BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis

August 03, 2004

Alert

: Officials say that this week's alert came not only because of the surveillance recently discovered but also because of a separate stream of intelligence pointing to a current plot.

The officials said the separate stream of intelligence, which they had not previously disclosed, reached the White House only late last week and was part of a flow that the officials said had prompted them to act urgently in the last few days.
I repeat: No gotcha.

Journalism from the other side

: We're at the end of a long day at the public journalism session in Toronto; I just gave my summary of what I heard and now Jay Rosen is giving his amazing story of the movement and the day.

Jay says that when he got into this long ago, the key word was "disconnect." Journalism was disconnected from its audience. Jay and the public journalism movement thought the way to solve that was from within journalism. They tried to get journalists to cover an election from the people's perspective, not a news perspective. They tried to get journalists to hold town meetings to listen. Jay spent a decade doing that.

But then came citizens' media and Jay says he suddenly saw it differently: Rather than changing from within, rather than trying to bring journalism closer to people, these new tools brought the people closer to journalism, their journalism as publishers. Not everyone will or should do it. But those who are so inclined now can.

It's all about enfranchising people.

alQaeda.com

: Captured jihadist geek reveals al Qaeda's web strategy (hey, doesn't everybody have a web strategy?):

U.S. sources said Khan told interrogators al Qaeda uses Web sites and e-mail addresses in Turkey, Nigeria and tribal areas of Pakistan to pass messages among themselves.

Couriers were often used to deliver computer discs, and Khan would then post the messages on Web sites, but only briefly, the sources said.

According to the sources, after messages were sent and read, the files were deleted.

E-mail addresses were used only two or three times; if the information was really sensitive, an address might be used only once.

High-rise hair

: Omarosa, the fired Apprentice, dishes on The Donald's hair:

"He considers it his good-luck charm," reveals the contestant on the reality show which comes to an end on Monday.

"That's why he won't change it.

"As long as people are pondering his hair then they're still thinking about him and he's still on their minds. So he knows it's a valuable thing."

Thank goodness he doesn't think of fingernails as lucky.

Fixing journalism

: I'm in Toronto at the AEJMC (it stands for something having to do with journalism and education) confab; subset: public journalism.

Len Witt, who brought us together, said that the public journalism movement, 16 years old, was in danger of fading due to the entrenched nature of big media, but it has been revived in the last 18 months.

Why? A growing acceptance, he said, that "the practice of journalism is broken."

I wonder if one surveyed journalists whether they would agree -- and then whether they would agree that their public is part of the fix.

: Dan Gillmor is giving a primer on the technology that is changing everything.

: Canadian journalist Warren Kinsella takes the stage and calls blogging "punk-rock journalism."

: Onto Jay Rosen, who immediately rebuts Kinsella's advice to corporations to speak with simplicity, repetition, and volume. Jay pushes for complexity, length, and nuance. "This, of course limits the success of my weblog. I want to limit the success of my weblog." He knows and likes his public. He says his ethic of drawing people to the site competes with big medias: His is, "I don't care whether you like it.... The very last thing I would assume about my audience is that they need something drilled into their head.... It's the opposite: They need space to expand their own thinking."

He explains his blogging of the convention and how he approached it: He said the "convention was a mystery that needed explanation."

: Up on the panel now. Jan Schaffer of J-Lab, spoke about participatory journalism and said she does not like blogs because they are "not useful... narcisistic... and niche."

I said that as Rosen rebutted Kinsella, I would rebut Schaffer. I said that many don't like big media because it too often useless and too often narcissistic and not often niche enough.

Jan is raring to rebut the rebut. She said I was plagerizing use of "conversation" in all this from public journalism. [I had that wrong before and said the word was "citizens."]

