Public Journalism

Good public journalism is key to maintaining a true democratic debate, where citizens are informed and interested in the issue at hand. In an article by Philip Meyer, called "Public Journalism and the Problem with Objectivity" there is a set of goals in which public journalism aspires to achieve. "Their purpose is to focus the watchdog's effort in a time of information overload."
With this in mind, some of the elements are as follows:
-Public journalism should rebuild a community's sense of self
-Public journalism should stay with a specific issue until all aspects are carried out to inform the citizens
-Public journalism should deeply explain the systems that influence people rather than focus on topical aspects/events
-Public journalism should give respectable attention to the middle ground of issues as opposed to extremes
-Public journalism should favor substance over tactics in regards to political arguments
-Public journalism should encourage the community to understand and respond to issues

By abiding by the above goals of public journalism, citizens can gain an optimal perspective of what is going on within the community, nation, and world.
Our rainforest blog has attempted to achieve this public journalism ideal, to better inform those who are interested in the idea of having a large-scale rainforest in the city of Coralville. The situation is still on debate, as funds have not yet been achieved, so the site can be found very useful for those who have stake in the issue or care to offer support or opinion. With that said, we hope that what ever comes out of the debate is in the citizen's and state's best interest. Of course there are both pros and cons that need to be wieghed, which is why we find it so important to clearly lay out the issue, with out holding back any information or viewpoints.
Public journalism at its best is an incredible advantage for an issue to have, so hopefully people will look to this site when interested in learning more about the Iowa rainforest project.

The rainforest project seems to be at a stand still as they are looking for more private contributers. All government funds have been put on hold until the project matches the grantee money through private donations. There have only been two significant private donations and that was ten million dollars by the man who had the original idea and then there is an electric company who also donated another ten million dollars as long as they were to power the facility. Since these two donations no one else has stepped forward. Is this a sign that not enough people care about this place to even make it successful? When most people in the area hear about it they find it as the biggest waste of money. And in our online poll on this website it shows mixed emotions. How much longer will the government wait before pulling our funding?

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/#Cost%20Overruns.

Today is the last day that this site will have postings, and now would be a great time to decipher the effectivity. As blog site administrator, it was my primary duty to observe our website and attempt to engage an audience in our 'small' attempt at democracy. Although our blog may not continue near the amount of comments that one should, the comments that were made brought up valid arguments as well as creative discussion. They were not mere attempts to 'get as many comments as possible from friends' but were instead individuals attempting to discuss the issue and how it relates. The contributors of this site did a great job of engaging these few commentors by answering each comment and engaging in a discussion with these individuals.

This site was only running for 3 weeks; it is difficult to cultivate an genuine audience in such a short amount of time. Attempts were made, such as placing the blog within blog search engines (3 to be specific), emailing other individuals with blogsites pertaining to our issue, asking people to link our site with theirs, etc... However, it is difficult to provide a valid argument as to why our site is a valid site to link to in the sense that our topic was not just concerning the rainforest but was also meant to look at all aspects of the media and how the media is covering this topic.

Unfortunately, because this was a class project, many blogsites were not willing to link our to theirs because of the fact that after 3 weeks this site would no longer be posting as well as the fact that, these bloggers did not believe our intention was genuine. I have received many emails complimenting this site and how it is set up--claiming that it is 'user-friendly' and 'very well designed'. Does this mean that it was effective?

I believe that this website fulfilled what it claimed to be its objective: to fairly evaluate the Coralville rain forest proposal. We as a group offer this site in the belief the public has an enormous stake in the project however it may come out, and that it is useful to give the public, media, and government officials the access to as much factual information as possible, along with the range of opinion the project has generated.

The contributors to this site may have an opinion regarding this issue; however, in general I believe that this site evaluated the issue from a fair and objective stance. Contributors scanned the media and reported what was either being covered, not beingcovered, effective, or updating what was going on. Each individual took on a role and presented valuable information regarding this role. It was an effective attempt of informing and engaging the public... for the small amount of time it was running.

For those of you who engaged in this topic and visited this site often... thank-you!

One of the most recent headlines surrounding the rainforest project concerns money issues. Senator Grassley has promised to give the original 50 million dollars for this project, but first , an additional 50 million dollars will have to be raised privately (non-federal money). Sen. Grassley approved this legislation stating that "I want this project to succeed because it's a big opportunity for Iowans from start to finish. It was originally designed to clean up an old 30-acre Brownfield land site. Its construction will create jobs. When finished, it will be a tourist destination and a leading environmental education center," Grassley said in a press release. "However, the project will never become a reality if the majority of the funding isn't raised from private benefactors and other sources. Until the project can demonstrate its ability to raise that money, I can't let federal tax dollars be frittered away."(Press-Citizen, 11/9/05). The media is always on alert when these new advances come through. This is especially important, because it makes the organization accountable for raising its own money as well as the government, since it is such a big pork barrel project.

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051109/NEWS01/51109009&SearchID=73226948459466

Digital Democracy?

A website that I stumbled across states that their purpose is...

• The broadband revolution--much like the radio, television, cable, and online revolutions of the recent past--provides yet another opportunity to make our media system more democratic, more diverse, and more participatory. It is incumbent upon community activists and leaders, recognizing the power of broadband, to become more actively involved in the design and deployment of the new high-speed networks that will bring video, data, and telephone services to our homes and businesses.
  In an effort to realize the full potential of broadband, the Center for Digital Democracy is launching a new project designed to stimulate citizen participation in the broadband revolution at the local level. CDD's Digital Destiny Campaign will assist communities in coming to terms with the rapidly evolving telecommunications landscape, bringing new multimedia resources to the masses. Our task now is to ensure that broadband serves citizenship as well as salesmanship, culture as well as commerce. By working together at the local level, we have the opportunity to shape our digital destiny.

The website does still acknowledge that there is tight control over broadband networks wielded by cable and phone company monopolies, and there is no guarantee that any of the new online resources will extend beyond the usual market-driven fare. However, this website wishes to still ensure the availability of public-interest online programming, including content produced by individuals and community groups themselves. Accordingly, communities must be informed of the public-interest options they should have in the new broadband marketplace, and encouraged to take part in the decision-making process surrounding the deployment of broadband and digital television platforms.

This site is one of the first in its kind and seems to have a general interest in serving the public. I would encourage you to read on, although it may not occur right away, this site is just the beginning of what the future instills regarding democracy online and the public. Read on...

Critics in the past-have they been right all along?

In a very non-objective and slightly rude article from Citizens Against Government Waste, there was information on the funding that is being spend towards the rainforest. Apparently, the authors believe that money should not be spent on the rain forest with their quote, "Ultimately, this project will do nothing for Iowa’s population, energy industry, or the environment, but it will soak the taxpayers."
Readers of this article will leave believing that the project's succcess will only result in high tax increases. If Iowa's taxes would in fact increase, this is definately something the project officials and coralville legislatures need to discuss with the citizens because it could make a huge difference in the way the project is supported.
It would also be nice to know the reasons for such negative criticism on the project. It seems that there is no clear distinction between the pros and cons, and a place to find such information is nonexistent. It would be nice for an official or legislature to come out and say "Look, here are the benefits, and here are the problems with the project, bottom line, we need funding." This could definately end some debates with progress. Citizens are tired of waiting just to hear whether the project is feasible or not.

