Here's a little media flare up worth some attention, an article in the NY Times called " A Confrontation on ‘Costas Now’ Worthy of a Blog" by Richard Sandomir. As with all good journalism, the first paragraph says it all: If the sports blogosphere needed someone to symbolize the mainstream media’s fear and suspicion of its influence, it found him in Buzz Bissinger on Tuesday night on a live, 90-minute edition of “Costas Now” on HBO. Bissinger, the author of “Friday Night Lights” and other bestsellers, stepped forward fulminating during a 16-minute discussion with Will Leitch of Deadspin.com and Braylon Edwards of the Cleveland Browns. A video of said fulmination is up on deadspin.com itself. One notable quote: "The Web is a meritocracy," says Leitch. Dave.
I can't believe the story of Laura Berg hasn't been in the press more. Sedition? That's got to be a joke. If that's what this country now stands for, we're in trouble.
Readers of the Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle were treated to a somewhat lurid article regarding the failure of the city's emergency response system. The system is a failure, the Chronicle implies, because an analysis of over 200,000 emergency response calls shows that "at least 439 people" died when the city's EMT's failed to respond in less than 6-1/2 minutes to high-priority calls. (Interestingly, the article itself refers to an analysis of 200,000 calls; but the article on the analysis claims the researchers looked at 300,000 calls.) Now while it is, of course, awful when anyone dies waiting for help to come, I'm not sure what this splashy, colorful article, complete with pictures of accident victims, tells us about emergency services in San Francisco. 439 people is .2% of 200,000 calls. Additionally, some of the people mentioned in the article were quite old and obviously in poor health. That's not to say these people don't matter or got what they deserved, but it is to make this point: no city's emergency heath services can save everyone. San Francisco is a city of over 775,000, according to the 2000 census. Is it fair or responsible for a city's primary newspaper to suggest that each of these 775,000 has a reasonable expectation to receive medical attention anywhere within the city limits at any time within 6-1/2 minutes? Am I missing something? Here's a cynical analysis: it's been pointed out in several places that newspaper readership is on the decline. Who is still reading the newspaper is primarily older folks who haven't made the switch to the Internet for news. Presumably. Equally presumably is that readership has been down at the SF Chronicle. So, who's most likely to need emergency services, or be most fearful that the ambulance might not arrive? Young bloggers, who thumb their nose at health insurance...or... They could always try the other way of selling papers.
Last August I e-mailed Noam Chomsky to tell him that I maybe finally understood what he's been talking about for so long. Recently I read an article about Norman Solomon whose an advocate of similar ideas regarding the accuracy of the media. (Whether Solomon or Chomsky would agree with that sentiment, I couldn't say.) Chomsky's (understandably) brief reply to me was essentially that he's pleased to hear that I found his ideas stimulating. In the article I read about Solomon he makes a similar point: As important as it is that you read the news it's equally -- more -- important to think for yourself about the news. Amen to that. Fair and balanced comes from within.
I recall hearing that some scientists (before the horror became a reality) that the detonation of an atomic bomb would cause all matter on earth to ignite in a fearsome chain reaction. I also recall an Isaac Asimov story where two scientists program a computer to determine the nature of the universe, and as the truth becomes known the start begin to flicker out above their heads. I also recall reports that the year 2000 would be the end of life as we know it. With all that to worry about comes a report that CERN might destroy the earth? Guess I'd better check my bucket list.
I'm registering this blog on Technorati Profile in the hopes that some day I, too, will be somebody.
As much as I don't always agree with Frank Rich, his recent take on the Iraq War is an interesting one. I wish I thought that 1) it mattered and 2) I hadn't heard it all before.
Except for the fact that it goes on too long (everyone's a critic, I know) this post on 23/6, satirizing the phrase "Timetable for Withdrawal" is pretty funny.
The Times does not disappoint! In an article just today about the dismissal of the suit brought against the movie Borat by Jeffrey Lemerond* (the gentleman that ran down the street in supposed terror after Borat tried to hug him), Sewell Chan writes: "Does Borat deserve the same protection as, say, a reporter for The Times? (Readers, be gentle.) " This is just what my earlier post mentions. The reporter knows his question (which, it could be argued, has nothing to do with the story) might draw ire. He knows he's writing for the "City Room" blog -- located at http://cityroom. blogs.nytimes.com/ -- which probably encourages him to break down that fourth wall and address the readership directly. Which again raises a point made earlier, ok, so, what's the difference between "blogging" and "journalism" when Times staff writers report breaking news on a blog? I know "blog" is a breadbasket term that describes the technology, the content and the whole megillah, but still. As of this post, out of 63 comments not one reader had cared enough to answer Chan's question. Numerous people did however respond to the posting as if they themselves were Borat. So here's an analogy: If you were in a grocery store, and someone had product samples out on a table, and said, "Well, that next bite might suck," would you try it? If there was a group of people standing next to the table, one of them screaming "IT SUCKS! IT SUCKS!" would you try it? No, and the store manager would call the police. So then why is this commenting seen as a good idea? *Yes, this site is a little offensive, but I agree with the sentiment completely, and this is a blog, not journalism.
