine, yet put out for different purposes. The reason I had put CHP out was for my own thoughts to be heard. As I stated earlier, I had only expected for CHP to last at least two issues at the maximum. Quite the opposite occurred; the idea mushroomed.
Through networking, I had sent my publication out for review not expecting much. Before I knew it however, I started receiving a flood of letters asking for CHP. Eventually through time and space, I added a number of columns and other views for people to read and become inspired.
Elaborating further on networking, I have found that through networking, one can achieve their own goals eventually and find other views that you or somebody else might not have grasped onto before.
In answering the question, "Is there a need for an alternative press or media?" I'd say quite frankly, yes. It's extremely important to voice your opinion, to let others know what you are thinking and feeling, but at the same time, it's equally important to let others have their thoughts and feelings to be aired, no matter what you and one hundred other people may think.
As I have stated in many interviews I have given for CHP over the years during its six-year press run, you or the reader may not agree in unison, but hey! This is how the person feels, thinks, walks, talks and runs, so you have nothing to really complain about!
The people that do complain however; usually are the types that unjustly criticize without cause or reason. One can usually identify them as the kind of people who sit on their half-moons and do virtually nothing, but blab either online all night or on their slim-line cell phones, as if they felt ultra important.
In my own publication for example, I used to invite readers to submit their ideas, thoughts and comments on what I was doing and how it can be improved for the long term. It did seem to work as it was a nice run community of people I heard from & became in some instances, life-long friends with.
There will always be a need for an alternative voice, whichever way one will look at it. It's not a point of what one reads, but what kind of knowledge a person derives from the publication, whether it's mainstream, underground or on the Internet. If all else fails, start a blog & let your own voice be heard!
1 comment:
Is there a need for an alternative media? What makes one think it is alternative? What makes one think that the media at large today is actually reporting "real news"? Seems to me the media moguls just all get together and manipulate things in order to create stories and sell papers. Ask yourself, do you really believe what you read in the national papers? Do you believe what you hear on television on the evening news? Doesn't it seem like what we hear and read is not "true". More like canned even? I mean think about it, why one earth do all the major news sources all report the same thing? Is that news? Is that really news? No. Consider all the media outlets today to in reality be only "one" source, nothing more, cuz in reality that is all they are. All of them.
So who then is the alternative media source? Fact of the matter is, the so called major news outlets are in fact the alternative news sources. Why? Because the news they report is all manipulated, canned, pre packaged for the sake of sales and nothing more. They don't drive anything, they don't accomplish anything, they don't do anything to expose those things that trully lead to the demise and decay of a township, a county, a city, a state or a nation. They hide their eyes from the glaring problems of our day and age and that simply for a couple of pieces of silver, nothing more.
The major news sources are nothing more than a bunch of good ol boys working together to manipulate the public to make a buck. Classified ad chasers is what they really should be called. Need some evidence? Take the weapons of mass destruction hoo hah we were all dished going into the Gulf war. Where are the weapons? WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS? How come the major news outlets don't take the power elite to task over the lie? How come they just pooh pooh all of it and go on their way? Why is it this is no big deal to them, that a president can lie through his teeth, to an entire nation and then comit our sons and daughters to a war that goes on for years, and the news outlets don't give a damn about it? How can a president get away with this kind of conduct? In America even. The nation that blows the trumpet, proclaiming freedom of the press? Hell what does the press need freedom for and what does it need some kind of legal protection for in the Constitution? What does the press really do to deal with the rampant corruption in our government today? Not a thing. The press today is a roaring lion that has lost all it's teeth. They are in bed with those who lie to the nation about weapons of mass destruction. They really don't want to get to the bottom of it, they only want to sell papers. Make a buck and then go home and talk about how they have helped to create a better world by hiding their eyes from a glaring lie like we got from president Bush. Alternative news source? Sid, you are not the alternative news source, you are the news source, many groups and idividuals like you, who ask the tough question, who aren't afraid to speak the truth, who aren't interested in making a buck are the real news sources. Don't ever refer to yourselves again as the alternative news sources.
The hot shot news outlets today are nothing more than glamorized gossip magazines. Remember Watergate? Remember the two reporters who sank their teeth into the hide of a president because they knew that an unchecked powerful individual, in a position like the Presidency, could reek havoc in our nation and the world at large. And what do we have today? An unchecked president. He lied through his teeth about weapons of mass destruction and then sent hundreds of sons and daughters to their death. For what? I think for the sheer pleasure of it. Nothing more. And what does the news do today, what do the big shot news moguls do today? They count how many pennies they made in sales, then go to bed. They don't give a damn.
So, alternative news source? Fact of the matter is Sid, we don't have a "news" source whatsoever. You know what I mean, the kind that hung President Nixon out to dry for starters. Bush lies under oath, the oath he swore on the day he was sworn in as president. He tells us he had bad intel. Right, and I'm the Easter bunny. Bush knew, he knew all along it was a lie he was telling us. And for some reason the nation seemed to think it is alright to lie like that. Why? Is it because that is what people do with each other to begin with? Is it because the day we live in is a day filled with nothing but lies, falsehoods and disinformation? Since everyone does it, how can anyone stand up to the government and tell them to knock it off. How can we, we are all guilty of the very same thing. Or are we? What difference does it make what the boss does behind closed doors when it comes to his employees? Who says the boss lies in the first place? And besides all of that, we aren't talking about the king and queen here, we are talking about a president who is to ANSWER TO "We The People"....... Don't forget.
Poor President Nixon. He had some two bit bugglars break into an office and he all but got impeached. Bush lies to an entire nation, the world even, using terrorism even as the fuel to leverage his argument to the American people that "we" must go in and deal with Saddam. Why does a President feel the need to resort to using the events of 911, to reinforce his argument to go to war, to find the WMD's and demolish them? If the need is legitimate, then use only the need to lend credence to your case. Fact of the matter is, the boys in DC are not at all who they appear to be, just like the news media. They are all nothing but a show.
Post a Comment