Categories
culture technology

My Experience as an Example of Old and New Media

I realized after writing earlier this morning about the way new media is changing the news that my experience was a perfect example of the way that old and new media can interact to augment each other. It also pointed me to one of the key factors that is hurting existing media organizations and thus a possible way to reverse the trend in theory. Unfortunately I am unable to identify a business model that would take advantage of this theoretical key.

Consider the example. A newspaper journalist decides to do a story on the impact of new media on our political system. He interviews someone who has used new media to follow a political campaign in a way that traditional media sources sis not provide. He contacts elected officials and other people connected with government. He contacts a political blogger (me in this case). he takes all the information that he has gathered and using his own experience and his skill in the art of written communication tells a story showing how new media is changing the face of politics and what it means to citizens. He turns the story over to his editors who take that story, assign it a place in the paper, edit it for content and in the interest of meeting size limitations on their physical page trims part of the story – the part that explains what this means to the average reader. It has now become a story without a moral – not because the journalist failed, but because of space limitations.

After that happened I, as a blogger who is not constrained by any physical space limitations in what I write, posted the entire list of questions I was asked as the journalist prepared his story and my full answers. This is the unfiltered data from one source which the journalist used to create his story. One symbiosis between traditional journalism and citizen journalism is that those who are interested in what the journalist wrote could look into the raw questions and answers that produced the story and decide for themselves what more they can learn than the paper was able to publish.

I realized this morning as I reflected upon the process of producing that story from fact gathering to publication that a key factor that is hurting old media organizations is that they are trying so hard to put out the maximum amount of information within their limited physical space that they have sacrificed the moral to virtually every story (that’s easy to do because taking out the moral can also make them feel more objective) and the result is that readership declines (especially paid readership) not because reporters are doing their thinking for them, but because almost all thought is expunged from the final product in the interest of keeping a maximum amount of data.

The theoretical way to reverse that trend would be to use digital media with traditional reporting to again publish the whole story – without space limitations. Those organizations interested in having a physical paper could use the paper as a gateway to the digital content – showing teasers of stories with the full story online and/or only printing the top story or stories in the paper while printing all stories worth printing in the digital version. The digital version could be augmented with complete references and links where possible to the original sources on each article so that readers could dig deeper as they were so inclined. By doing this the organization could even begin to learn in more detail what stories and sources their readers were most interested in and follow up on those with more traditional reporting. This encourages the new media ecosystem which them serves as a valuable tool and resource for the traditional media.

Like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a firm business model for how to support this (how to fund it being a major missing component), but I think I am getting a picture of how these “competing” interests can and should work together.

Categories
culture Local

How New Media is Changing News

Yesterday Holly asked if print media was on its way out. She was quoting from an article by Dave Duffy about the decline of newspapers and the rise of citizen journalism. In it he apparently made this hopeful statement:

I believe that it will lead to the salvation of freedom in America because more people will become better informed about what is really happening in the country.

As a long time blogger that’s a flattering idea, but as someone who has watched many bloggers and much online discussion as a participant and from an academic standpoint I think we need to be careful how much we expect from the impact of citizen journalism. It is an important shift in public discourse, but I think we would be misguided to think that the disappearance of traditional journalism is either necessary or positive. Not long ago I was asked to contribute to an article about the way new media is changing the world of politics. While the reporter did a great job and was kind enough to send me a copy of his story, the paper trimmed the story for publication to meet space requirements and removed all quotes in the article that did not come from elected officials or the person whose experience was meant to illustrate the point. In doing so they removed all reference to what these changes really meant. I’d like to share all the questions I was asked as well as my responses here (which is more than the reporter could have done even if he was so inclined).

What are the benefits of politicians maintaining a blog?

There are many benefits that come from a politician maintaining a blog, both for themselves and for their constituents. The primary benefit is that they can maintain communication with their constituents in a way that they can control (in other words, they are not dependent on space limitations or the biases of an outside news organization). A good blog would enable them to create a firsthand record which they can use to explain or defend themselves from later accusations as opponents may take things out of context and voters often forget the details. (Even the politicians can forget the details without a timely record.)

What are the drawbacks?

The only universal drawback is that it takes time. Also, if the blog allows open responses there is a risk of hecklers and trolls. Not all people are able to deal with those negative elements of such digital communication forums.

How has blogging changed the face of politics for politicians?

I don’t think we really know the full answer to that yet. So far we have been able to see that blogging makes it impossible for anyone (politicians or others) to absolutely control the message that people receive. Blogging makes it so that there are a wider array of information (and misinformation) sources available to everyone so it becomes extremely important to be able to sort through all that information and be able to accurately discard the misinformation. The upside to blogging is that it has very low barriers to entry so politicians can make themselves available as a primary source of information for their constituents more easily than when their only options were media coverage, town hall style meetings, direct mailings, and other less efficient means of communication. Overall I would say that it has had a leveling effect on the political playing field but it also means that it takes even more work to keep on top of the political process.

How has it changed politics for constituents?

