March 25, 2003
The Discovery Times mystery channel
I tried tuning into the new Discovery/New York Times Channel, which debuted tonight, to great fanfare in the New York Times (a special pullout section).
Comcast, which serves the SF East Bay, has apparently changed channel 285 from Discovery Civilization (if it still exists) to Discovery Times.
All you have is do is call an 800 number to order it -- for an additional charge.
Why in the world would I order something I've never seen? I doubt that more than a dozen out of a million households in the Bay Area will do so.
times said:
They are the NY Times. they are gods of publishing and they will become gods of tv. AOL should fear them. they'll end up with 100 million homes.
War blogs: Facts are in, spin is out
For those who missed the final segment of today's NY Times roundup of press coverage of the war, Amy Harmon focused on weblogs (and Salon): Weblogs: Facts Are in, Spin Is Out (scroll down).
My only disagreement would be with her conclusion:
Until now, Weblogs, or blogs, have mostly been platforms for their owners to spout their opinions on any given subject.But media experts say the rapid evolution of the form over the last week underscores a popular thirst for information that at least appears unfiltered by the anchors and editors of the traditional media. Bloggers are casting a wide net for information, drawing from radio, television, newspapers and even other bloggers from around the world.
The emphasis may have shifted in the past week, but the blog format has been supporting non-opinionated news summaries for years.
Dissent takes another hit
I'm reprinting this in toto from Sheila's Subterranean Homepage News:
Column cancelled: Brent Flynn of the Lewisville (Texas) Leader wrote an impassioned column on behalf of dissent, and it became his last. Here's the end of Who are the real, useful idiots? and Flynn's postscript:... If it sounds like I take these attacks personally, that's because I do. I went to my first anti-war protest last month (actually it was my first time at any kind of protest). When I was walking through the streets of downtown Dallas with thousands (and there were thousands) of fellow Dallasites, Texans, Americans, it was one of the proudest moments of my life. And no amount of brow-beating and comparisons to Lenin's unwitting dupes will change that.
No, the protesters aren't unpatriotic, un-American or useful idiots, but people who criticize them for practicing democracy in its purest form have a few things to learn about citizenship in a democratic republic. It is not merely your right to dissent when you disagree with your government's policies, IT IS YOUR CIVIC OBLIGATION.
Before the Bush hawks start exporting democracy to the Middle East through the use of military force, maybe we should make sure we've got it right in America.
--
Columnist's note: This was my last column to appear in the Star Community Newspaper cluster. It is ironic that after writing a forceful essay in support of the first amendment, my column was cancelled. I was told that because I had attended an anti-war rally, I had violated the newspaper's ethics policy that prohibits members of the editorial staff from participating in any political activity other than voting. I was also told that my objectivity as a reporter would be called into question. However, my opposition to an invasion of Iraq was well documented in previous columns before I revealed that I had participated in the protest. But instead of taking me off of my beat or terminating my employment as a staff reporter, my opinion column was cancelled-- the aspect of my job that was enhanced by my participation in the rally. In my opinion, a powerful liberal voice was unwelcome in the conservative Republican county served by my newspaper. The fact that the column was cancelled just days before the start of the US invasion of Iraq raises serious questions about the motives for the cancellation.This and more of Flynn's columns are at brentflynn.com.
As the war goes on, and dissent becomes more widespread, it will present a test of our fundamental constiitutional rights. Real patriotism lies in clinging to those values and precepts, not in trying to eliminate dissent out of fear and cowardice.
Blogging, journalism and standards of fairness
I'm quoted in an article, Blogging: the new journalism?, that went up today in DotJournalism.co.uk, the British equivalent of the Online Journalism Review. It's instructive, if only for how resistant traditional journalists remain to the blogging phenomenon.
The head of BBCNews.com surprisingly proves himself to be an old-schooler by claiming, "Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They (Blogs) are an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time."
Lloyd Shepherd, chief producer for Guardian Unlimited, says that both weblogs and the Drudge Report do not qualify as journalism.
And the author of the article wrongly maintains: "If journalism is by definition the reporting of news in a fair, balanced and accurate way, then blogging is not journalism."
Recently I wrote that weblogs do indeed sometimes serve as journalism, and that we need to move beyond that simplistic debate to discuss how to incorporate the advantages of blogging into mainstream media.
Because I'm often asked by reporters and students for quotes on the subject of blogging, journalism and new media, I'll include the entirety of my exchange with DotJournalism correspondent Jody Raynsford here:
To what extent do people now rely on blogging for breaking news stories or unmediated coverage of events? Do you think this differs depending on where you are based, e.g. US, UK, Iran?
Blogging wonít replace traditional news reports, but it will supplement and enhance them. Readers are flocking to online news sites by the millions for the latest news about the war in Iraq. But the story doesnít end there. They are also teeming to weblogs for skeptical analysis, critical commentary, alternative perspectives rarely seen in mainstream media, the views of foreigners, and the occasional first-person account. A handful of reporters in the Gulf region are maintaining weblogs to provide fuller, more personal and colorful reporting of what they are witnessing first-hand.
