Archive for December, 2005

Is print doomed? At this speed, it is….

Saturday, December 24th, 2005

My point/counterpoint with John Griffin of National Geographic responding to the question, “Is print dead?”, is finally online, a month after it came out in print.

The intelligence of the crowd

Saturday, December 24th, 2005

The latest New York Times story on government spying says that the NSA mining and analyzing large volumes of communications data.

I wonder how and whether law can be written to cover such activity in a world of ubiquitous communications and data. That’s what I want to discuss.

(But first, let me stipulate a few points, your honors: First, I don’t know much about the law in this arena and that’s why I haven’t said much about these stories; I’m pointing this out now to save you the effort in the comments. Second, as in the prior Times story, the primary issue here is the adminstration’s refusal to get proper warrants and, yes, of course I believe the administration should follow the law. But third, this week’s On the Media (transcript not up yet) explains why the current law, FISA court, and warrants may not be adequate for the data age. Finally, fourth, I do believe that the government does need to spy on and find terrorists and until I see an enemies list led by Barbra Streisand, I won’t just assume that the current, former, or next government is doing this for the jollies; it’s possible, but I won’t assume it and neither will I too easily give up the tools needed to stop the next terrorist attack. While I’m at it, I’ll add that I am not a privacy freak and I am a hawk on terrorism. Enough caveats? Now back to the point….)

If I got it right, this week’s On the Media explained that current law is designed to hunt down known terrorists — to get a warrant to listen to them — rather than to comb through data to gether information — that is, to find terrorists. It stands to reason that analyzing communications data could unearth patterns and anomolies that could lead to suspicious activity.

The first problem with this is that you don’t know who the suspects are and what the suspicious data are until you look, until you have access to everything passing through some point. Next, you can’t find the anomalies until you establish the norm. Together, this means that our data become a necessarily ingredient in the analysis; we are the norm that defines the anomaly and our data passes through the same points with the suspects’. I think many of us could tolerate the idea that if the data we law-abiding, nonterrorists produce were only part of an aggregated pattern, this might be OK.

But, of course, our fear is that we will get caught in the net for other reasons. We fear that the government will decide to go after people who say “fuck” on the internet. We fear that the the state IRS will find out what we ordered online and make us pay local taxes. We fear that a divorce lawyer will be able to subpoena this data flow to get evidence of an illicit IM.

OK, so what if we say that data collected in such a manner can be used only for the limited purpose of finding and stopping terrorism and that it is out of bounds for any other purpose. But what if the anomaly that pops up in analysis turns up a kiddie porn ring or a vast insider-trading conspiracy or a mafia network? Should it still be off-limits? Would the fact that the government knew about it in one context prejudice any separate investigation and prosecution?

The point of all this is that I wonder what our rights are as an aggregate, as a community. It’s not unrelated to the question of who owns the wisdom of the crowd:

We, the crowd, create data through our activities that, in the aggregate, has value — value to categorize content, to target advertising, to establish norms. Who should mine and who should protect that value? And in the open world that enables so much else — the free control and creation of communications and content by the individual — opportunities to observe our behavior and tap that value are also created.

My point in all this is only to say that this is a new and complex area of technology, law, danger, and opportunity and requires new thinking from Congress and open deliberation — without, of course, compromising intelligence publicly — from the administration. My real fear is that our leaders don’t have the knowledge or vision to deal with this. But hiding from the challenge isn’t the answer, either.

RSS, XML, none of the above?

Saturday, December 24th, 2005

My son says that there’s a movement rising to replace both XML and RSS icons with an acronym-free icon that has been adopted by both Firefox and Microsoft.

The top top of the top

Saturday, December 24th, 2005

Blogpulse has a bunch of top 10 lists from blogs in 2005. The top 10 media stories is most, well, idiosyncratic: “Boffins Create Zombie Dogs” … “Armed and dangerous: Flipper the flying dolphin let loose by Katrina” … “James Doohan, ‘Star trek’s’ Scotty, Dead” … “God Told Me To Invade Iraq, Bush Tells Palestinian Ministers” … “Hunter S. Thompson obituary.”