Here's something I hope I'm among the first to say: user moderated comments are a bad idea. For examples -- and there are many -- one need look no further than Forumwarz. Billed as "The Internet...in game form," in Forumwarz players earn points by attempting to wreck as many forums as possible through obnoxious posting. While Forumwarz is a parody and not an example of why user moderated comments are a bad idea, there seems to be little difference between, say, YouTube user moderated comments, and Forumwarz comments. It just takes one silly man person man, usually with little more to say than "it sucks!", to ruin everyone's day. But what's new and different about what I'm saying is this: 1) User comments seem to be the holy grail of "social media" for, say, newspaper sites, and as such 2) have an adverse affect on the content they're meant to support. In other posts on this blog I've pointed out problems I've found with the New York Times and it's become clear to me that I wasn't so willing to do this before I realized I could, and publicly. I also agree with the unpopular sentiment that there is a difference between blogging and journalism (how could there not be) so I don't understand why the papers are moving towards these services so enthusiastically. ( Maybe they just don't get it.) I also don't understand why they're not seeking to make a greater distinction between hard journalism and wispy (not to mention puerile) content. It seems as if newspapers have also gotten themselves wrapped up in what Jim Collins calls a "doom loop:" 1) We are losing readership to Internet-driven* content 2) Let's create Internet-driven content of our own! 3) This weakens our own content and 4) Our Internet-based audience comments on it on their Internet-driven content 5) Back to step one. Hmmm...maybe I should go to journalism school! *Question: I wonder if there's a term for that type of content, generically? Content that is driven by, created by, Internet-based content generating media. Example, a blog.
I hate playing "gotcha" with the New York Times, I really do, because it's a great paper that I've been reading for twenty years or so. But some things are hard to ignore. So here I go: Two articles, a week apart, seem to make the claim that New York's real estate brokers have it rough: That 6% is Getting Harder to Earn March 30, 2008. Who Asked You? March 23, 2008. In both articles the primary point of view represented is that of the broker! Especially brokers from The Corcoran Group. Now it's clear to me that the Times or its real estate section has some kind of relationship with Barbara Corcoran (that's un-substantiated, but hey, this is a blog!), and I'm sure she gives them a lot of great quotes, but bias is bias. As I wrote in the comments section following the first article on the Times Web site, it has seemed to me since I moved there in 1993 that New York's high real estate prices have mostly to do with all of the non-essential folks that make money on apartments. Everyone who's ever lived there has a horror story. In addition, the Times has a columnist who's made a good chunk of his recent career by demonstrating from an economic standpoint that brokers work against their customers' best interests. Am I missing something?
 A lot of moving to Marin County, CA, from NYC, NY, has to do with changing my New Yorker's View of the World. So imagine my surprise when I went to a local farmer's market, and found that it was head and shoulders above New York's fabled Greenmarket. Isn't the Greenmarket the best in the world? Didn't I hear celebrity chef Tom Collichio (or was it Padma Lakshmi) say that on the TV? A little more looking around and I find others feel this same way. Well, you could say that Greenmarket is the best, because it's surrounded by the greatest city in the world. Hard to say, though. There's just something about left coast clean livin'. Image from Ric Miller at sausalito.org
I can't believe that Hillary Clinton's plutocratic friends are attacking Nancy Pelosi for suggesting the Democratic SuperDelegates should vote for whomever has more votes at the end of the primaries. Despicable. (I also don't like the comparison, made by Nicholas Kristof, likening Clinton to Ralph Nader in 2000, but one thing at a time!) Will (the) Clinton(s) stop at nothing to win this election? I'm all for never give up, but not everyone can be president! It's easy to say it's killing the Democratic Party, but it's killing the Democratic Party. I like the term -- and I'm not sure who came up with it -- that HRC is now running a Tanya Harding Candidacy. And she is. Hope Barack Obama has some strong knees!