: I should not be surprised, I suppose, that is is -- in pockets, at least -- a resistant bunch -- just as big-media folks have been resistant, but maybe a year behind them. That could be because they don't feel the economic pinch the big-media folks feel. Or it could be because this group in particular is holding onto definitions of "public journalism" that they came up with years ago. To them, blogging is an upstart of a different sort. Big-media folks think -- mistakenly -- of blogs as upstart competition to content while some of these folks seem to think of blogging as upstart competition to their movement. Both are wrong. Blogging and citizens' media are ways to improve journalism and citizens' movements.

: Now Mary Lou Fulton is telling the group about the great work she is doing in Bakersfield -- yes, Bakersfield -- gathering the content of the people and then freeze-drying it onto a paper that is distributed to 22k homes, with 6k more in racks in town.

I'm jealous as hell because I wanted to get this done first. But it's even better learning from Mary Lou.

She says that her goal is to "say yes to everything." A story about a girl selling lemonade to make money for her librarian who has MS is news. And publishing that news respects the people. Amen!

The best thing she hears is that "I saw part of me in this."

She says that some of the news that should be coming into papers doesn't because people tire of going through the gatekeepers. "That's the problem with buildling gates: You're keeping people out rather than letting people in."

She's giving good tips. Something fascinating: Businesses wanted to be involved and Mary Lou et al decided it really wasn't fair to exclude that one group. So they sat down and said that a business could write one article a year about its expertise (not its business): Smart. Gets them involved. And they make sure they are transparent about the relationship.

: Joey deVilla is summarizing one of a half-dozen breakout sessions (what's a conference without breakout sessions?). He says of bloggers and media: "If there weren't a void in the first place we wouldn't be rushing in to fill it."

Xenophobic Sprint

: Well, damn Sprint. I can't use the data features up in Canada.

How big is Google's news net?

: Vin Crosbie looked at GoogleNews' usage of sources and found that though they monitor 7,000 sites, only a few are used often (in the display, I assume, as opposed to the news search). That's not wildly surprising. But what is surprising is the use of a few oddball sources: It's why you keep seeing AP stories via China. Vin's calculations of top sites used include:

Reuters 175 stories 18% of all
New York Times 80 stories 8% of all
Voice of America 67 stories 7% of all
Xinhua 67 stories 7% of all
Bloomberg 61 stories 6% of all
Washington Post 61 stories 6% of all
ABC News 49 stories 5% of all
Boston Globe 26 stories 2% of all
CNN 22 stories 2% of all
San Francisco Chronicle 17 stories 1% of all
CNN International 17 stories 1% of all
Christian Science Monitor 15 stories 1% of all
Toronto Star 13 stories 1% of all
Seattle Post Intelligencer 13 stories 1% of all
United Press International 12 stories 1% of all
By the way, when my son had to find UPI stories for some (very outdated) assignment at school, I sent searching and the only paper in which I could find them anymore was the Washington Times.

What Vin's numbers also don't reveal is the use of some really crackpot sources (while ignoring much larger weblogs and other sources).

This is a good subject for more study.

Whereabouts

: This is the public journalism and education conference where I'll be later today.

Enough gotchas

: I'm at the airport this morning -- a fresh, sparkling coating of terror orange paint still drying -- and I read in The Times and in the comments here and in various blogs the hot belch of "gotchas" because some of the information captured that led to yesterday's alerts was three years old. The implication, of course, is that the Cheney-Bush industrial complex dredged this up only to scare us and get a point in the polls: the August surprise.

Only I heard this news yesterday, too. And so what if some of what the terrorists gathered on that thankfully incompetent geek-jihadist's laptop was three years old? Does that mean they shouldn't tell us that these specific buildings have been and may still be under surveillance and then under attack?

Can't have it both ways, folks: Can't scream they they don't tell us what they know -- and then when they tell us what they know, it's not good enough for you. It's what they know. Can't scream that they're not connecting the dots and when they connect some, you scream because you don't like the picture it draws.

I'm no fan of Bush or Cheney. I think Tom Ridge is an incompetent dolt. I think John Ashcroft is a dangerous fanatic. But you don't hear me heh-heh-hehing this morning. You hear me thanking the lady at the security checkpoint for X-raying my loafers.