Open-source polling

Friday, December 23rd, 2005

The Mystery Pollster, Mark Blumenthal, shares the article he wrote for Public Opinion Quarterly on open-source polling and the impact of the internet and blogs on polling.

Back in April, I wrote an amateurish call for open-source polling here.

I feel like a crack dealer

Friday, December 23rd, 2005

Jon Friedman has a funny column watching a focus group put on for show filled with readers of Entertainment Weekly, my baby, who were forced to give up the magazine for a month.

It was endearing, even heartwarming, to observe the obsessive loyalty of these subscribers. The dinner occurred smack in the middle of a horrendous industry slump. Magazines are desperately seeking advertising dollars these days….

That said, I’d hasten to add that these 12 EW subscribers truly need to get out and smell the flowers once in a while, too. (One of them talked about renting a hotel room while in college so she could watch the Oscars ceremony without having her roommates milling around and distracting her from the broadcast. She said that, by the way, with a shrug, as if this amounted to perfectly normal behavior. I don’t know about you, but I could barely afford to buy a slice of pizza when I was in college)….

They dearly missed EW during their period of deprivation. Zoe, a charming lawyer-turned-aspiring-actress, confessed to the group: “I felt lonely,” before smiling gamely and adding reassuredly, “just to the not-pathetic-side of lonely.”

The other panelists nodded knowingly….

Juan commiserated with Kevin, saying: “It was like not having a pen-pal write to me.” He then paused and added sheepishly: “You probably think it’s kind of … freaky.”

I’d like to hear more from those fans and not about the magazine but about the movies. Did Zoe find King Kong sexy? Did Juan get into arguments about Munich?

The point of this little show Friedman attended was, of course, to show the wonders of magazines. It’s all about the magazine. But see the post below about newspapers and community.

EW, I’m glad to see, does exactly what we hoped it would do: It attracts an community of people who love entertainment. But the internet didn’t exist when the magazine was born. Now it does. So now they could bring those people together to share their reviews with fellow movie fans. The magazine has a community. The magazine is a community. So now what?

Pickipedia

Friday, December 23rd, 2005

Dana Boyd has a wonderful post bringing perspective and sanity to the recent discussion about wikipedia… and about judging the fruits of interactivity in context.

Nobody here but us chickens

Friday, December 23rd, 2005

Scott Anderson, a newspaper online exec at Tribune Co., writes an honest, sad, and true post at his blog, Online News Squared, about community and newspapers. Quoted in entirety:

A little compare and contrast about the NYC transit strike gets us quickly to the heart of a serious problem that faces newspaper.coms.

Visit here, our friend Mr. Newmark’s storied List. Feel your clicking finger go tingly as you navigate through page after page after page of people offering rides or looking for rides into and out of New York.

Now, visit here, the Ride Share board on Newsday.com, (part of Mama Tribune’s happy family). Feel how it’s about as lonely and forlorn as a subway platform during the strike.

Sigh.

Yet another crisis and Craigslist commands the community. Newspaper.coms command . . . Well, not the community.

Squared isn’t at all picking on his colleagues at Newsday; in fact, he’s very proud that they put the rideshare board into play. It’s just frustrating that even when we TRY, we more often than not find we are absolutely losing what may be one of the most important parts of the business as it more and more moves online — the ability to connect people to one another and to activate conversations. To not just be the deliverer of news and information with glitzy bells and whistles and more related content than you could shake a latte stirrer at, but the catalyst of connection.

How is it that a decade deep into the online news business that isn’t our franchise? Are we only about news, not about the people who consume the news? How come Craig organically can touch lives on so many personal levels — and Craig’s users can touch each other’s lives on so many levels? Connecting buyers and sellers. Connecting employers and employees. Connecting single men and women and combinations thereof. Connecting old friends. Connecting people who need a ride.