Answering the Blog question part 2

In Barb Palser's article, Journalism's Backseat Driver, she wants to get across the idea that blogging has become a new form of reliable journalism, or a watchdog for journalists. They have achieved "credibility as media pundits," they are "conduits between mainstream media and the online zeitgeist," and they have become the police of the media.

So far as bloggers becoming police of the media, this is true. The question should be how credible are they in being the watchdogs of media? Ken Parish wrote an article, Monitorial Cyber-Citizens that would agree with Palser, in that bloggers have become the new public intelligentsia that should work as fire alarms for the media. The problem I have with this is that blogging has opened a realm in which anyone can come and give their ideas. It may be poor of me to say but I really do not believe everyone that blogs should be considered credible. So, it comes down to deciphering who is who in the blogging world.

As far as the idea of being mediators between online and mainstream, I do agree that bloggers have invented an ingenious program. Bloggers have more access to online blogs and forums and can relate these things to mainstream media. Their job is to criticize the media and writing online articles would make one believe that they are more in-tune with online activity.

Yet, the ultimate question is credibility. As far as media relying on some blogs for credible media pundits is hard for me to fathom. Bloggers have an agenda, much like any journalist, and support their side and try to tear down another. This leads me to believe that the bloggers are far from objective reliable sources. I may be wrong to say that all bloggers are not credible, but they are as credible as progressives would say Rush Limbaugh was credible or conservatives would say Al Franken was credible.

The thing that people need to realize is that the blogging community is not a place to go to get objective news. It should not be considered a reliable news community. As a watchdog of the media, blogging is basically designated to watching the media. We need to realize that hearing journalist relying on bloggers as credible pundits leads me to believe that we are in trouble.

Project at a standstill for a while now

The rainforest project I am told was originally planned for research and education but when the projects board looked into it further they are beginning to see that it will cost much more than what was originally anticipated and therefore it brings us to where we are today, no where except the fact that it will now be a little more tourist friendly. This project has been dragging on since 1996 and was planned to be breaking ground in the fall of 2004. This is when they already had $90 million of the $180 million to complete the project. Since that time we have done nothing. The project still has not officially bought land and they have not recieved anymore money for the project and this was over a year a go. It is almost time to say, lets do it or lets get rid of it.

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/njpc0411.html

A recent guest opinion article posted in the Daily Iowan, got me thinking, as I have previously touched on in my past posts, how seriously the project director David Oman and legistators are taking this rainforest project. Just as Carol Deprosse and Clara Oleson co-founders of Stop a Vast Error say, they are "objected to this project from the outset, believing not only that a fake rain forest was an innapropriate tourist attraction for Iowa, but also that the financial data provided by the backers were unrealistic, especially in view of the fact that many such projects were unable to be self-supporting and either forced to close their doors or to rely on tax dollars for continued operations."
It has also been called to their attention that many of the areas citizens and elected officials were not in support of this project, but somehow managed to stay on the agenda. Obviously, there is something going on, if projects of this magnitude, that really have no reason in being developed and are not supported, are somehow still on the agenda. The state could take this money and use it for other programs to help the state's economy as well as inividual people and programs. It is good to have these opnion articles in newspapers, because it makes citizens aware of the dumb things organizations and the government can and are doing.

The Critics Speak Out

Since the deadline for the next set of proof for financial improvment has been set at two years from know, critics are speaking out about the true capabilities of this man-made rain forest.
The daily Iowan has opinion and editorial articles supporting the fact that the deadline is too far away and many Iowans actually fear the results of this large-scale idea. So much money and energy is being spent on only debating about the environmental project, what will happen as the deadline approaches. When the project goes through, there are many worries that if it does get placed in Coralville, that taxes will increase.
In the articles that have been available recently, there seems to be more fear and opposition to the venture than support. This poses a problem for the project, because if locals to do not agree with such a large-scale project, it will undoubtedly fail at its many future idealistic goals. Lets just hope that this really isn't some big-headed millionaire idea that simply wants to improve Iowa economy and get the state some recognition. This is on an extremely touchy level now that deals strongly with morals, values, and ethics of using the Iowan land for proper and beneficial, and most of all supported ventures/projects.

In Tim Dunlaps article "If you build if they will come," he discusses how blogs are becoming and important part of public discourse. The media can only do so much, or in other I think it only goes so far, and the rest of the information we have to go out and search. The media can be biased and many times presents innacurate facts. Therefore, blogging creates this new "public intellectual" that Dunlop says explains facts to the "uninformed public, and can bring public debate back within coo-ee of those to whom it should belong anyway." Regarding the rainforest project, blogs I think do a better job of informing the uniformed citizen. The problem is of coure, that many do not where to go and search for such a blog. Informed citizens are the ones playing the role of the watchdog when forming these blogs and checking to see if the government as well as the organization is doing its job correctly. Reading other blogs on the rainforest, I have noticed how the watchdog role is more prominent in the blogs, as opposed to all the articles the media has produced on the rainforest project.

KCRG-TV 9 Reporting

On a report given by KCRG TV 9's Liz Mathis, the rainforest seems like an educational treasure. She reported that there will be learning centers/classrooms in side the facility where before and after tours teachers can take their classes there and they can learn much more about the rainforest. In a quote from Ted Stilwell, " the state has addressed the literacy problem- now its time to fix the science problem." It sounds a lot like this facility will be counting heavily on class field trips and people passing by on the interstate stopping in. Teachers also say that the hands on approach is proven and this will be a good way for the children to learn science better.

http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=96277&cat_id=123

To add on to a previous blog about what will happen to the land set asside for the rainforest project? The project has not yet officially bought land for the project. They have an idea of where they would like it to go but they are still working on a deal with the land owner on the price of the land.

Answering the blogging question

In an article for American Journalism Review, Barb Palser writes how "Operating through traditional media, bloggers appear to be influencing mass communication in three ways:"

1) "The least frequent but most dramatic way is policing the media."

What Palser meant by this, is that bloggers have become the new watchdogs for media. When media does something wrong, bloggers are on the attack (or the defense). Recently, coverage of Hurricane Katrina was criticized all around, and bloggers on both sides of the spectrum, Drudge Report, Instapundit, and Truthout were all concerned with media's coverage. Blogs give people a chance to show disdain or praise for something they hear or read in the news, and it allows them to discuss further how they actually feel about certain issues.

2)"The second way blogs influence journalism is through their role as conduits between mainstream media and the online zeitgeist."

Bloggers have paved a way for journalists and analysts to find out, what is going on throughout the internet. Blogs are easily accessible and allow journalists to go from blog to blog by links to find new information. This also suggests that blogs are not all the buzz, they follow, not just create it. It is easy to say that blogs create the buzz but studies done by Pew Internet & American Life Project have shown that they are not the only leaders in buzz news.

3)"Finally, bloggers may be influencing journalism by achieving credibility as media pundits."

Now-a-days, reporters are coming to well known bloggers, to interview them on issues that the news screws up. You can find more and more coverage from bloggers in today's most well known media outlets. "Many bloggers probably consume news at least more aggressively, if not always more carefully, than a lot of other people," said Poynters Bill Mitchell. So, it seems as if it does make sense to include bloggers as credible sources, or does it?



