Elected bodies in Indiana now must livestream meetings
The city didn't join the trend during the COVID-19 pandemic when many city councils and school boards began offering their meetings online via YouTube, Facebook Live, or Zoom technologies.
Despite Lake Station council members' worry, Mayor Bill Carroll said the city was prepared and its meetings would appear on YouTube.
State lawmakers passed the new law in 2023, deliberately giving elected bodies two years to prepare. It requires state and local agencies like county commissions, town and city councils and school boards, to livestream public meetings beginning July 1.
The law also requires any public body, like a plan commission, which meets in a space where the council or school board meets, to also livestream meetings.
Putting meetings online was one of Portage Mayor Austin Bonta's goals when he took office in 2024. Some were already online, but he wanted to include all meetings. Accomplishing it meant expanding the contract to provide that service.
It isn't as easy as just flipping a switch. Someone has to be there to make sure everything is being recorded, that microphones work properly and that when developers, attorneys and others have a laptop to plug in, there is a trouble-shooter on hand so presentations can show on the screen.
The Portage Township School Board already had been putting meetings online. The board likes to hold its meetings at various schools throughout the district to showcase programs at those schools, so the technology has to be transported from place to place, not just permanently installed in the administration building.
Porter County government used American Rescue Plan Act money to upgrade the audiovisual setup in the commissioners' chamber, the large meeting room where most county meetings are held.
In 2023, lawmakers said the goal of the measure was to increase transparency. If a government body doesn't comply, a citizen can file an open-door law complaint with Indiana's public access counselor. If upheld, elected officials would have to hold another meeting.
If governments don't have livestreaming capabilities, a recording must be archived and available online for 90 days and include links to the meeting's agenda and minutes.
The law's author, state Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, said the legislation encourages civic engagement.
'Hoosier taxpayers deserve to have access to public meetings, and government works best when accountability and transparency are at the forefront,' Smaltz said in a 2023 release.
'The pandemic really demonstrated how widespread and inexpensive livestreaming technology has become,' Smaltz said.
He said governing bodies can also utilize free livestreaming on social media platforms or host it on their existing websites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
As Trump-Putin summit nears, family of American held in Russia hopes for another prisoner exchange
As President Donald Trump prepares to travel to Alaska on Friday to address the future of Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the family of the Texas man serving the longest prison sentence of any American currently being detained in Russia is hopeful that another prisoner exchange between the two nations will be on the agenda. "We hope for better relations between the U.S. and Russia that will hopefully lead to the release of my brother," Margaret Aaron, one of David Barnes' two sisters, told ABC News anchor Gio Benitez in an interview Wednesday. Barnes, who grew up in Alabama, has been detained in Moscow since January 2022 and is currently serving a 21.5-year sentence. "He's hanging in there," Aaron said. "He has been extremely strong through the last three and a half years. We're extremely proud of him and he has continued to be hopeful that something will happen." Unlike other Americans who have been held in Russia, Barnes is accused by Russian prosecutors of crimes in the United States, not Russia. Yet American law enforcement had no involvement in Barnes' prosecution in Moscow. Barnes was convicted by a Russian judge of abusing his two sons years earlier in Texas, but prosecutors in Montgomery County, Texas, told ABC News that law enforcement in the Lone Star State investigated the claims after they were reported by Barnes' Russian ex-wife and did not find evidence to support them. "I do know that everyone that heard and investigated the child sexual abuse allegations raised by Mrs. Barnes during the child custody proceedings did not find them to be credible," Montgomery County District Attorney's Office Trial Bureau Chief Kelly Blackburn previously told ABC News. "He's been suffering," Aaron said Wednesday. "He's innocent." Barnes' ex-wife, Svetlana Koptyaeva, has maintained that Barnes abused their sons while the children were growing up in the Texas suburbs years ago. Koptyaeva was charged with felony interference with child custody after allegedly taking the children from Texas to Russia in 2019 while a child custody dispute between her and Barnes was playing out. In 2020, a Texas family court designated Barnes as the primary guardian of his sons, but since since Koptyaeva had taken them out of the country, Barnes' family says he decided to travel to Russia after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted to try to fight for similar custody or visitation rights in Moscow's court system. Barnes was arrested weeks after arriving in Russia and has been behind bars ever since. In April, a judge in Moscow denied Barnes' appeal of his conviction. "We really, really need to have him designated as wrongfully detained," Aaron said. "Hopefully, to start that process, we need the help of Trump and Secretary [Marco] Rubio." The upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin on American soil comes four months after Russian officials released ballerina Ksenia Karelina to the U.S. through a prisoner exchange. Following Karelina's return to the U.S., she wrote a letter to Trump calling for the release of Barnes along with fellow Americans Robert Gilman and Andre Khachatoorian. Trump posted the letter on social media. "David Barnes, a Texas father of two sons, has been detained in Russia for far too long under charges already proven to be false, and it is past time for him to be released," U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas said in a statement at the time. "I urge President Trump and Secretary Rubio to prioritize efforts to bring David and all wrongfully-detained Americans throughout the world home." Other Americans who were previously held in Russia, like Paul Whelan, Trevor Reed and Brittney Griner, were transferred to penal colonies far from Moscow following their convictions -- but Barnes has been held in Russia's capital since he was taken into custody. "We have visited Mr. Barnes eight times since his arrest in January 2022," a U.S. State Department spokesperson told ABC News. "Our last visit to Mr. Barnes in detention was in May 2025." With all eyes on Anchorage ahead of this week's presidential summit, Barnes' family and friends in the U.S. will be paying close attention. "David's strength keeps us going," Aaron said.