Certainly, locale plays an important role. But weblogs help to break down those traditional national, regional and institutional barriers. More than 10,000 Iranians and Persian-speaking people now maintain weblogs, a number that is increasing by 200 every day. I wrote about them here.
How can bloggers overcome the arguments regarding journalistic standards of fairness, balance and most importantly accuracy? When does breaking stories first become more important than verifying the truth of these stories before publication on the web?
Journalists arenít the only ones who know how to speak the truth. Bloggers are increasingly engaging in random acts of journalism whenever they report on events they witness first-hand or when they offer analysis, background or commentary to a newsworthy topic. Those who publish rumor and present it as fact will be burned fairly quickly. Individuals build up brands and track records just as media organizations do. Not all bloggers go the extra mile, but many are now taking the extra step of trying to verify a report by sending an email, picking up the phone or checking with a hoax site before publishing a report that may or may not be true.
For those who donít bother to check their facts, reputation filters and circles of trust in the blogosphere help weed out the nonsense. We all need to do a better job of fine-tuning our bull meters. But as journalist-blogger Ken Layne once said of the blogging masses, ìWe can fact-check your ass.î
What do you think the legal implications may be, in terms of libel and slander, if blogging takes off as a serious news source? For example, what if the allegations made couldn't then be substantiated?
Iím hopeful that many more news organizations hop on board the blog bandwagon. Libel and slander laws should apply in cyberspace just as they do in print and broadcast. Some bloggers will learn the hard way that the Internet is no shield to scurrilous accusations. I just donít happen to frequent any weblogs that play that game.
One of the things you have said about blogging is how much you enjoy the
interactivity with readers while writing an article. Just being the devil's
advocate but is the beauty of journalism not based on the information you
provide, but on the writer's individual take on the facts or situation? By
heavily involving the readers are you not denying them the opportunity of
your individual and fresh take on a subject?
Not at all. Interactivity doesnít take away anything from the writer, it just adds to the richness of the journalism process. A writer, if he or she is to be relevant in cyberspace, canít simply file a story and be done with it forever. Readers want to be involved in a dialogue about the writerís findings. They want to probe, question, challenge conclusions, toss out compliments, offer suggestions for missed avenues of exploration. Iíve heard from hundreds of writers who say the interaction with readers is the most rewarding part of their jobs. That interaction becomes even richer in the blogosphere.
What do you see as the future for weblogs, particularly those set up by the
print media with an online presence?
I believe the opportunities are enormous. The vast majority of media companies have missed the boat so far, and readers are turning to expert amateurs, people with a deep knowledge about a niche subject, and others with a flair for writing or interesting stories to tell ñ hundreds of thousands of bloggers who have become part of the media ecosystem. If the news media choose to ignore it, theyíll continue to lose a chance to connect with readers on an intimate daily basis. And theyíll become a bit less relevant with each passing day.
Jody Raynsford said:
Thank you for the comments, JD.
However, I do not think you are being particularly fair in your perceptions of the reaction to blogging of the traditional media outlets, like Guardian Unlimited.
The sentence of mine you have quoted is taken out of the context of a feature which clearly argues that blogging IS journalism. The mantra that news journalism should be 'fair, balanced and accurate' is a by-product of outdated formal journalism training. I think you will find that more than a few trainee journalists often come away from post-graduate diplomas and accredited courses feeling dissatisfied with this.
The proposition was simply that according to the rules of formal journalism training, news reportage by necessity has to be 'fair, balanced and accurate' to qualify as journalism. The need to be objective, neutral and detached is preached as if there were no alternative. Yet we know that this is not true - journalists such as John Pilger have broken these rules by speaking out and removing such detachment, and no-one questions that it is not journalism. Our old definitions no longer apply but we have not sought to change them.
The heart of the issue is how journalism is defined. It is very easy to write off the 'old media' as resistant and unwilling to embrace weblogs, but it is misunderstanding the issue to do so. In the same article Lloyd Shepherd spoke of about how Guardian Unlimited were tussling with how to incorporate blogging into their site - the very thing you accuse the 'old media' of not doing.
Journalists are not good at analysing their own profession. There are no journalism strategists. The debate about what is and is not journalism is not simplistic. Far from it, it is necessary. For I believe if there was serious debate on the issue - rather than polarised views of the out-of-touch 'old media' and the revolutionary 'new media' - there would be greater understanding of bloggers by the mainstream media and THEN the advantages of incorporating blogging into the mainstream will become apparent.
I am not a traditional journalist, yet in the absence of either my own blog (or an editorship) this remains my own right of reply.