Journalism's Backseat Drivers, By: Palser, Barb, American Journalism Review, 1067-8654, August 1, 2005, Vol. 27, Issue 4

Where is everyone?

In recent posts we have been discussing how effective different forms of media are regarding democracy. What seems to be objective, bias, effective, accurate, etc... Yet this blog was created to discuss (objectively as much as possible) the issue of the rainforest. It seems that, instead of discussing other forms of media, I should instead be focusing on our form--our weblog. In the 2 weeks that this site has been running, how effective has it been?

When this website first began, the only comments made on posts were those of automated advertisers, leaving fake posts to advertise their internet commerce sites. One of the main premises of the internet was that it bypasses the corporate reliance on advertising and marketing; however, this seems hardly the case. Instead, I have gotten numerous emails asking if I wish to advertise on our weblog. When creating this website, one of the questions asked was whether I wanted to place AdSense in my blog. AdSense "provides a simple way for you to make money with your blog. AdSense is Google's content-targeted advertising program. This means that you do not select keywords or categories for your ads. Instead, Google's servers determine what your posts are about and display the most relevant ads to your readers. So, if you blog about baseball, there might be ads for Major League Baseball memorabilia next to your post. If you blog about painting, there might be ads for art supplies." Taken from blogger.com It is sad that, as I surf through the web, I entail: pop-up after pop-up; ads located on sidebars that refuse to go away; etc...

Unfortunately, it seems that as of right now our website is not engaging visitors. So then is it time to resort to advertising? It seems that there are ways around advertising for the time being, which include participating in blog search sites such as Technorati, Daypop, or Blogdex.
There are also important techniques to follow, most importantly writing a great blog to gain repeat visitors and word of mouth blog.

• Write quality content and do it well. Using proper punctuation and capitalizing letters when appropriate can get a big crowd.
• Publish regular updates. The more you blog the more traffic you will get. Fortunately for us, we post everday and therefore are fulfilling this requirement already.
• Think of your audience. Develope a strong voice and keep your audience in mind when writing. Our audience consists of those interested in this issue as well as those that have stake in this issue, mainly the local community.
• Keep search engines in mind.
• Keep your posts and paragraphs short. This is a good way for visitors to pop in, read up, and click on. However, some long form writing is encouraged as well. Read more...

While it is obvious that we are not following all of these quidelines thorougly, we are still engaging in most of them to the best of our ability. Hopefully, by participating in blog searches as well as linking our blog to other ones, we will see an increase in activity within our site. The goal is to be able to engage an audience without having to resort to advertising to create a voice, the simple creation of keywords and word of blog should carry our voice.

If there is no forest, what will be done with the land?

It has come to attention that Coralville may not in fact see a rain forest. If funds are not achieved, and the land is not secured, then the project may move elsewhere, after all, it is not a Coralville environmental project, but an Iowa environmental project. If there is no rain forest, than what will be done with the land? It is obvious that Coralville is going through many constructional changes whether the rain forest comes or not. The 1st Ave exit off of interstate I-80 is clearly being completely renovated whether for its own sake or to attract rain forest project officials, major changes are being made, and already have been made, in cooperation with this large rain forest idea. If the land is not used, what will become of it? More hotels? Will there be enough business in that area to benefit all of the new construction without the rain forest? How will the hotel do without the tourists that were hopefully expected for the project? Could the city of Coralville be in trouble if the project does not eventually go through?
These are some of the nervous questions locals have, which is one of the many reasons it is so important to understand the project and its future so that planning can be done. From Who-TV there was a story titled "Iowa's Rain Forest," that featured Councilor Lundell speaking about the fact that the city of Coralville need to think about other options for the land. If this is not done, we may have many angry business men who used to have businesses in the area, but were bought out for the project, and for others who have put energy into the idea. Read on about Lundell at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9690501/
What are the other options for the land?

Newspaper Editorials...

How many thousands of Letters to the Editor never get published each day in the United States? The answer is way too many. To get a letter published in most of the daily and weekly newspapers is a rare thing. To get even one published in a whole year, it seems, is a major accomplishment. One's voice as a citizen often muffled apparently with little scruple.

Yet newspaper editorial staff and owners of the corporate media tend to give the impression that they represent 'The People'. In fact their major claim to fame often is that they are the people's or society's watchdogs and therefore they deserve and need freedom of speech and print... how ironic. Yet it is a truism that one major reason that the U.S. Court system has so often sided with free speech for the media is because it is presumed that media spoke-persons speaks for the good of all responsible peoples--irrespective of class or opinion. However, when one considers the amount of print space a typical city newspaper allocates to 'The People' in the many pages of newsprint published every day one can reasonably conclude that 'The People' get the crumbs. There is far more space allocated to marketing and advertising.

Then when a person of the public is finally selected for publication likely his or her letter is confined to a few mere paragraphs! On occasion a letter may get more space such as a few extra paragraphs?but hardly more than that. Yet a true intellect knows that at times it takes detail, argumentation, and elaboration to make a plausible case for a particular point, particularly if it is not trite, leading to a viable and cogent generalization or conclusion. Thought does require some analysis of complexity at times but perhaps those of editorial boards feel that only news columnists, selected professionals, and editors themselves have the capacity for complex thought and argumentation?

How is it that many news media people talk about the ideals of democracy and representational government when they do not practice it? Is democracy simply about voting? It hardly is. One would think an even more important function of participation would be the exchange of information, questions, and ideas. One would hope that those that vote have had a few pertinent thoughts about for whom or what they voted, as they participate in the process of informational exchange as equals before all. But exchanging ideas requires a willingness to listen to others. Main stream media outlets seem to prefer that they decide which ideas are expressed. Whereas our apparent readership function is mostly to evaluate information based on those limitations and not of those missing or dissentient ideas. Perhaps corporate media can only provide a token of democratic participation like a vote for an elected official only provides an illusion of representation, since many Senators, Representatives, Governors, and Presidents are far too owned by special interest groups?

Another problem with the status quo of Letters to the Editor is that if a newspaper declines or refuses to print a perspective on something discussed in its paper, most other papers will not touch that perspective either because it is not is relationship to their newspaper. Therefore any forum ought to be open to discuss any news opinion whose influence effects any particular area or community.

What America needs is a forum of voter opinions not controlled by those substanically paid to publish and deeply entrenched in the status quo. This would be different from a blog or bulletin board for special subjects, but it would be an all purpose forum for 'The People' to discuss any important current affairs issue and to share opinions across boundaries. Of course news reporting is needed but equally as important are discussions about the news reported or not reported. Granted it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the great and momentous work of the main stream media people do for the contribute a great deal of insight and work--but 'The People' deserve a right to speak out for themselves as opposed to being patronized by those who seem to think they are the only relevant experts on most matters. Our opinions all matter. Many people may be ill-informed but this is a participatory process not just learning to get literate. It is crucial that Independent Media as it is evolving take steps to have active forums on opinion at various geographical levels: local city/county, state, regional, national, and international. Equally, excellent opinion pieces, as well as articles written ought be considered for multiple site distribution based on the merits of the individual writings not like hacks that are guaranteed their considerable special space privileges weekly in various papers. Websites ought actively practice postings from the network at large. This is not only ideal (within reason) it is necessary that the best writings get the widest distribution--similar to what syndicates provide even if you do not get paid. Hopefully media will see to it that this practice evolves so as to provide true competition and interest building for diversity. It is time to tap into the alienation of readers and would be participants. Still it does not mean that anything goes and dumbness warrants a place in quality spaces that are public.