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1B over ‘false, defamatory' allegations linking her to Jeffrey Epstein: report
First lady Melania Trump recently put Hunter Biden 'on notice' – threatening to sue the former first son for 'over $ 1 billion dollars' for suggesting she was introduced to President Trump by notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Melania's attorney demanded Hunter 'immediately retract the false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements' he made about the first lady in an interview earlier this month on the YouTube show 'Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan.' 'Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer,' Florida-based attorney Alejandro Brito wrote in his Aug. 6 demand letter to Hunter and his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, obtained by Fox News. Hunter falsely claimed 'Epstein introduced Melania to Trump,' in his interview with Callaghan, according to Brito. 'The connections are, like, so wide and deep,' the former president's son continued, referring to allegations put forward by author Michael Wolff — who was described by Brito as a 'serial fabulist.'
Atlantic
6 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Awkward Adolescence of a Media Revolution
There's a quiet revolution in how millions of Americans decide what's real. Trust is slipping away from traditional institutions—media, government, and higher education—and shifting to individual voices online, among them social-media creators. The Reuters Institute reports that this year, for the first time, more Americans will get their news from social and video platforms—including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X—than from traditional outlets. According to Pew Research, one in five adults now regularly turns to influencers for news. For anyone who cares about credible information, this is a potentially terrifying prospect. Social media rewards virality, not veracity. Spend five minutes scrolling TikTok or Instagram and you might encounter influencers 'educating' you about a global elite running the world from 'hidden continents' behind an 'ice wall' in Antarctica, or extolling the virtues of zeolite, 'a volcanic binder for mold' that will 'vacuum clean all kinds of toxins' to lift brain fog, prevent cancer, and remove microplastics from testicles. (Link to purchase in bio.) It's an environment perfectly engineered to scale both misinformation and slick grifts. And yet the popular notion that social media is just a dumpster fire of viral lies misses something vital: Millions of people still care about truth. They are seeking facts on social media from credible voices they can trust. They just aren't always sure where to find it or from whom. I know because I interact with these people every day. I was among the first independent journalists to bring news reporting to Instagram; today my outlet, News Not Noise, spans Instagram, YouTube, a podcast, Substack, and other platforms. In my years of directly engaging with an on-platform audience, the question I receive more than any other remains simply, 'Is this true?' I'm here to tell you the truth isn't dead. Thousands of people like me operate online as what I call 'evidence-based creators.' We're journalists and specialists who use expertise, original reporting, and reliable sources to refute misinformation, add context to breaking news, and answer the endless questions flooding our DMs. The topics we cover range from redistricting to medical misinformation, beauty fads to whether that viral health-food trend might actually kill you. The work is an uphill battle. My cohort is not John Oliver–level media personalities with PR teams, production crews, and a research staff to fact-check the punch lines. We are independent voices operating without safety nets. I like to think of us as the digital equivalent of artisanal chefs working in a factory for mass-produced junk food. The very things that make us valuable—our obsession with facts, our commitment to nuance, our hours spent answering audience questions in the apps—put us at a profound disadvantage in the attention economy. What does it take to produce a slick video claiming that beef tallow is nature's Viagra? Fifteen minutes with an iPhone and zero regard for reality. While we're still sourcing assertions and trying to make complex ideas both accurate and engaging, the bullshit factory has already pumped out six more viral falsehoods. Our secret weapon isn't production value or algorithm hacking; it's trust. When I debunk a viral lie, I'm not a faceless institution. I'm the person who's been with my audience while they brush their teeth every morning, the person who's been in their ears during commutes, the person whose face they've studied through hundreds of 90-second windows into complex issues. This isn't an audience of passive consumers. They're hungry for more—more reporting on more topics, more conversations with experts, more explanations that break things down but don't treat an audience like idiots. 