See above – there is more information to sort through and constituents must also hone their ability to sort the truth from the garbage, just as their elected officials have the opportunity to become primary sources of information for them they can use blogging to open themselves up as primary sources of information for their elected officials, etc.

I understand you participated in Blogger Press. What do you make of it? What do you see in the future for forums such as this?

I have participated in a couple of blogger press conferences and I think there is great potential there. Bloggers are different from traditional media sources because they do not have the luxury of getting a paycheck for their work. Sometimes this results in better information – often is doesn’t. It virtually always results in a different perspective than is found from professionals in the media industries. I have heard some people argue that bloggers depend on the mainstream media for their information and that they are just acting as a secondary filter. In many cases it’s true, but there are many bloggers who go dig up original information and stories as well. I don’t think that bloggers can or should replace the traditional media, but I do believe that it is very valuable to have the second perspective that bloggers provide alongside the perspectives offered by more traditional news sources. I think there could be a lot of give and take between bloggers and journalists to provide a much richer public discourse than either group could provide alone. I hope to see more blogger press conferences in the future and expect that if that happens we as bloggers, press, politicians, and the public will discover ways that those events can improve our public understanding and dialog around political issues.

My point is that citizen journalism and traditional journalism will best serve society if they complement each other rather than expecting to compete with each other.

Categories
culture National technology

I Pledge

With all the uproar over the showing of this video to elementary students I have been asked to weigh in on the video and whether it was appropriate to show it to the students. Of course others will have their own opinions and you are free to view the video yourself and let me know if you agree with me, or why you disagree with me. (I have no doubt that different people will disagree with me for very different reasons.)

Let me say right off that I don’t believe that the video should have been shown to children without informing their parents in advance. Parents are always the primary decision-makers with regard to what their children should be exposed to in matters of values and this video was definitely a matter of values. Having said that, I don’t believe that this was a particularly devious or pernicious video (regardless of what Gayle Ruzika believes).

Some who are opposed to the showing of this video believe that it is an attempt to brainwash the children. I doubt this is the case. The message is actually addressed to the President as a show of support. Distributing it among children was meant to encourage them to pledge to do some good of their own choosing.

If the makers of the video intended children as their audience then they have no idea how to go about it. The fast scrolling words and constant movement at the beginning of the video will fail to get any massage to such an audience. On top of that, the pledges in the video will either make no impression or they will confuse a younger audience. If it is as harmless as I am suggesting why would I object to showing it to children who will be either confused or unaffected by it? Because at best it is a waste of school time. Why should my taxes and my childrens time be spent watching something that has no positive value for their education? At worst showing the video opens the door for teachers to take over a parental role in discussing the various pledges as they try to reduce them to a level that could be understood by a 5 or 7 year-old. Again, why should my taxes support that?

If the target audience was for older youth (teenagers and college students) then the video is well made (meaning it would connect with that audience). It still has the problem of promoting some dangerous biases of the creators (confusing service to the president with respect for the president as one example), but it will always be necessary to compensate for the biases of those who are promoting ideas because the promotion of ideas is a values issue by definition – which again is an area where the parents are always primarily responsible until their children reach adulthood.

So here’s my pledge.

I pledge to continue to believe in the good intentions of others, whether they be elected officials or simply socially and politically active individuals and groups, even when I fundamentally disagree with what they are trying to do. I pledge to  be civil no matter how passionately I disagree with anyone and to treat other people with respect and decency in all my interactions. I pledge to fight for what I value and seek to make my country, state, community, and neighborhood a better place. I pledge that no matter how much I may want something I will not make promises that my grandchildren will have to keep in order to achieve it, nor will I ask other to do so.

And I don’t have to go to usaservice.org (which is actually serve.gov) to make or keep that pledge.

Categories
culture National

Wash Your Hands

[quote]Dr. Peter Pronovost sought to reduce the incidence of hospital-borne infections by promoting a simple checklist of ICU procedures governing physician hand-washing and other sterilization procedures.

Hospitals implementing Pronovost’s checklist had enjoyed almost instantaneous success, reducing hospital-infection rates by two-thirds within the first three months of its adoption. But many physicians rejected the checklist as an unnecessary and belittling bureaucratic intrusion, and many hospital executives were reluctant to push it on them.

When David Goldhill learned of this very shortly after his own father died from just such an infection he began to investigate the real problems in our health care system. As a grieving son, he wished for a culprit only to find that there really is no bad guy, no incompetent doctors, greedy insurance or drug companies, or any other scapegoat. The problem his research exposed was a system of perverse incentives and unrealistic expectations (like expecting that hundreds of thousands of deaths per year from hospital infections is acceptable or unavoidable and expecting someone else to pick up most of the cost of our care). Like Goldhill, anyone wishing to tackle the issue of health care must wash their hands of pre-programmed political prescriptions and rampant half-truths being promoted by people on all sides of the debate.