A recent edition of the New York Review of Books discusses the number of books that have come out recently that are devoted to the subject of happiness. The author notes that in surveys across the board people claim to be happy, humanity rating itself as a 7 (from 1-10) on average. As such, she can't resist the low-hanging-question: if so many claim to be happy, why do we need all of these books? Advertising, is my response. Maybe we're all happy but we're so caught up in chasing the uncatchable American Dream that we can't just relax and enjoy it. In this country, anyway. If it weren't for that, no one would play the lottery!
There's a story in today's New York Times about the prevailing economic meltdown entitled: Can't Grasp Credit Crisis? Join the Club. What's there is an extremely oversimplified version of what's been going on in the American economy for the past 6 months. Now while it's correct to say that there's a lot going on that people don't understand, the tone of the article -- that that's ok -- is objectionable. In addition, the writer plays down the over reliance of the American economy on what Russ Winter calls " Black Box Crony Capitalism," and completely ignores the predatory lending practices that were the engine behind the meltdown in the first place. It makes me want to say, as much as I hate to say it, that the New York Times seems to be committed to helping us forget history. And everyone knows what happens when you do that -- or do they? Or maybe it's just a matter of knowing your target market.
A friend of mine wrote me this morning to tell me his sister read Robert J. Samuelson's op-ed in the Washington Post this morning, and that it "crystallized" her hesitation to support Barack Obama. The Post is a fine paper, and Samuelson's as bright as they come, but with all due respect to both institutions of American journalism -- as well as any individual's right to vote for whomever -- Samuelson is wrong. (It's also not exactly "objective journalism" to be writing such columns, dressed up as OpEd's, but there's always more to write about, isn't there?) Without taking a stance on Obama one way or the other, it's American politics that's at stake in this next election, and it's been increasingly taken away from the American people since someone realized that what the Nixon-Kennedy debates really represented were advertising dollars, and the media got on board besides (besides the aforementioned instance, see Network for as good an example as any). And so here is my response to him: It's seems as if there's nothing "radical" about ANY of this years candidates. Maybe Ron Paul, who's not on the table. So what if Obama's platform is similar to Hilary's?! (Oh yeah, except she voted for the war, and hasn't apologized.) The politicians have fooled us all for so long that we'd indeed be foolish not to be more cynical. Any candidate that's going to be nominated is only so free to say what s/he really thinks. If America really wanted a progressive platform, John Edwards would still be in the hunt, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004. Obama will like do much the same as Hilary once he gets into office; he's not likely to be "bad" for America. How much experience did George Washington have before becoming president? (Ok, not much of an argument, but still.) Besides that, what this country needs is inspiration! Look at JFK: If he'd been an older guy with dyed hair and a plain wife who lived through two terms we'd probably be comparing him to Nixon. Not much more experience than Obama when he was elected; rich, entitled, anti-semitic family; friend to Joseph McCarthy; Bay of Pigs; Cuban Missile crisis; got us in to Vietnam; not really that much of a stellar record; perhaps didn't even write his most famous, Pulitzer Prize-winning book - but people still have his picture on the wall 45 years later because he brought hope to America. (No, that's not Kennedy bashing.) If GWB can bring the national mood down, what's wrong with qualifying a candidate that can bring the mood up? What's true of Obama that wasn't true of Bill Clinton in '92? (Ok, Bill was a two-term governor, but still.) Two more points: 1) There are a lot of Clinton haters out there -- even on the Left -- and Hillary might not beat McCain; and 2) If there's one thing that's been true of journalism since Henry Blodgett, if not before, it's that some pundit always wants to be the one that says he was the first to say boo -- and it's certainly no skin off his nose to do so. For instance: David Brooks wrote the exact same column yesterday.
More Galbraith, who it seems I'm reading forever and ever. (What can I say, in these extended moments of free time, StumbleUpon holds as much sway as anything else.) In Chapter IV of The Affluent Society, titled "The Uncertain Reassurance," following a discussion of the tendency of governments to equivocate in times of economic uncertainty ("recession," etc.), he cites Joseph Schumpeter writing about the business cycle and depression: "In all cases...recovery came of itself...But this is not all: our analysis leads us to believe that recovery is sound only if it does come of itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depressions undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustment, new maladjustments of its own." Ok, I'm certainly no economist, and that was written almost 75 years ago and before the post 1929-depression economic stimuli (including WW II) had fully taken effect, but still, I can't help but think it's relevant in present times. Especially since many have suggested, a la Minsky, that it just might be the financial sector that needs the biggest "correction."