'Can the Supreme Court disbar an attorney?' 'Will the military disobey unconstitutional orders?' 'Do I need another measles vaccine as an adult?' All of this leaves evidence-based creators in a strange limbo. We're clearly valued; Substack, for instance, is proving that audiences are willing to stop scrolling and financially support 'verifiers' they trust. But we're still largely disconnected from the resources and collaborative frameworks that could multiply our impact. We're working so hard at the work itself that we have little opportunity to build the scaffolding required to create a durable new model in digital publishing—one that includes tools such as high-powered marketing and growth engines to reach new audiences, editorial oversight to help with difficult judgment calls, and shared research that would prevent each of us from having to build expertise from scratch with every breaking story. I see this obstacle as an opportunity. History shows us that industries facing technological disruption tend not to simply collapse—they transform. Look at what happened to the music industry when Spotify and its streaming cohort crashed the party. In the old days, musicians lived and died by album sales and radio play, with major labels acting as gatekeepers. Then streaming blew the doors off. The revolution was messy. Many artists found themselves with more listeners than ever but paychecks that wouldn't cover a month's worth of ramen. What helped the music industry find its footing wasn't nostalgia for CDs or vinyl. It was new infrastructure: playlist curation that helped listeners find their next obsession, analytics tools that told artists who was actually listening, distribution services that got music onto platforms, and business models that went beyond streaming royalties to include direct-to-fan revenue and merchandising. Artists still face challenges, but now labels are investing heavily in data to understand trends, offering artists different types of deals, and using their marketing muscle to help artists cut through the digital noise. The industry evolved by creating tools that complemented streaming algorithms instead of fighting them—helping artists understand their audiences, not just pray for a decent playlist placement. In our current information ecosystem, we're stuck in the awkward adolescence of a media revolution. The need for innovation couldn't be more urgent. Local newspapers are dying like mall food courts— 2,500-plus have shut down since 2005. Traditional media outlets are under assault by the Trump administration. And AI is flooding us with convincing fake content, making human truth tellers all the more necessary. Conversations about the press and the tech revolution often get stuck on the problems with or the inadequacy of any solution. It's time that changed. So I'll take the leap and propose some imperfect innovations. First, audiences could benefit from an independent, off-platform certification system to help them discern which independent voices adhere to journalistic standards. Not to be all 'Papers, please' about it, but audiences need signals about who's committed to accuracy versus who's just chasing likes. One solution: a nonprofit voluntary opt-in LEED-type certification that awards something like a blue check mark—but vetted far more rigorously—to creators who use agreed-upon trusted sources, check their facts, and reveal when their content is sponsored. I'm aware that any credentialing system risks backlash from those suspicious of 'gatekeeping.' But people shouldn't be disparaged for 'doing their own research' if they aren't offered the tools to tell reality from fiction. Second, evidence-based creators need support. Imagine a fractional-ownership model where like-valued creators buy into a shared professional framework. With an economy of scale, we could collectively share in things such as legal protection and sophisticated audience-development tools designed specifically for evidence-based content. We could sign sponsors who understand the unique value of trusted voices. We could offer bundled subscriptions to help audiences find more of us at once. This could create sustainable revenue streams without compromising integrity. Finally, legacy media, please stop viewing creators as a threat. We don't have to be competitors—we can be the connective tissue between trusted journalism and the platforms where people now consume most of their information. Traditional media outlets can stay relevant in the new digital reality by partnering with us. But first, it'd help if they'd allow for the possibility that what's happening isn't just the death of an old system—it's the messy, complicated birth of a new one. And like a newborn, it needs more than good intentions in order to thrive.