The same thing over and over again....

"Sen. Charles Grassley has won Senate approval for legislation that would require the Coralville rainforest project to raise $50 million in non-federal money before being granted $50 million in Department of Energy money."

"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to hold back a federal allowance to the rain forest project until it earns more money of its own."

The first of the two articles was written, in general, by an anonymous Citizen-Press reporter. Adam Pracht wrote the second article. This is one of the better examples I have come across that shows how a personal narrative can really make people think differently.

The first article is an informative article talking about the federal funds money and how that 50 million has to be matched with non-federal money. There being little narrative in the article, actually gives people an idea of the problem at hand. With the second article, Pracht actually creates a more one-sided story using most of the information form the first article, by adding his narrative. Pracht gives the information but then goes into how the decision affects the community. The one-sidedness comes when Adam reports the views the city councilors have on Grassley's decision. He uses councilors that have already criticized Grassley and the Rainforest project. Pracht loses the objectivity that the first article conceived by adding a narrative.

We can see that adding one's personal narrative can make all the difference informing the public. Pracht should give both sides, yes give opposition to Grassley, but also tell us who supports him and what they think about Grassley's decision. The Press-Citizen needs to write more informative articles like the first article and leave articles like Pracht's in the OP/ED section.







Adam Pracht Iowa City Press-Citizen
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051109/NEWS01/51109009
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051111/NEWS01/511110305

Fund raising not going so well

This past summer the project hired KUD International to head the fund raising. The also would require that all of the fund raising be done before the project is started. They thought that fund raising from private donors would take around 18 months as of this past June. So far they have not gotten a lot of contributions except for a couple that have each given $10 million each. They said that they still have a long way to go.

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/zkcrg623.html

Where is the Rain Forest?

The question of the rain forest's location is apparently still up in the air. According to "Rain forest must find private funds," from the Daily Iowan, the slow process of acheiving financial goals has brought up the question of where the rain forest will actually be constructed. Due to the fact that funds were not secured efficiently, citizens may not even see the rain forest project in the local area of Coralville. There are some issues about a known 50 million dollar grant by the government, which not only covers basic costs, but also many other things such as project officials salaries. This grant will not necessarily secure the fact that we will see this project up and running any time soon, because it must be matched, and it still leaves at least 90 million dollars left. It turns out that officials have not even asked the city of coralville to raise the money, and are turning to private sources.
What is problematic, is the fact that officials like David Oman, who know exactly what is going on are not spending time to communicate with the community and give citizens answers. The question of moving the project elsewhere is being avoided by those with the answers, and information about funding is also being withheld. So what is the city of Coralville doing? Are they allowed any say?: How are they supposed to make informed decisions, and come together on an agreement if no one is giving out information to work with?
It almost seems as if the project is moving aling without local opinions, and important decisions are kept quite by project officials until everything is ready. It may move before we realize it, and the hopes of project supporters will die. Citizens who are still believing in this project, and their future here in Coralville must know what is going on, because it will effect their lives, and possibly their living situation.
In an article by Tim Dunlap, he explains how the new idea of blogging can be a great opportunity for people to talk about politics, and to share information easily and quickly. It is easy to access, and anyone can do it for free. Dunlap considers the notion that there are many reasons different people use blogs, but "To others they represent a rebirth of participatory democracy, a new form of journalism, and even the home of the new public intellectuals." He promotes the positive uses of a public, political blog like our rain forest project blog here.
As a group working on this rain forest blog, we are strongly encouraging respondants, expecially those who may have answers. We are out to teach the public about this great opportunity, and work to provide the best possible knowledge we can get our hands on. We need other opinions and insights, as well as any facts that are not displayed to be brought up so we can help make this blogging atmosphere a successful and productive one. Blogs have the opportunity to become a revolutionary democratic tool for societies, and so we encourage the activity and action within it. Tell us what you think!

Jon Katz, in his article "Age of Paine" discusses how Thomas Paine " was one of the first journalists to use media as a powerful weapon against an entrenched array of monarchies. feudal lords, dictators, and repressive social structures. He invented contemporary political journalism, creating almost by himself a mass reading-public aware for the first time of its right to encounter controversial opinions and to participate in politics." Paine understood the importance of keeping watch on these powerful institutions. power structure." Katz would love for Paine to be alive today and says how Paine would take the role as the "moral father of the internet." If Paine were alive today and used the internet "his ideas about communications, media ethics, the universal conections between people, and the free flow of honest opinion are all relevant again, visible every time one modom shakes hands with another". The opportunity of sharing free flowing opinions that blogs offer is so important. It gives citizens a chance to crack down on governenment officials and institutions. There have been many crack downs on the legistlators and The Environmental Project regarding how they are not progressing in the rainforest project. The media has published numerous articles showing how slow the progress has been.

Local or National Interest?

This project is about Iowa: Iowa Child Institute officials have emphasized the rainforest's linkage to the state: "While a rainforest seems exotic, Iowa has always had a strong agrarian tradition that recognizes the ultimate interdependence of people and the land," the panel report explained. "The [project] pays homage to that interdependence and the role that education in Iowa has played in supporting an economy based on natural resources." It has earned the rave reviews of environmentalists, public officials, media, and glass contractors across the Hawkeye State. Their enthusiastic support has, in turn, spurred a major public-private partnership funded with federal, state, county, and township grants.

The Positive Side...
Adam Weeks of North Liberty wrote: "if one wishes to garner any sort of support, this oxymoron should be put to rest. However, it is my belief that opponents of this magnificent project use this negative hype much to their advantage. This project is a visionary icon located in what is supposed to be an educational center. It's not just a rain forest, but an aquarium, amphitheater, prairie restoration project and, most important, an educational masterpiece that will bring unimaginable amounts of dollars and many jobs to our community.

A couple years ago, ABC's "Good Morning America" produced a story in which its reporter stood affront a cornfield supposable in Iowa and did his best to belittle the project. Not only was the location inaccurate, with no mention of the brown field cleanup, but it was biased and irresponsible. I can only speculate that if this project were slated for New York City that it would be considered the greatest environmental spectacle of all time.

Some members of the Coralville City Council have suggested that other projects with similar draw could be located in the landing. I for one don't see this as having a chance unless Midwest Disney is coming to our beloved metro. Finally, Sen. Charles Grassley should not feel embarrassed about supporting projects in his state ("Sen. Grassley 'embarrassed' but committed," Oct. 28). If Iowa doesn't utilize this earmarked money, another project in another state will."

More...