Every programmer, as well as any art director, creative director, or project manager that works with digital media should read this interview with Sidney Dijkstra. I'm amazed at how, throughout my short and frustrating career in digital media, how many people still don't get this. In every case, it turns out to be one of two things (or both): A cult of personality forms around the leader of a programming team with a (perhaps well deserved) bunker mentality, or leadership that doesn't understand jack-a-doody about digital media. This seems to especially be the case when people are promoted to head up digital media projects based on seniority and not expertise. It's a huge gap between what you know and don't know about these initiatives, but somehow if you can run a photography department or wrote a book on dog breeding then that's seen as pretty much the same thing. Is it because everyone knows how to check e-mail? Books on this very subject have been written for years! So why is the creation of the business case left to the marketers -- many of whom have a "don't know, don't want to know" mentality about what's possible and what the technology issues are -- where it then gets built into an impossible project smothered in buzzwords and good intentions. Then the programming team gets a hold of it, rolls its eyes, makes a few "suggestions," but now the deadline is slipping so we're off to the races with no real plan in place, and the project sucks and everyone hates it. It's truly amazing that it continues to happen, and that I'm surprised every time. Maybe I should take the positive approach and write a book about it.
Ben Stein nails it again, and closes with a self-referential joke besides: When is he going to run for president?
It is, of course, horrible fiscal policy to believe that putting Federal money in the hands of Americans will somehow "fix" the economy. But the even bigger problem is that the all of the people that know that don't care, and all of the people that don't know that especially don't care. Who doesn't feel good about $300 in the mail? I'm amazed at the landslide vote by which this passed: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/42/And by all of the crap our Senate votes on in general: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/bills/"National Mentoring Month?!" Why I outta... Galbraith (again) talks about why politicians can't stray far from what's "commonly accepted" and why talking about new ideas more than suffices for actually having any. I was thinking about that -- and what's truly "liberal" about the left in the current election? Health care? FDR Democrats would have felt right at home with that issue. End the War? Yo' Momma marched for that one back in '68. All of the truly "progressive" candidates -- think Nader or Paul -- never get very far. Not because of Washington, but because of us. It's easier to believe what you already know, etc. Alexander Hamilton was praised at his funeral for not succumbing to the charms of Adam Smith's "liberal" economics. Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. The left went to the center in '92 and has stayed right there as all of us that came of political age at that time have begun to make money. Yet one more reason to vote Obama.
I finally finished The Age of Uncertainty. True to form, Galbraith tries to end on somewhat of a high note, presenting solutions for the mess we're presumably in (or were in, anyway in the 1970's). He makes a case for emulating the Swiss, whose systems supports -- demands -- more of the role of the individual in government. People don't vote for politicians, who are other people to solve your problems; people vote to solve the problems themselves. Not a bad idea, I suppose, although in this country referendums would probably turn into the tyranny of the populous. He also makes a joke that in 200 years, the brightest minds and the American people have helped politics evolve from George Washington, through Abraham Lincoln, to Richard Nixon. If only he could see us now!
Isabel has a great post up on her blog about the power of orthogonal thinking. (She takes the idea from a post by Russ Nelson, but one love at a time.) Her post leads me to consider: 1) All of this blogging about who we love, powered by the power of the network just might mean that some day everyone will love everybody. And what's so bad about that? Not only that but: 2) Yeah, why do "orthogonal thinkers" get such a bad rap? In my experience, more often than not when watching the brain trust flounder leads me to make a comment along the lines of "Why can't we just do X," that, in turn, invariably leads someone to reply along the lines of "You have to understand something..." That reply that follows has never once lead to either increasing my understanding, or actually revealing something I do, indeed, need to understand. (I'll understand if you post a comment telling me there's something I need to understand about not writing sentences like that last one.) And then what happens? Six months later the thing that couldn't be done magically pops out of someone else's mouth, and because that person usually happens to be higher up on the ladder than me, far less orthogonal, or both, it passes for forward thinking. Which I love, but but also hate, if you know what I mean. But that's not why I love Isabel Hilborn. Why I love Isabel Hilborn is because she did come up with a way to suggest, in the sweetest possible way (you'll notice my use of the word "hate" in a previous paragraph), that it just might not be all that bad. If I make a fortune selling "Be Orthogonal®" T-Shirts and bumper stickers, she surely gets a generous cut. Hopefully then I'll be free of my own battle between love and hate.