Enough with the gotchas. Enough with the demonizing. Enough with thinking that the bad guys are our guys. Enough with the naive, simplistic blame game.

I hated it when the right did all this to Bill Clinton: Bill and Hillary are evil, they said, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours. And so I hate it when the left does this to George Bush: Dick and George are evil, they say, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours.

Grow up.

Life isn't that simple. I hated Richard Nixon and wanted him out of office and think he was, indeed, a crook and pond scum. But I don't think that everything he did in office was maliciously motivated and evil. I hated Lyndon Johnson because he ran a war I hated and because I was young; I wanted him out of office and added my young, cracking voice to the mobs demanding that; yet I see now that LBJ also did great good. I don't much like George Bush or Dick Cheney but I don't think that they wake up every morning asking how they can ass-f* the world today. It's not that simple, folks.

And the problem is, if you think it is that simple, then you don't pay attention to what matters. If you think all our problems will be over when we get Bush (or Clinton or Nixon or LBJ or Carter or someday Hillary or Obama) out of office, then you're going to wake up the next day and realize that we still have all our problems. And we have them because you were so busy demonizing the guy on the top that you didn't go after the real demons.

: John Podhoretz is of the right. Quiz the two of us about our political beliefs and we'll end up miles apart. If Michael Moore had lunch with John, he'd end up shouting at him the way he shouted on Bill Maher's show the other night. He'd see a boogeyman across the table. I had lunch with John some months ago (it's time again) and we talked about terrorism and the war and trying to find solutions because we realize we're in this together.

Go read John's column yesterday, in which he says that the gotchas and the boogeymen won't get us anywhere. During America's "vacation from terrorism," he says:

American political junkies and politically engaged people in the West fell back into the comforting old habit of imagining that the only things that matter are the things American politicians do.

Everyone on the Left — from soft liberals to Michael Moore — seemed to have decided that the problems faced by the United States were primarily or even solely the fault of George W. Bush.

The Right fell to squabbling and niggling about the way in which the War on Terror was being fought.

During their vacation, both Left and Right fell prey to a kind of arrogant American innocence. It was as though both ideological camps essentially came to believe it was within the capacity of the United States to envision every conceivable difficulty we can face.

So the only reason we didn't stop 9/11, or went to war over WMD we haven't found, or faced terrible difficulties in pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan, is that we suffered from a "failure of vision."

Or because our leaders lied.

Even though these sorts of ideas have provoked nothing but rage and fury among the faithful who have chosen to believe in them, they are perversely comforting.

If we're so powerful, then we aren't facing much of a threat.

If we're the enemy — or, rather, if George W. Bush is the enemy — all we need do is turn the guy out of office and we'll be safe.

Meanwhile, fanatical fundamental murdering nutjobs spend years and years plotting their ways to kill thousands of us. The plot to bring down the World Trade Center took a helluva lot more than three years. They worked more than a decade to meet their goal. But here we are nya-nyaing and gotchaing while they plot.

And then the terrorists strike.

And then they're the ones who say "gotcha."

: LATER: See Ken Layne, too.

Archives:
06/05 ... 05/05 ... 04/05 ... 03/05 ... 02/05 ... 01/05 ... 12/04 ... 11/04 ... 10/04 ... 09/04 ... 08/04 ... 07/04 ... 06/04 ... 05/04 ... 04/04 ... 03/04 ... 02/04 ... 01/04 ... 12/03 ... 11/03 ... 10/03 ... 09/03 ... 08/03 ... 07/03 ... 06/03 ... 05/03 ... 04/03 ... 03/03 ... 02/03 ... 01/03 ... 12/02 ... 11/02 ... 10/02 ... 09/02 ... 08/02 ... 07/02 ... 06/02 ... 05/02 ... 04/02 ... 03/02/a ... 03/02/b ... 02/02 ... 01/02 ... 12/01 ... 11/01 ... 10/01 ... 09/01 ... Current Home



. . .