THE OTHER SIDE...
According to IowaHawk's blogsite, the the other side consists of "a shadowy group of agenda-driven internet extremists has emerged who now have placed this vital project squarely in their crosshairs. Their mission: deprive the hardworking families of Iowa jobs, trees, as well as the trees' life-giving oxygen. Shamelessly using Hurricane Katrina relief as a clever subterfuge, these well-funded extremists have bombarded voters with a barrage of disinformation, distortions, and outright data to sabotage Iowa's tropical "Field of Dreams" at Exit 235." Anti-rainforest activists are claiming negative outcomes not just on a local level, but nationally... specifically the federal budget. This project is part of a year-end spending bill in Congress, a $373 billion package that critics say is packed with pork-barrel projects at a time Congress should be worried about soaring budget deficits.

SO THEN, WHO IS RIGHT?
Much of the rainforest debate is discussed via blogsites, who are these people then? According to an article by Tim Dunlop, a "blogger is somebody who writes a weblog. A weblog is a website where a person logs, often on a daily basis, his or her thoughts on a range of topics." These sites are attractive because the majority of them are available free to the user. As Dunlop stated, a blogger logs his or her thoughts (opnions) based on reactions to the news of the day as published by major outlets. They lack the resources of a media agency. So then, can these sites be considered an effective means of displaying the truth or informing the public? Few bloggers try to be journalistically objective, which to some is a good thing while to others bad. Although this site attempts to present both sides of the argument truthfully, each of us has in our minds a decision or feeling about this project that, although not consciouscly, unconsciously directs our posting. Does objectivity really exist? Are journalistic reports more objective than weblogs? It is difficult to discuss a topic without feeling or emotion, and although I have tried numerous times, I still cannot do it. Many would argue that it is the journalist's job to evaluate all claims made and decipher its accuracy: this is where the line between objectivity and journalistic bias becomes unclear. In order to report the truth, a journalist may be required to take a side, whether intentional or unintentional. Does this make the story less credible? In some circumstances, a good weblog is one that evaluates the story and attempts to convey the truth, obviously taking one side or another. Does this affect credibility? How does one identify what is true and what is opinion both journalistically or by weblog? What is the difference?

Often times, well most times, newspapers and media in general, are on a time limit to get the "top stories" out, in order to attract a big enough audience, and to keep that audience buying there newspapers and watching the broadcasts. Yellow journalism, Campbell describes, presented a new format, with color and appeal to all socio-economic levels. They were also hurried to get the news stories out to make a profit, a theme that underlies most of the media today (market-driven). If this is so, how can the media actually be doing it's job of presenting the public with informed stories that are accurate and credible? I think that newspapers and the media do indeed follow yellow journalism's characteristics, and sometimes this can be problematic. I think that there is not enough coverage on the rainforest project, and that newspapers and the media are focusing on other issues, which might sell more. The media should focus more on this project, especially since it involves so much money. I certainly want to read more about it, and I would like for the media to question the institutions further, especially since it seems they have been stalling on the land proposal for over two months now. What do you think?

Rainforest is up in the air

The $50 million in government funding has been put on hold due to the fact that nothing in the project is being done. The government has put the money on hold until the project can match the $50 million in private donations and they have until December 1, 2007. Senator Grassley 's office has reported that $2 million of the $50 million has already been spent and the rest is on hold. $2 million has been spent and we have nothing to show for it. Because of this the government is not telling what the future will hold for this project. It has even been said that the project may not even be in Coralville, the government says it is an Iowa project and where it will be is not defininte. With the Coralville site in mind Senator Grassley said that certain things are suppose to be happening by a certain time and those things arent happening.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051110/NEWS09/511100386/1001/NEWS

IS THERE MORE GOING ON HERE?

A recently article in the Daily Iowan stated that there will be "no changes in leadership in the Nov. 8 city elections. " This is interesting, simply because the article states that there was no opposition between Mayor Jim Faussett, and Councilors Tom Gill, John Lundell, and Henry Herwig in this decision.
In an article for the press citizen, Lundell was quoted saying that he wants there to be "a complete change in the decision making leadership." This was stated because of arguments over funds being dedicated to the non-progressive rainforest that should be used on current needs such as hurricane relief and what not. This is so, because of the delay in funding for the project that has many people waiting.
So which is it? No oppositions, or hidden feelings about leadership?
Lundell needs to decide which way is swinging or the public will be confused by his discourse.

Furthur information can be found at:
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/NEWS01/509230309/1079
or in the Daily Iowan, November 7, 2005 pg 6A

Media's role as watchdog is very important in order to make sure the government as well as orgaznizations are not performing in corrput ways. There is only so much a citizen can do when discovering a coroporation that is behaving inhumane ways or a government that is acting unjustly. The media therefore steps in and gives citizens information on different issues and how the governemnt is performing. It is necessary for the media to run these stories, because we have to face the fact that most of us are not up to date with all current events, or we just don't bother to actively engage. The rainforest project is a perfect example of both the government and organization , The Environmental Project, being involved and the media the one that is keeping watch of these institutions by providing regular stories. Sometimes though, these stories are not that in depth, as Lipman explains. The media should try to pursue deeper into the stories, but often this is impossible with the deadlines that have to be met. This leads to a market driven media interested in getting out "catchy" stories that will sell the most. Lipman proposes setting up a government funded organization, to eliminate the competition aspect and market driven force, to create public opinion. But this then leads to government control. I think that overall after looking at the many articles published on the rainforest, the media has been actively keeping check on the the government and the Environmental Project.

Officials are Questioning the Coralville Rainforest

The Coralville Rainforest isnt moving along to quickly. It seems as though we have come to a standstill and waiting to purchase some land. The $50 million that we have recieve was also in question of where it came from. At first officials would not say and citizens were not happy feeling like they were using taxpayers money for this project until recently when the spokes person for the project told the press that it had come from a government energy grant. Officials are also questioning what is going on as the project seems to be going no where and are wondering if the state should just invest the money in a different environmental project.

Also brought up in a recent article was how much is actually left of the $50 million? How much of the money have we already wasted and there is nothing to show for it. Officials are not alone in this argument as many citizens agree with them. If action is not being taken why not just forget about the rainforest, save the state some money and invest what we have into another environmental project.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/paper599/news/2005/10/11/Metro/Officials.Question.Rain.Forest-1016135.shtml

Who should critique media?

As media watchdog, it might be a good time to answer who should take the role of actually critiquing the media. The media has the job of looking at the government and making sure they are carrying out their roles in the most effective way possible. Who is making sure that the media is doing their job? Many people would say that there should be a government body that is designed to be the watchdog of the media. Brent Bozell III took the initiative to create the Media Research Center, the largest watchdog of media for the right and Jeff Cohen created FAIR, one of the largest watchdogs for the left. The problem is that there is no watchdog for middle ground. Watchdogs like MRC and FAIR, fail to actually problematize media's coverage. They point out the faults in one side or the other but fail to carry out what the definition of a watchdog should be. But if these centers are failing to actually focus on objective news, whose job is it?

Many people, like Mark Memmott of USA Today and John Leo of the US News & World Report, feel that bloggers should take the role of media watchdogs, or already have. "TV networks, newspapers and other "old media" now know there's a vigilant pack of watchdogs who can rip holes in stories any time of day or night." Blogging is founded on critiquing the media. It gives people the chance to convey how the feel on a certain topic without having to become a journalist or writing in an op/ed piece. Yet, where does credibility lie in regards to bloggers. It is safe to say that a majority of people that blog are not as frequented with the subjects they are debating as scholars or journalists. Bozell, you could say is pretty well informed on the topic of media and media bias, it is his job. Yet we find faults in his watchdog efforts and we find faults in efforts of the blogger.