Nobody should know its community better than a newspaper.com. A community, to connect within itself, should need to turn to nobody but a newspaper.com. A decade in, we’ve mastered only the disconnect.

And I think the reason is clear and simple: It’s about control. My first law of media and life: Give the people control and they will use it. Don’t, and you will lose them.

Craig created a tool and stood back and, as I now quote him in every PowerPoint to which I subject people, followed one simple rule: “Get out of the way.” He handed over control.

Newspapers are allergic to that idea; they have defined themselves by their control: They report, they confirm, they edit, they package, they product, they distribute. We read. Oh, they’re trying to hand over more control. I was proud at Advance that, thanks to the insistence of our boss, we created forums where everyone had their say. But truth be told, that may have been ahead of other newspaper companies but that wasn’t saying much. The people couldn’t create their own forums, package their own news, use the site to congregate and conspire.

It’s a hard lesson to learn and I still learn it every day. I was working with some folks on a project and we had a light-bulb-over-the-head moment about handing over control. I spoke with a journalist I respect the other day about media today and we had to remind ourselves that the people package news now and don’t wait for us to.

The truth is that newspapapers have to recognize is that the people already have control. What can they do about that?

There’s a reason models look bored

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005

Times fashion critic Cathy Horyn scolds the fashion industry for not participating in the digital age (and, to my pleasant surprise, she quotes me):

But the real reason for the growing sense of boredom is that the fashion world is not participating in the technology revolution. It is outside the medium rather than inside it. The discouraging thing about watching models flip down the runway is that it doesn’t allow you to look at and think about fashion in a new way. It’s the same aesthetic trip, and the Web has widened our emotional and aesthetic expectations….

The Web is actually proof of just how out of touch most designers are. Tom Ford, who was considered a great communicator at Gucci and is now attempting to make movies and get back into fashion, does not even have a Web site. A blog? A podcast? I can’t think of a designer who has one.

She then starts a riff suggesting that Ford should make fashionable porn…. Even when I worked at Conde, I didn’t really understand fashion.

New News: The newsroom as classroom

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005

This is the second in a series about suggestions on how to change newspapers.

After scaring the bejesus out of the newsroom and other departments in a paper, the next step has to pick up the pieces and educate the people there, to take the fear out of the unknown by making it known. I think that the newsroom should start to act like a classroom in three ways.

* * *

First, I would train everyone in a newsroom — everyone: reporter, editor, photographer, artist, boss, clerk — on the lite content creation and publishing tools of online. I’m going to be involved with such a session for the faculty at the new Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY next month, showing everyone how to use blogging, podcasting, vlogging, wiki, rss, blog search, and other tools. I hope the lesson learned is as simple as, “is that all there is to this?” (Cue Peggy Lee.) I’ve seen it happen scores of times with publishing folks who are accustomed and resigned to long and complex processes to get their product out. It happened when I showed James Wolcott how to blog (but, of course, not what to say): He tapped out a bon mot and hit the publish button and then was amazed that his post was presented to the world: no senior editors, no copy editors, no production meetings, no delay. He grinned, devilishly.

Once these folks see how easy these tools are to use, it will help them understand why they’re proliferating like Tribbles and what the possibilities are both in the newsroom and in their communities.

And so I would tell newspaper bosses that they should not only allow but encourage — though not necessarily require — people in the newsroom to use these tools, to create and converse and publish and broadcast. Oh, no, I can hear them saying, without copyediting? Yes, without copyediting. You can’t copyedit a podcast but you can always take it down. You can put out a policy that boils down to this: Don’t be a stupid jerk. Oh, and start interacting with your public, who will warn you when you’re being a stupid jerk.

And then great and surprising things can happen. Newsrooms can be and should be creative and curious places and these tools can break out those instincts. I’ve seen that happen, too. I’ve seen still photographers get reenergized professionally and creatively when they can shoot video. I’ve seen reporters freed to publish quickly with links having a ball finding themselves in conversation — for the first time in their careers — with the folks who used to merely read them.

