Category Archives: Public Service, Civics, Government, Activism

Hope you had a great St. Patrick’s Day

Posted on by

Even though you wouldn’t know it by my name – I’m Irish. It’s something I was was dimly aware of as a teenager, and something I’ve come to embrace as I’ve gotten older and realized my last name isn’t that of my biological father.

So what is St. Patrick’s Day? According to my friend Ron and a link he posted, something mighty bad. According to David Plotz at Slate, something to take pause of and be thankful for.

Me? The lack of cultural upbringing I had leads me to think of something far more recent – the North Ireland peace process and the hope it brings for the world. Differences that seem intractable and unbridgeable can be met. And not always does it need to lead to blood.

And yeah, I’ll have a drink to that.

Using Our Powers For Good

Posted on by

I recently re-read Rebecca Blood’s 2003 BlogTalk presentation: “waging peace: using our powers for good”. It is worth revisiting by anyone who is a blog evangelist or critic. Taking a look at the daily lack of cross linkage on memeorandum.com, unfortunately, it seems almost prophetic.

…People agree most readily with the things they already believe, and everyone has only 24 hours in a day. Because of these two factors, weblogs are too often enclosed in echo-chambers of their own making.

In the book ‘Data Smog’, David Shenk says: ‘Birds of a feather flock virtually together’ and this is certainly true of weblogs. He goes on to say: ‘The problem… is that people are tuning in and becoming informed–but they’re tuning into niche media and they’re acquiring specialized knowledge. As our information supply increases, our common discourse and shared understanding decrease. Technically, we possess an unprecedented amount of information; however, what is commonly known has dwindled to a smaller and smaller percentage every year. This should be a sobering realization for a democratic nation, a society that must share information in order to remain a union.’

Let me add that it’s not just specialized knowledge that we are accessing. It’s news and opinion about current events. The Web has given us the ability to retrieve news accounts from around the world. It used to be that most people got their news from just a few sources. This limited access meant that most of us were evaluating events from a common pool of information about the world, or at least a pool that was common to the people around us. But Web users can choose to get their news from wherever they like. And factual accounts of the same events quite often differ substantially in their wording, emphasis, and in the conclusions they draw. We now have the ability to choose from among news accounts until we find one that we feel gets it right.

Now, I don’t advocate returning to the pre-Web world of local newspapers. But there are consequences to the wide access we have gained.

Democracy depends on groups of people coming to terms with one another, and devising solutions that will address the needs of most, if not all, of its citizens. Even a system like mine, in the United States, where majority rules, cannot afford to completely ignore the needs of anyone not in the winning party. Democracies simply cannot function unless citizens and policy-makers can talk to one another and achieve some sort of common ground in addressing the issues of the day.

However, when people can choose their news and information from an unlimited variety of sources, they usually will choose sources that confirm their pre-existing biases. According to theFolklorist.com, confirmation bias is ‘a tendency on the part of human beings to seek support or confirmation for their beliefs.’ It makes sense, if you think about it. The only basis we have in evaluating any source of information is the set of information–including opinions–that we have already decided is true. Very few people will be inclined to choose primary sources of information that consistently put forth ideas that just seem wrong.

This isn’t deliberate malice. It’s a simple matter of choosing, from the available sources, those that seem most accurate, and those that seem most accurate will always be those that most closely reflect one’s own view of the world. So while the Web, in theory, makes it possible to explore many more points of view than ever before, in practice, few people actually do this to the extent that they can.

Read the whole piece.

Share It When You Can Find It: Investigative Journalism

Posted on by

88 percent of newspaper coverage is ‘churnalism’: rewritten wire copy and PR. Only 12 is derived from reporters initiative or is fact checked.

That’s the state of newspaper journalism in Britain according to what Nick Davies has written in his book “Flat Earth News”. You can read more about “Flat Earth News” in a recent London Review of Books article (via dangerousmeta).

No wonder the majority of Americans no longer trust the media and folks like Jeff Jarvis are making an issue of it.

We have a clue we are being spun. And I bet that niche media’s pursuit of ‘authenticity’ – the practice of wrapping news in greater and greater extremes of opinion to seem ‘genuine’ – folks probably feel at an instinctive level the exploitation.

In this environment, it has become more and more difficult to find investigative journalism you might care about or might need to know about.

There are many initiatives that have sprung up over the past few years that attempt to address how investigative journalism can be pursued, developed, created and funded.

Scott Rosenberg shares his doubts about one of the latest, “ProPublica”, a non-profit driven by some big names in traditional journalism.

Think about a story the Philadelphia Inquirer recently published: “Philadelphia faces shortage of housing for mentally ill”. It was front page of the Local section. Some editor thought that I, as a reader, would find that story interesting or pertinent.

In a world driven purely by linkage, PageRank, traffic counts, and other topic based story algorithm filtering systems – would I see that story? Would that story even be written? Who is its audience?

Think about it. And what it means for your knowledge of others that sit outside your topical or social spheres.

Now I’m not saying that algorithm driven – or crowd driven – news filtering is bad. Far from it.

Nor am I saying that a world where only ‘experts’ provide access to the news stories is good. Again far from it.

But the folks who *do* say one or the other are selling something. And it is at our expense.

Google criticized for helping homeless ‘gimmick’

Posted on by

 : who we are:

the things we accept,
those we defend without shame,
reveal who we are.