Blogging has its faults but could be the necessary means for critiquing the media. Blogging does give the public a chance to ask questions and argue against certain things they see in the media, but it also leaves adheres to dualistic debate. Debate is not the answer to the media's critiques, as I have mentioned before. There is fault in dualism, when seeking objective news and blogs thrive on dualistic intent. One may ask, who do we have to critique media? The media itself, no, we already know, in the MRC and FAIR case, that is problematic.

I will ask you then who do we have critique the media?

Mark Memmott USA Today; 09/22/2004. Bloggers keep eye on the news.

Public Journalism

Public journalism is characterized by the following elements:

Desire to rebuild a community's sense of itself

Longer attention span.

A willingness to go deeply into explaining the systems that direct our lives

More attention to the rational middle ground of issues and less attention to extremes

Preference for substance over tactics in covering political argument

Desire to foster deliberation

The Johnson County newspapers attempt to create sentimentality by covering news that the reader can readily relate to: a sense of community. Coverage is therefore focoused on what is going on within the community (i.e. the Rainforest debate) and how this news relates to the interest of the community.

The newspapers should focus on a problem or issue until it has focused community attention on all its aspects and citizens can debate rationally about it. The problem then arises with regards to the rainforest: why are we not getting all of the information? Where is the $50million?

It is the job of the newspaper to help the audience see beyond the surface and into the underlying sources of the community's problems. The issue is not whether the rainforest should or should not be built, it is not the event itself. What issues have arose because of this event? Issues such as the federal budget, community involvement, education, etc... should be covered by journalists.

Where does the middle ground lie? What does the community want?

News should foster deliberation: everyone should be allowed the opportunity to express his or her views. The community must help and encourage members to make an attempt at reciprocal understanding.

These elements must occur when defining public journalism; however, they do not just occur within one medium. When researching the Rainforest issue, if focusing on one form of medium, we will not find that all of these elements are being met. If we combine mediums, newspapers, the Internet, blogs, etc... then it is easy to define public journalism in action. Are these forms of communication then effective alone, or are other forms needed? Are we getting all of the necessary information from the newspaper or Internet? If not then where else can individuals go to get the necessary information?

For further information regarding public journalism, please read Meyer's article.

Privatize Federal Programs?

Steven Voigt claims that there are...

"many government-run and government-sponsored programs that may be better handled by the private sector. He specifically names two: the government-run Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; the government-sponsored Corporation for Public Broadcasting." According to Voigt, "it is hard to believe that Public Broadcasting's radio and television stations cannot simply run a few commercials like every other television station to save taxpayers $378 million each year."

(Read more of his article: http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050327voigt.htm)

Although Voigt introduces a valid argument, Public Broadcasting was created by Congress to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes. It furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation. Public Broadcasting is an important concern to the Federal Government because the expansion and development of public telecommunications and of diversity of its programming depend on freedom, imagination, and initiative on both local and national levels. From its advent almost four decades ago, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate to ensure "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." This principle is part of the bedrock of public broadcasting in America, a country built upon a foundation of lively and open political and social discourse.

By removing government spending and forcing Public Broadcasting to resort to advertising: individuals like Voigt are encouraging corporate control as well as a reliance on profits to encourage business. PB is an effective non-profit organization, if corporations too control than this organization may lose the prinicple it was built upon: a foundation of lively and open political and social discourse. Eventually this organization would have to answer to the public's need for sensationalism to continue broadcasting. Credibility would be lost in the numerous advertisements that are currently extinct. Without government funding, public broadcasting inevitably becomes commercial broadcasting.

There are facilities out there like this

This is not the only indoor rainforest out there but it is planned to be the largest. The Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska, has a smaller rain forest, IMAX theater, aquarium and a desert dome. They average 1.4 million people visiting annually but it is also in a much larger metropolitan area. There is also the Eden Project in Cornwall, England, is an indoor rainforest that draws 1.4 million visitors annually and was something of an inspiration for the Iowa project. Oman said, "They don't have an interstate highway, and we do." So there are other facilities like the one planned to be put in Coralville out there that are having success.

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/dmr40919.html

Recently from KCRG

In a recent problematic situation concerning the funds set aside for the Environmental project, Senator Chuck Grassley states that he has been "Politically emabarrassed."
Supposedly, Grassley is embarrased about the slow fundraising the project has recieved, and the article ends saying the "Coralville City Council may decide in a few weeks whether to go through with this project." (Rain Forest Project Could be Withering
Thursday, October 27, 2005, 6:31:02 AM KCRG.com)

Whether or not to go through with the project is a confusing question. Citizens of Coralville can drive by the desired location off of 1st Ave and notice the construction. What is going on over there? Is that all simply for the Hotel? Critiquing what we hear in the media is an important part in figuring out what is really going on.

Many people know of Jon Stewart from TV as he is constantly arguing with politicians, telling them to knock off the "official stories" and tell Americans what is really going on. His influential argument can really hit home with the troublesome argument over the rainforest.
With little publicly known progress over the project, news that comes out must be critiqued. Was there more to the interview with Grassley at KCRG? Why is he truly embarrassed? Does he feel that funds should be going elsewhere, such as hurricane relief, or is he stating this because there is information that needs to be known by the public?

More interestingly, Project Leader David Oman notes in the KCRG report that there is momentum in fundraising from a particular company, but does not say which company. This is evidence to believe there is a lot of information underwraps going on right now especially in this critical time for the project. Stewart can hopefully encourage journalists and reporters to dig for the truth, and exploit the truth. He would never let Oman leave on such an ambiguous remark. There is funding. There is progress. There is growth. But how can we know this for sure? Who will be the journalist to speak up, and critique his intervewee and report from mutliple resources? Stewart will commend you!

No More Polar Sides---MIddle Ground Concerning the Rainforest

Celeste Michelle Condit has been known for her work on critiquing mass media for dualistic approaches that result in nothing but radical polarized sides. By developing such opposing sides to an important debate, it is inevitable to end up arguing forever, and never reaching a desirable conclusion. The tragedy here, is that we see this fatal movement in the debate over the Environmental Project here in Coralville.
Surely, the question is still circulating about whether or not we should build this massive educational center here in Coralville. The project involves many resources including the most problematic one being financial. This is one of the influences to this polarized debate anyone can witnesss by picking up the latest newspaper article on the issue, or simply by googling "Rainforest in Iowa."
If we as citizens want to resolve this issue, it is absolutely necessary to figure out what are the real issues we are agruing about, and join in on a common ground, so we can solve them, and do what needs to be done for education, the economy, and the future of science.
Here are some important questions that need to be assessed in order to work towards a common ground, and to steer clear of a devastating polarized debate such as "Rainforest or no rainforest?"

*What are the REAL reasons for wanting to build the Iowa Environmental Project, what are the problems it will solve and what are the needs that it will meet?
*What are the negative consequences with building of this project?
*What are the alternative options?

When the answers to these questions go public, citizens can work on a consensus for the best possible way to do what is right for the community and the people within it. Is the project truly beneficial to our entire society, including every class? If so, how? This needs to be thuroughly explained in media.

