Reason or treason? 'Free speech has limits'

This must be Southern Old Media day here at New Media Musings. Besides the Richmond Times Dispatch, I'm also quoted in a thoughtful piece in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Reason or treason? Free speech has limits, advocates of war argue.

(Incidentally, I couldn't find this story because the piece-o'-crap Access Atlanta site has no editorial search function that I could find. Instead, I used Google, limiting my search to this one site. )

The writer, Richard Halicks, and I exchanged a few emails on the subject of bias in news coverage of the war. I'm quoted at the end. The throwaway line that the United States tried to impose its world view in a wrongheaded war in Vietnam -- don't almost all historians agree on this by now? -- has already drawn the wrath of several readers whose emails have burned a hole in my in-box this fine morning.

Here's the full text of my comments to Richard:

This may be the first 'red states' war. The themes of supporting our troops and liberating Iraq plays well in the heartland, while those who live in the Electoral College 'blue states' seem to have greater doubts about the wisdom of the administration's policy. Look at the massive street protests in San Francisco, New York and Boston.

The last time we fought an ideological war was in Vietnam. The Gulf War was fought to drive an invading army out of Kuwait; the war in Afghanistan was fought to eliminate al Qaeda's home base. The Iraq war is being fought for reasons advanced by conservative hawks in the Bush administration: to rid the world of a dictator, yes, but also to extend American power in the Middle East. Ultimately, it's about imposing our world view on a Third World country. The last time we tried that was in Vietnam.

Perhaps the only thing Americans can agree on with respect to the war is that we don't want our news managed. As long as news correspondents' reports from the field do not compromise the safety of our troops or ongoing military operations, we expect the news media to tell us the full truth of what's taking place. The trouble is, whose truth? Viewers in all parts of the globe are getting a very different picture of the war's progress than viewers here at home. News organizations without a horse in the race have decided to focus on civilian casualties and the unexpectedly strong resistance to the U.S.-led invasion by Iraqi citizens. American media, especially those traveling with U.S. combat troops, are emphasizing battlefield victories and the progress of the march on Baghdad.

In any military conflict, both sides have a media battle plan as well. We're seeing spin from both sides. Iraqi news conferences play to the Arab street, focusing on the harsh realities of deaths and injuries inflicted on innocents. United States press briefings seem harsh and impersonal by comparison, run by generals whose track record of candor leaves much to be desired. Why they're not focusing more on the reign of terror wrought by Saddam in recent years, I don't know.

Certainly, I don't blame the administration for trying to manage the media. After all, the war is not just about removing Saddam but instilling goodwill in the Iraqi people for their eventual liberation. Unfortunately, Saddam has managed Iraq's media effectively, and fear speaks louder than hope.

I'm afraid I'm one of those whose skepticism meter is running in high gear. I'm skeptical whenever I see a news report about a purported factory where weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered. We know now that the Pentagon purposefully deceived the American public during the Gulf War to cover up the horrendous track record of Patriot missiles shot at Iraqi Scuds. With the administration hoping to prove to the world that the invasion was justified, it's certainly not beyond the means of the U.S. government to manufacture a smoking gun. That probably won't happen, but I'm not sure that we'll find definitive proof one way or the other, and certainly whatever we do uncover will be doubted by hundreds of millions of people in Arab and Muslim regions.

Regarding news bias ...

I worked at daily newspapers for 18 years and discovered that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Today, my local newspaper carried letters from readers complaining that the paper should be ashamed for printing news and photos that portrayed the war effort in less than glowing terms. There's a sizable segment of the population that feels the same way: 'Don't bother me with the facts.' Talk radio and right-wing Internet sites are teeming with people who share that mindset.

It's up to journalists to stand up and do our jobs during these difficult times, regardless of pressure from the ideological extremes. It's up to the news media to report what's truly going on, without fear or favoritism. News organizations with 'embedded' reporters have to make sure they're reporting on the totality of the conflict, not merely the gung-ho reports on the troops they rub shoulders with.