Not that I thought there'd be anything to it, but I decided to look into who was behind those seizure-inducing classmates.com "She married him...?" ads. What I was surprised to find is not that the information is out there, or how many people wondered about it, but how many people wonder that they aren't the only ones to wonder about it. Go figure. The Seattle Times has the full story. I think it was better in my imagination than it turns out to actually be, like so many things.
I have now read several times -- starting with Galbraith in his introduction to the 4th Ed. of The Affluent Society -- that David Stockton, Ronald Reagan's budget director, admitted that "Reaganomics" and "Supply Side Economics" were little more than claptrap subterfuge aimed at destroying social services, increasing taxes on the middle class, and helping the rich get richer. It's not that I'm stupid or ignorant (or like to use a blog to admit I just might be) but really to ask the question, again, if "we" know these things why don't "we" do something about it? This naked ambition coming from the current administration, for instance... Not that I'm advocating Communism, or anything.
CBS News and Katie CouricIt never fails -- and my own work history is a testament to it: given a shortcut to take, big media will take it. For instance, Katie Couric and CBS News. I love this post. Essentially: "I didn't think this move through, and neither did CBS -- crazy, huh?!" Where can I get a job where you're paid big money to make bad decisions?
Microsoft and Yahoo!Microsoft's hostile bid against Yahoo!? I couldn't say it better than Google says it, right here: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/yahoo-and-future-of-internet.html My ISP is SBC/Yahoo! for DSL. If it becomes SBC/Microsoft, I'll have to switch. Having watched Microsoft co-opt (is "steal" perhaps too strong a word?) standard after standard through out the 1990's, and seeing how Vista has essentially become "Fat Elvis," I think that company's gone as far as it needs to go. The purchase of Yahoo! might very well be the knockout punch for a (somewhat) fair and open Internet. We'll see!
The City in the Age of UncertaintyI've recently been reading John Galbraith's The Age of Uncertainty. Maybe everyone knows about this book but me? Certainly everyone should read it. Among other useful bits of information, Galbraith's later chapters focus on modern life and what it means for the average citizen. In the chapter entitled "The Metropolis," he talks about the rise of the modern city and what it means to the people that live in or near it. It was here that I found some ideas that completed some thoughts I've had in mind for quite some time. In that Midwest of mine, many of the places that were the middle of nowhere when I was a kid are now exurbs, with seemingly new houses going up every other day in some parts. I remember that a 45 minute drive north of Chicago would take you to the country, and was surprised the last time I drove to Green Lake with my father that we never really left an exurban setting until the very, very end of the drive. Where did all of these people come from? None of it is really well built or, I suspect, meant to endure. Lots of it is strip malls. Where my brother lives it's mall after mall after mall, and what now passes for "landmarks" are essentially the flagship stores in each. Other than that it's hard to tell the difference. These areas are not meant to be walked in, and in fact, in many place there aren't even sidewalks. In that part of the country during warmer or colder seasons, it's never necessary to go outside -- one goes from the home to the garage, into the car and to the parking garage, and then from there to work or to shop. No need to bring a coat! And so what? Who cares? What difference does it make? Well Galbraith's chapter suggested what the difference might be. He divides the metropolis into four parts: The Political Household, the Merchant City, the Industrial City and The Camp. It was in reading about the Industrial City that I began to see what difference it makes. A city of course reflects the identity of its citizens. In the case of the Industrial City, it serves a mere function of utility, bring the citizens closer to work. As Galbraith puts it, "People were now a servo-mechanism." Well so then what reflects on the people that live in the disposable society? It's easy to think of cliché things, like the decline of America or the current prevailing attitude in this county of divisiveness and mistrust. I'll have to think it through a bit more before making a proclamation.
I was right about TimesSelect (although my date was off) and wrong about the PS3. Did I ever care?
So how about that election?For me the election is not about who says s/he's going to do what, and how. It's clear elections have become these sophisticated, vote-getting machines that Tammany Hall could only dream of! So how can we believe that the "issues" of the election are anything the candidates "believe" in? It's a reaction to poll numbers, per target audience, plain and simple. To me, at this point, it's more about who's going to be the least hypocritical. This country's got some serious healing to do. So who's going to lead us there? It ain't about health care, or the economy, or the war, or anything else they shove down your throat to get your vote; it's about getting past this "hate your neighbor" politics and getting back to being a sane country again. It's about getting over W. So I'm voting for Obama. The only one preaching the politics of unity. As simple as that. Tonight's debate might change my mind, but I doubt it! And when will Hillary explain her vote on the war? "Misled by false intelligence?" That leads me to believe not much more than that she's either not terribly bright (unlikely) or that she lacks integrity (more likely).
|
|