This information could drastically improve the rate of progress we are seeing on this project, which is causing much frustration to the people of coralville and surrounding areas.

This project is very large and costly, and a lot of money that could be applied elsewhere is being used to create the rainforest in Coralville. As a result, since a lot of money is going into this, government officials and The Environmental Project should be working actively, but as the article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen shows "more than a month has passed since city officials and leaders of a planned $180 million enclosed rain forest began discussing how to hand over 22 acres of city-owned land to the project, but it's still unclear when a final agreement could arrive." Negotiations for the final land contract is ongoining, and there has not been much progress. The main problem surrounding this slow progress is leadership, both with the organization and our legislators. A council member showed disappointment in the slow progress and said "It just amazes me that this thing can go on and on and on and nothing seems to happen and no one seems to respond." It is about time someone starts taking responsibility for this costly project if positive results want to be seen in the future!

Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 25, 2005, Adam Pracht

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051025/NEWS01/510250306

What's so funny?

Adam Weeks of North Liberty, wrote to the Press-Citizen:

It troubles me to witness such narrow mindedness by the very reporters we turn to for news each day. For years now, the Iowa Environmental Project, though it has had other names, has been simply called a rain forest in Iowa.

Well, in my opinion, if one wishes to garner any sort of support, this oxymoron should be put to rest. However, it is my belief that opponents of this magnificent project use this negative hype much to their advantage. This project is a visionary icon located in what is supposed to be an educational center. It's not just a rain forest, but an aquarium, amphitheater, prairie restoration project and, most important, an educational masterpiece that will bring unimaginable amounts of dollars and many jobs to our community.

A couple years ago, ABC's "Good Morning America" produced a story in which its reporter stood affront a cornfield supposable in Iowa and did his best to belittle the project. Not only was the location inaccurate, with no mention of the brown field cleanup, but it was biased and irresponsible. I can only speculate that if this project were slated for New York City that it would be considered the greatest environmental spectacle of all time.

Some members of the Coralville City Council have suggested that other projects with similar draw could be located in the landing. I for one don't see this as having a chance unless Midwest Disney is coming to our beloved metro. Finally, Sen. Charles Grassley should not feel embarrassed about supporting projects in his state ("Sen. Grassley 'embarrassed' but committed," Oct. 28). If Iowa doesn't utilize this earmarked money, another project in another state will.

"Now THAT'S a funny letter!" wrote the anonymous editor of the Iowa Pork Forest web blog.

This is the problem with web blogs. Much like the early day muckrakers, authors of these infamous blogs know little about the topics they cover. If they do know about them they are mostly one-sided in their views. What is so funny about someone trying to show the other side of an argument. In an article about blogs, Tim Dunlop believes that "bloggers are the new public intellectuals"

Yet, the authors of certian blogs like the Iowa Pork Forest use their blog space to attack or poke fun at one side of the argument. This falls short of what one would call a public intellectual. Dunlop believes that blogs are the perfect sphere for democratic discourse. A place wherein any one can come to engage in a discussion.

Discussion is different than debate, because in a debate our dualistic nature comes into play whereas a discussion can lead to one idea or one definition. Plato is rolling over in his grave because of new media such as web blogs. The dialogic ideal Plato saw as perfect communication has been destroyed with blogs that do not foster public discourse. Not that all blogs destroy this dialogic nature but a large portion do.

There needs to be a change, blogs should be a place where anyone can come read and discuss an issue. Saying something is funny or ridiculous is fine but give reasons why and be open to the idea that you may be wrong. This is only the starting point to creating democratic disourse.

To many people in the surrounding area there is one question that comes to mind when thinking about the Iowa Rainforest, is it going to cover its own butt? $180 million is an awful lot of money anywhere but in the great state of Iowa its a lot more. There have been studys done to see if the minimum 1.1 million people will annually come and see the rainforest so it may break even. Three studies by consulting firms have said that it will attract between 1.1 and 1.5 million people annually. The studies also go on to tell that in order for the rainforest to keep that number of people coming in their doors they will need to keep adding new attractions, keep things fresh, and possibly add on to the project. If they do not it could fizzel out just like what happened in March 2003 to Colorado's Ocean Journey. The bankrupt $93 million Denver aquarium was recently purchased for just $13.6 million by Landry's seafood restaurant chain. Folks in Denver will now be able to watch their fish and eat them, too. When project managers were asked what would happen to the building if the same thing were to happen here, there was no comment made. This project is also hoping and planning on a lot of people will stop in as they are passing by on I-80 or I-380. The structure should be plenty visible from a ways a way hoping to strike curiosity in passerbyers.

The fate of this projcet and its success they say is based on how well it is advertised here, there and everywhere!

http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/IaChild/dmr40919.html

Effective use of money

It has come to my attention, after reading several articles, that the rainforest (a pork-barrel project), is costing the nation millions of dollars to fund. As stated in the Nation,
"the budget deficit stands at $521 billion for our nation, and is costing taxpayers $29 billion to fund 10,656 pork-barrel projects. The rainforest will cost 50 million dollars to build."
The official rainforest website has a section for their press releases. The press releases on the amount of money used for this project is obviously biased. All of the advantages, such as an increase in jobs and and economic uplift for Iowa are discussed, but the website does not indicate any downfalls of this project and the amount of money put to use towards this effort.

Blogs: good for democracy?

Many blogs, created in response to the Rainforest issue, claim to provide a factual analysis of the Environmental/Educational Project. These bloggers claim an effort to fairly evaluate this project. It is the belief that the Internet is good for democracy because it creates digital citizens active in the teledemocracy of an Electronic Republic and e-nation.

Elie Noam would argue that "When it comes to the Internet, observers commit a so-called error of composition. They observe a "micro" behavior and jump to a "macro" conclusion. They think that if something is helpful to an individual or group, it similary affects society at large, when everyone uses it." She criticizes principal claims for the Internet's strengthening power of democracy.

- Internet will facilitate political participatory action. Claims that if everyone is allowed to speak then who will be listened to?

- Internet will raise the level of political dialogue. Claims that as the Internet leads to more information clutter, it becomes necessary for the message to become louder. Because of this, much of the political information will inevitably become distorted, shrill, and simplistic. She offers the idea of disinformation claiming that if information comes unfiltered, it will create a community-based media but also lead to rumor and last-minute political ambush .

- Direct access to public officials becomes possible. Anyone can send email messages to public officials and perhaps even get automated reply, and provide the illusion of access. However, the limited resource will still be scarce: attention of those officials.

- Internet provides more information, which is good for democracy. She makes the claim that the most stable democracies are characterized by a certain slowness of change.

Although Noam offers valid arguments, she tends to generalize the Internet. Although it may be impossible to be heard, the Internet provides atleast the opportunity-it provides a channel for citizens to make their voices heard. The Internet provides resources, raising civil awareness of political decision making processes and critical issues. Many would argue that the Internet ultimately fosters informed citizens and erodes monopolies of knowledge, ending civil ignorance of moral, political, and economic issues.

