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.

The Real Deal?

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?

Left Coast

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

The Tanya Harding Candidacy

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!

Happiness

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!

The Times Has Got Your Back!

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.

Bad Taste in Everyone's Mouth

Geraldine Ferraro's Op-Ed in this morning's New York Times is really just specious and awful.

She's essentially arguing that the election should be left to the Superdelegates, since they're the only ones with enough common sense to know the difference between Shinola and that other thing.

One more reason to vote for Ralph Nader.

Obama Bashing?

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.

Backwards Bush

It's a bit tacky, but I can't resist.

Schumpeter

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."

Software is too Important to be Left to Programmers

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.

Read About Ben Stein's Money

Ben Stein nails it again, and closes with a self-referential joke besides:



When is he going to run for president?