Laura Berg

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.

Is This Responsible Journalism?

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.

Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon

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.

The End Is Near!

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.

Technorati Post Claim

I'm registering this blog on Technorati Profile in the hopes that some day I, too, will be somebody.

Fresh Take

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.

Timetable for Withdrawal

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.

Comments: OFF! Part 2

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.

Comments: OFF!

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.