All the best,
Jody
Time shuts down reporter's blog
The Old Guard strikes again: Time Magazine's Joshua Kucera was blogging from Kurdistan. But Joshua writes:
My editors have demanded that I stop posting to this site until the war ends. And they pay the bills, so what can I do. Thanks everyone for reading, and I hope to be back here soon. Peace, Josh.
This comes on the heels of CNN's brain-dead decision to pull the plug on one of its employees' blogs from Iraq.
Thanks to Sheila for the heads up.
Also, Sheila blogs the latest reports about a U.S. civilian team being selected to rule Iraq after the dust settles.
A Portuguese site on Web journalism
Jo“o Canavilhas, a professor at the University of Beira Interior in Portugal, launched a bilingual online journalism website last month called webjournalismo, and asked for permission to reprint the panel discussion held last fall at Berkeley on the subject of blogging and journalism. Dan Gillmor, Rebecca Blood, Meg Hourihan, Scott Rosenberg, Paul Grabowicz and myself were the participants.
I said sure, so here it is.
Jo“o Canavilhas said:
Thanks for this reference.
jc
Google rejects, accepts anti-war ad
Google refused to accept an anti-war ad from Unknown News because it violated their policy -- but then changed their minds.
New media week at Berkeley
Last night's session with Rusty Foster of Kuro5hin, myself and 14 or so journalists from around the country went quite well. The event, which was webcast, centered on the use of weblogs by journalists and news organizations. Afterward, several attendees came up to me and said the discussion was an eye-opening one and that they would lobby for their online newspapers to add interactive weblog columns.
Afterward, a few of us retired to a local pub to discuss the state of intellectual property protection. Got some good thoughts from everybody, including Mary Hodder of Berkeley IP Blog fame.
Today, I trekked back to Berkeley for an iMovie class with Scot Hacker, Ellen Seidler and a dozen journalists. And Saturday I'll spend the entire day there for the sixth annual new media conference.
Kucinich to appear in Marin Co.
For Northern California residents interested in peace activities, here is a message from the Praxis Peace Institute, which is hosting an event this Saturday with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, candidate for president and an outspoken anti-war voice in Congress.
Saturday, March 29, 8 pm, Marin Center Veterans Memorial Auditorium, 10 Avenue of the Flags, San Rafael (San Pedro exit). Tickets cost $12-$30 at 415-499-6800. Music entertainment provided. Co-sponsors: Project Censored at Sonoma State University, North Bay Progressive, and the North Bay Bohemian newspaper.
CLEVELAND said:
WWW.KUCINICH.COM
The Worst Mayors (1820-1993)
Next, and seventh, is Cleveland's Dennis Kucinich (1977-79). Only thirty-one years old when elected, Cleveland's "boy" mayor had failings that were not the sins of venality or graft for personal gain, but rather matters of style, temperament, and bad judgment in office. Kucinich earned seventh place the hard way: by his abrasive, intemperate, and confrontational populist political style, which led to a disorderly and chaotic administration. He barely survived a recall vote just ten months into office, then disappeared for five weeks, reportedly recuperating from an ulcer. When he got back into the political fray, his demagogic rhetoric and slash-and-burn political style got him into serious trouble when he stubbornly refused to compromise and led Cleveland into financial default in late 1978óthe first major city to default since the Great Depression. That led also to Kucinich's defeat and exit from executive office. Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed he had met actress Shirley MacLaine in a previous life, seemingly confirming his critics' charges that he was a "nut-cake." After that, he experienced downward mobility, losing races for several other offices and finally ending up with a council seat; but more recently, he climbed back up to a seat in Congress. Bad judgment, demagoguery, and default also spelled political failure in the eyes of twenty-five of our experts, who ranked Dennis, whom the press called "the Menace," as seventh-worst.
The American Mayor
The Best & The Worst Big-City Leaders
By Melvin G. Holli
The Pennsylvania State University Press
JD Lasica said:
Point taken. I never said I'd vote for the guy. :~)
FluxRostrum said:
CLEVELAND is on a smear campaign
Dennis's site is Kucinich.US
and you should consider voting for the guy
click my name for 30 or 40 media clips of Dennis
More blogs from the front lines
 |
Wade Hudson, a resident of Boulder Creek, California, is a writer, anti-poverty worker, former mental health counselor, and lifelong community organizer. He's in Baghdad now, one of 20 Iraq Peace Team members there, and he's posting images and reports from the Iraqi capital on his weblog.
The Santa Cruz Sentinel ran a story about Wade this morning.
Also, Iraqi expatriate Kanan Makiya is maintaining a warblog at The New Republic.
And even Jupiter Communications is jumping into the fray, with an analysts blog that looks at the impact of the war on the business world and tech sector.
Krugman takes on Clear Channel
The NY Times' Paul Krugman takes on the arrogant right-wingers in control of radio behemoth Clear Channel, probing their ties to President Bush and excoriating their inappropriate involvement in pro-war rallies.