A final word about dissent:

For those of us who remember the dissent and protests that roiled our country during Vietnam, the accusation that you can't back the troops without backing the president is particularly painful. Dissent is the ultimate American value. Let's not forget Teddy Roosevelt's admonition:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Blogs: flavor of moment or publishing revolution?

I'm quoted in today's Richmond (Virg.) Times Dispatch in a story titled Blogs: flavor of moment or publishing revolution? I met the author, McGregor McCance, at the session Rusty F. and I gave on weblogs at the new media conference in Berkeley the other week.

Here's the exchange McGregor and I had by email; about half of this wound up in his column.

While weblogs may be the hot media topic of the moment, I don't believe they'll dwindle into obscurity and irrelevance a couple of years from now. But I also don't think they'll knock off the Times Dispatch or replace traditional news outlets. Instead, I think we'll see a gradual and steady uptick in their use over the next several years.

It's an enticing, almost intoxicating, media form, one that I don't think people are ready to abandon to return to yesterday's news. We'll still need a corps of professional journalists to help ferret out important stories, to report from remote locations, to provide balance and context to the news. But beside big media journalism we'll see a mixture of opinion, commentary and analysis from the grassroots, as ordinary people find their voices and add their writings, warts and all, to the media mix.

Blogs are completely overhyped. I think if you take the time to set up a blog and talk to yourself (as many of them surely operate) that's fine. but don't tell me how blogs are changing our methods of communication.

Nope. They *are* changing the way we communicate. Instead of a one-way conversation, where a cadre of professionals holds forth on the news, the weblog universe connects people with other people and ensures that alternative voices and points of view are heard. That shouldn't be minimized. Long after a reporter has finished a story and gone on to her next topic, the blogosphere will continue thrashing her story about, adding new angles, insights and perspectives. Blogs won't replace traditional news media, but they will supplement them in important ways.

Blogs will not supplant the need for edited reports from journalists. Rather, they will heighten the need for professional reports that at least attempt to institute some fact-checking before publication.

You're right, blogs won't supplant the need for edited news stories. But look closely at what most weblogs do. They *point* to news stories in traditional newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets and then add their own riff or interpretation. That personal voice and point of view is sorely missing in objective journalism.

Blogs will be dead in two years. bloggers will get bored or get excited about something else. will this simply reflect the evolution of online communications or reveal how much of a "blip" blogging really is? (thank god "only time will tell," and i will not be accountable for anything i write or say.)

No way. That's what they said two years ago, and instead weblogging has moved from a trendy, fringe phenomenon to become a mainstream phenomenon. The tools continue to become easier and cheaper so that non-techie types like homemakers, teenagers and even lawyers are trying it out. Not everyone will keep it up, but plenty of others will take their place. As traditional media becomes bigger and more impersonal, weblogs are one of the few outlets where ordinary folks can still have their voices heard.

'We may never regain the liberties we've lost'

Dan G., in New York for the annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, writes in today's Merc: Why we may never regain the liberties that we've lost. He ends his column aptly:

I deeply admire the activists who gathered in New York, because they keep trying even in the toughest of times. They are fighting for all of us, and for our future.

City in knot over yellow ribbons

San Jose Merc: After Jagdeep Grewal's son, a lance corporal in the Marines, was sent to Iraq, she bought almost $800 worth of yellow ribbon and began tying bows around the light poles in Burlingame's downtown. This infuriated Palo Alto resident Seth Yatovitz, who has demanded the city council remove the ribbons because they represent "support of violators of international law."

My take? Even if you oppose this war, as I do, you've got to be a real asshole to oppose privately purchased yellow ribbons to support our troops in Iraq.

Fighting Messenger spam

I happened across a website that purports to eliminate all popup Messenger spam, which is increasingly becoming a problem. It's called Message Away. The fellow who built the app charges $20 for it.

Anyone know (a) whether this service is legit and works, or (b) if there are simple tweaks I can do myself without an outside vendor's help? I don't want to deny this programmer his 20 bucks if he's created something inventive. On the other hand, I don't want to get ripped off if this is something easily accomplished by the end user.