The issue of the Rainforest has been a topic of concern since 2003 and yet it was not until October of 2005 that it became of interest to me. An article in the newspaper fostered interest and as a result I went to the Internet for answers: what was the issue? who was at stake? what were the facts? It can be argued that, before Internet, the ability to answer these questions was not available to the general public. Of course newspapers are covering the issue; however, journalists are presenting what they feels will spark readers' attention. Journalists have a choice of what aspect of the story they wish to focus attention on whether important or not. The Internet then provides the opportunity to find all information regarding the issue as well as a choice of what to read. It is an opportunity for the public to become informed and engaged in the topic.

Noam, Eli M. Why the Internet is Bad for Democracy. Communications of the ACM, Oct2005, Vol. 48 Issue 10, p57, 2p.

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

It either skipped my mind or maybe I just wasn't informed, but how is this rainforest going to be beneficial for Iowans? Oh that's right I wasn't informed (I don't believe). It's been said
by Adam Pracht of the Iowa Press-Citizen on numerous occaisions "Proponents of the project said it would bring 500 construction and 200 permanent jobs, attract 1.1 million to 1.5 million visitors annually and add $187 million to the state every year." Is that really sufficient coverage of how Iowans will benefit from this project, though?

Media is giving poor reasons as to why the project would be beneficial and it really comes down to 3 different things. It's either not beneficial to our community, it is beneficial, or else media (at least the Daily Iowan and Press-Citizen) is a little biased on the subject matter. The reason they give such skeptical answers could be seen as trying to persuade the public opinion. They give one side and the public only sees one side. I personally feel there isn't anything beneficial about a rainforest in the middle of Iowa, but I do take into consideration what might be beneficial about it. According to the Environmental Project, the goals of the project are to "inspire generations to learn from the natural world." Yet, there are so many ways our community can teach children, and not spend 180 million on a project that seems weak in actual projected revenue.

Going all the way back to early muckrakers, people have been one sided in the information they give us. What I want the media to do is give both sides. Then tell us why the one side is better. it's the only way objectivity can be achieved, and even then I'm skeptical. Do the community a favor and truly infrom them on a topic, don't attack it, that isn't your job as journalists

Critiqing Discourse: Rumors or Reality?

It has come to my attention after thurough research in newspaper articles such as the Daily Iowan and the Des Moines Registrar, that there are intricate controversies derived from recent debates about the rain forest that is to be built in Coralville. It is vital that citizens are aware of what is rumors versus reality in terms of the current information that is circulating.
According to the Daily Iowa, in "Project Officials Deny Rain Forest Might Move," David Oman gives a vague response to the question of the projects location. He states that people simply need to remember that it is a national project and not an Iowa project. In fact, most responses to the question lead us to believe that the project will still be built in Coralville, but during this time of waiting for a complicated process to conclude, there is no telling what may or may not happen.
It is absolutely necessary that Eastern Iowans and any other supporters of this project keep their eyes open for misleading information. After the deadline has passed for project officials to show progress, and yet we still see nothing, it can lead to rumors and misinformation. People want to know, and have the right to know, what is going on, from credible sources. According to Nicholas Johnson, a supporter and reporter on the project, "The promoters either don’t have, or are unwilling to share, detailed construction, pre-opening or operating budgets." With this in mind, we must wait patiently, or talk personally to the officials to get real information. Hopefully, we will know more soon about the outcomings of this great venture.

Money Issues and Problems

On October 28, 2005, the following article published in the Iowa Press-Citizen, "Grassley embarrassed but committed" by Adam Pracht, said how Senator Grassley was more concerned in preserving the 50 million dollars for the rainforest project in Coralville, instead of using this money for the recent hurricane events. The governemnt officials should make exceptions in times when such events affect the United States.

CORALVILLE -- "A Coralville City Council member said Thursday it should be David Oman, and not Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who should be embarrassed about stories involving a planned $180 million enclosed rain forest.
Grassley played a key role in procuring $50 million in federal money for the $180 million project, but he said in a teleconference Wednesday he was embarrassed after a spate of devastating hurricanes and the need for massive federal aid to rebuild the ravaged areas.
"Well, of course, I have been embarrassed by national TV on that very issue because I've raised questions about offsetting money for natural disasters we have to cough up now to help people in need who have been hurt by hurricanes," Grassley said in reply to a question about the enclosed rain forest, known as The Environmental Project.
On Sept. 21, Grassley called for a freeze of federal funding and a careful consideration of where money was spent to help fund Hurricane Katrina relief. At that time he made assurances that a $50 million Department of Energy grant that he helped to secure for the project would not disappear.
While Grassley was unable to comment Thursday, his press secretary, Beth Levine, issued a statement saying that a morning news show on CNBC repeatedly urged Grassley to redirect the $50 million to hurricane relief, but Grassley argued it was best to fund hurricane relief from the years ahead instead of focusing on money appropriated two or three years ago.
"Sen. Grassley wants the Iowa project to succeed and has emphasized that private fundraising, in addition to the federal money, is essential to its success," Levine wrote in an e-mail to the Press-Citizen."

The Facts of the Rainforest Project

The rainforest planned for Coralville, Iowa is a 5 acre 20 story tall environmental project planned to be built near the Intestate 80 and 380 interchange where 45,000 vehicles pass by daily. In it will be a recreated tropical rain forest, a one million gallon integrated aquarium, a mixed media theatre and some interactive galleries about the Iowa prairie and geology. They also plan to have: tall grass Iowa prairie, wetlands, outdoor trails, gardens and crops.

The designs for this project are are also very conservation friendly. They have included in the plans for the facility to recapture up to 11 million gallons of annual on-site precipitation along with an external water purification system. The building plans be very energy-efficient by having a three layer foil exterior. They also plan to make use of alternative and renewable energy sources, potentially including passive solar, geothermal, biomass, and fuel cell technology.

Economically what will this project mean to Coralville, Iowa, and it's surrounding towns? The state projects that there will be 500 construction workers over two and a half years and around 200 permanent jobs with a ripple effect that could end up being an additonal 2,500 jobs here in eastern Iowa. The state has also projected that the rainforest when completed will bring in annually between 1 - 1 and a half million visitors and an annual estimated state econonmic impact of $187 million.

http://www.iowachild.org/media/facts.cfm

Freezing federal funds

In an Iowa City Press-Citizen article, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and David Oman, the project's executive director, are already having fingers pointed at them.

The Senator was one of the main procurators of funding the 180 million dollar project. Some are questioning Grassleys funding plans for federal aid directed towards the hurricane relief. Grassley is freezing federal funds and asking for close consideration of federal spending to accure aid towards the relief. They feel that the 50 million set aside for the Environmental Rainforest Project would best be suited going towards the relief efforts. Grassley sees using aid that was appropriated 3 years ago for a fund that is still being pursued would just set them back even more.

The question that arises is why so much focus on this one project and why are people pointing fingers?

Shouldn't there be more focus on the funding and not who we should blame. In the opening of the article a city council member was saying that David Oman and not Senator Grassley should be embarassed. The Press-Citizen does a good job at showing why David Oman is to blame, roughly, he doesn't do his job. Pathos really comes into play when people start pointing fingers. I wish the Press-Citizen would realize that who-dunnit coverage isn't promoting democratic discourse. Why isn't there coverage of other projects that could cut funding to help aid? Less time could be spent on pointing fingers and more time could be spent looking into the pros-and-cons of using these appropriated funds.