Categories
culture National

The Economic Bill of Rights

During his final State of the Union address Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke about what he said could be considered a second bill of rights which may be referred to as The Economic Bill of Rights. In his address he said some important things that ring true such as:

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

He described the original Bill of Rights as proving itself inadequate:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

This is very likely the first and most blatant blurring of the nature of rights ever promoted by a president. It has set the tone for our widespread misunderstanding of what rights are as a majority (or at least a vast minority) have come to view the following as rights equal to the rights described and protected in the Bill of Rights.

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

As someone else has said – these are all goods, but only one of them is a “right.” The only real right is the right to trade goods and skills in an atmosphere free from unfair competition. The rest of this list are only protected as far as that one right extends – that every person has the right to not have others undercut their efforts as they labor to acquire a useful and remunerative job, enough money to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation, a decent home, adequate medical care, protection from economic fears, and a good education.

Along with the first example I cited of things that ring true in his words is this:

People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Both of those truisms however are incomplete. To the first I would add that no matter how low our standard of living we cannot afford to give up on true principles in exchange for popular sentiment. To the second I would alter it to say that people who are dependent on a central political authority for food and work are the true stuff of which dictatorships are made – being hungry and out of a job only make them ripe for recruitment.

It is interesting to note that as we have pursued policies to provide government funded education, economic security, and now health care in order to eliminate sickness and the economic distress of unemployment and underemployment the result is more widespread economic fears. Because of the ubiquitous belief in these so called rights many people wish to turn to government for security even where the government is the cause of the insecurity in our nation.

Categories
culture National

Constitutional Amendment 22

Off and on in various circles the idea of mandating term limits for various elected officials is discussed with varying degrees of interest. I wonder if many of these discussions would  exist in the absence of the 22nd Amendment.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The two sides of the debate can be generally summarized as “we need fresh ideas/faces in Congress, incumbents have too much advantage in elections, the office is more important than the person holding it” and “the people should be free to decide when to replace their elected officials without being tied to an artificial limit, these jobs benefit from experience, constant turnover favors special interests.”

In my view each side has some valid concerns. Conveniently the 22nd amendment seems to feel non-restrictive of the peoples ability to choose because only one president ever served more than two terms in 160 years under the Constitution before it was adopted and as far as I know only one president since has made any vocal portion of the voters wish to not be limited to two terms.

I have not yet decided for sure whether an artificial limit placed on a really good elected leader would be less burdensome than the common practice of perpetual incumbency – I suspect that it would. What i know is that I would like to see a lot more turnover among elected officials so that people are reminded that whoever they elect is replaceable – ideally that would happen without having to impose artificial limits as it has for our presidency for the majority of our nations history.

Categories
culture National

Government Can’t Do Charity

by HowardLake
by HowardLake

Those pushing the need for health care reform spend a lot of time talking about the uninsured and the many unfortunate people who cannot or will not afford to pay for health care. (Mostly they talk about the “cannot pay” people except when they are proposing to have individual mandates, then they start talking about “freeloaders” who don’t get insurance even though they can afford it.) These people claim that health care is a right and (although they don’t use the word) they are proposing that the government can and should provide charity care for those in the “cannot pay” camp. The only problem is that government has been trying to do that for a long time through medicaid and medicare. The fact is that government cannot provide charity care – government can only take from those it chooses to burden and give to those it chooses to help. This warps the system even when it is meant to level the playing field.

Categories
culture

All Things to All People

In a classic case of Federal-sightedness, President Obama is stepping in to mediate an altercation between a black professor and a white police officer. Normally I would be disappointed that the President had nothing better to do but lately I have had more of a mindset where this makes me happy – in fact, I almost wish that we would have more incidents like this to keep Obama too busy to keep prodding Congress to rush through an ill-conceived health care boondoggle (or “blob of legislative goo” if you prefer).

For the sake of variety we might throw in cases of black police officers having altercations with white professors, or inserting other “oppressed” minority groups into the formula so that the President can meet with people from a wide variety of backgrounds – especially those who don’t live in Washington D.C.

Categories
culture

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

I was tempted not to include Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address among my review of founding documents, but I have become very interested in the parallels between the struggles over slavery and some of the struggles of our day. One question I asked as I read it again was, “have we learned anything in the last 150 years about how to deal with a peculiar and powerful interest within the nation?”[quote] I could not say whether or not we have learned that lesson, but I am confident that we will have occasion(s) in the future to find out whether we have learned that lesson.

I was reminded as I read it that having conflicting opinions and resolving on a uniform course of action while we hold differing perspectives on an issue is a universal and eternal aspect of having an existence endowed with individual liberty – we must learn that lesson individually and as a nation so that we can always say as Lincoln did (whatever the issue we face):

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. (emphasis added)

Categories
culture National

Massachusetts Sues Over DOMA

Well, it didn’t take any special insight to know that this would be happening. One look at the similarities between the question of slavery in the 1850’s as related by Lincoln in his House Divided speech and the issue of gay marriage today had me predicting last week that this would be happening. Notice that the argument by Massachusetts is that before DOMA the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the exclusive prerogative of the states.

In principle I would agree with them – the only problem is that while a nation may survive being divided over how high the taxes should be in each state it cannot survive being divided over the definition of marriage any more than it could survive being divided over the perpetuation of slavery.