I think you’ll find most of the newsroom embracing these new tools. And in fairness, I think you’ll find many who’ve long wanted to try but they were stopped either by newsroom fear or by online folks, some of whom have started to turn their craft into a priesthood, just like newspapering. But there will be naysayers. Newsrooms are filled with them and in the culture of the place, their caution usually wins the day. I’ve seen that, too: One person can shake her head freetting about all the bad things that could happen if we actually link out to strangers and so it doesn’t happen because no one wants to be responsible. So managers have to ignore the naysayers and pay attention to the creators. This doesn’t mean that you have to love it all; quality matters and you should improve or kill the bad stuff. But you should concentrate on sharing the gems and the excitement.

The print and online folks should not get caught up in the respective niceties and intracies of their crafts. Don’t spend months designing new templates for podcasts, watching the work fall farther down the priority list at every meeting because “there isn’t revenue attached.” Instead, use the tools that exist: Put up blogs and let newsroom folks publish links to their vlogs and podcasts from them and then show them how to track the links to them via Technorati et al. Keep it simple because it is so simple.

* * *

Second, I would invite people from the community to come into the newsroom — or go out to them — to teach them whatever they might want to learn from you. I’m not sure what that is. So find out. Ask. Terry Heaton, who has done more to innovate in newsrooms than anyone I know, helped the folks at WKRN-TV in Nashville invite bloggers and vloggers to the station to learn how to shoot better video. It doesn’t much matter what the curriculum is, for the real lesson here is about sharing. We shouldn’t act as if we have the keys to the kingdom. But if people want to learn how to file a FOIA or create a news graphic or select fonts, then let them in on the knowledge.

* * *

Third, I would invite people from the community to come to newsrooms — or, again, go to them — to have them teach the journalists. Again, the syllabus doesn’t matter for the real lesson is that journalists want to learn and the community knows much worth teaching. So if financial people say we always mess up stories about P&Ls, then invite them in to teach us. If sports fans think we don’t understand what’s really happening in the local football league, then buy them a beer and listen. If religious leaders think they’re misunderstood, then have them explain their beliefs to us. It’s our job to listen.

If that works, then invite the whole community to come join in. And if that happens, then you’re starting to get to where I think a newspaper should be: Not a repository of knowledge, not a spout for it, but a — pardon the icky poetic imagery — fountain around which people gather to share. Once again, Hugh McLeod said it better than I just did: We need to think as “a point on the map where wonderful people cluster together to do wonderful things.” How do we help people gather to share what they know and need to know? How do we turn newspapers into newsplaces? This, I hope, is a start. More to come….

Hyper about local

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005

Scott Schrantz, who runs a local site for Carson City, is properly upset to see cookie-cutter local sites that are thinly disguised ads by real estate agents.

Playing the race placard

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005

This morning The Times fans — or rather, gathers the kindling and tries to ignite — the flames of racial discord in the New York transit strike.

But now, as representatives of a mostly nonwhite work force trade recriminations publicly with white leaders in government and at the transportation authority, the potentially volatile issue of race, with all its emotional consequences, is bubbling to the surface.

And the evidence of this is: (1) Bozos say bad things in web comments — gee, that never happens anywhere else. (2) Mayor Bloomberg says that the union “thuggishly turned their backs on New York City.” Roger Toussaint, the union leader, and Al Sharpton call that racial.

Not in my UnPC dictionary. The words “thug” and “union” have been in usage since long before minorities finally came into power in them … since, well, the words “mafia” and “union” were also in common usage. Look up “Hoffa” and “thug” in Google and the first listing among 9,300 is about Tony Soprano.

Now I almost understand, or at least not be surprised at, Sharpton and Roger Toussaint grasping at cheap shots try to spin this illegal strike, this act of unlawful thuggery against the people of New York. Toussaint is also playing the race card as he tries to summon the ghost of Rosa Parks onto MTA buses.

But I do not understand The Times giving this canard legitimacy without finding anyone in the story, other than the mayor’s spokesman, to call bullshit. It is irresponsible.