You would think a company expanding a service that helps homeless get off the streets (by providing them with a consistent means of being contacted) would be a non-controversial thing.

After all, providing one service to the homeless (lets say clothes) doesn’t preclude providing other services (lets say, job training, or housing). And having choices for services isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Thankfully we have a number of service providers for homeless families and individuals in our area.

But you would think wrong.

Both Mathew Ingram and Michael Arrington let Google have it for trumpeting its involvement in San Francisco’s Project Homeless Connect especially when alternatives like Community Voice Mail exist.

In fact, I’d say the verdict from the digerati – overall – was cynical and negative.

All I know is that I wish – I wish – services like these existed when I fought through my bout of living on the streets. I know from experience how important it is to have a steady means of contact when looking for work, dealing with family, or simply finding a place to sleep.

CNet: Google expands free phone number and voicemail project.

Why It Matters

Posted on by

We maybe on the eve of a new war (USAToday: Poll finds Americans split on taking military action in Iran). Do *you* think you’re doing all you can to inform your fellow citizen of facts or opinions? Do you think it matters? Do you think people are informed enough to weigh in on this? Why do you think that is and who gets the praise or the fault?

tony pierce: “IS EVERYONE OUT OF THEIR MINDS?”

Posted on by

Poetry. Read the whole thing.

“the rex grossman miss teenage south carolina george bushing of america”:

….we allow the lamest people to be the man.

repeatedly.

all of us.

and matt good sings
youre gonna get what you deserve
and not a penny less

bible says its easier for a camel to get thru the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.

because we are attached to the wrong things.

and we’re such liars. saying we’re a christian nation
we dont read the bible and we ignore everything in it when its read to us.
then bitch when someone tells us that we’re not going to heaven.

youre not going to heaven because you hate everything pure on earth
youre not going to heaven because you reject good right here
youre not going to heaven because you dont value love

and heaven is love incarnate. so fuck your whines and fuck your earthly goals.

money is not the way. pretty boy quarterbacks arent the way
dumb blonde beauty queens are not the way.

george bush ryan seacrest maroon five dave matthews

those are your gods

you are the doomed generation

dying to repeat the failures of your parents.

1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11

Posted on by

Unbelievable isn’t it?

Editor & Publisher: “Hit and Myth: Poll Shows 1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11”.

Wow.

The sad thing is, predictably, pundits and experts on both sides of the new media debate (something I have yet to understand) will inevitably point fingers.

Nick Carr: “The people formerly known as informed”.

Dan Gillmor: “Journalists Failure to Dispel Saddam-9/11 Myth is Media Scandal”.

Mathew Ingram: “News flash: Digg headlines not “real” news”.

Fact: Despite the information revolution, despite the advent of 24/7 cable news, despite the advent of 24/7 talk radio, despite the Internet, set aside the Web and participatory media for just a minute, it’s already been determined we’re no better informed about our world than in 1989.

So those who long for the good old days can point your fingers at bloggers all you want.

And those who say today far better than the past can point your fingers at ‘traditional’ media journalists all you want.

The failure is complete. It is across the board.

And it portends terrible things for our democracy and society as a whole.

God: “How many times do I have to say it? Don’t kill each other anymore – ever!”

Posted on by

The Onion: September 26, 2001: “God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule”:

Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

“Look, I don’t know, maybe I haven’t made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again,” said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. “Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don’t. And to be honest, I’m really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand.”

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called “an unending cycle of violence.”

“I don’t care how holy somebody claims to be,” God said. “If a person tells you it’s My will that they kill someone, they’re wrong. Got it? I don’t care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else’s, ever again.”

…Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: “Can’t you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism… every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you’re supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It’s not that hard a concept to grasp.”

“Why would you think I’d want anything else? Humans don’t need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other – you’ve been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!” God said. “The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?”

“I’m talking to all of you, here!” continued God, His voice rising to a shout. “Do you hear Me? I don’t want you to kill anybody. I’m against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don’t kill each other anymore – ever! I’m fucking serious!”

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God’s shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

The Onion: September 26, 2001: “American Life Turns Into Bad Jerry Bruckheimer Movie”: “In the movies, when the president says, ‘It’s war,’ that usually means the good part is just about to begin,” said hardware-store owner Thom Garner of Cedar Rapids, IA. “Why doesn’t it feel that way now? It doesn’t feel like the good part is about to begin at all. It feels there’s never going to be another good part again.”

The Onion: September 26, 2001: “Report: Gen X Irony, Cynicism May Be Permanently Obsolete”: “This earnestness can’t last forever. Can it?” No. It didn’t.

The Onion: September 26, 2001: “Bush Sr. Apologizes To Son For Funding Bin Laden In ’80s”: “I’m sorry, son,” Bush told President George W. Bush. “We thought it was a good idea at the time because he was part of a group fighting communism in Central Asia. We called them ‘freedom fighters’ back then. I know it sounds weird. You sort of had to be there.”

POSTSCRIPT: The Onion: October 3, 2001: “A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bullshit Again”:

“The United States is a free country, a strong country, a prosperous country,” Schuitt said. “Many veterans gave their lives so we would have the right to focus our attention and energies on the DVD release of Joe Dirt, the latest web-browsing cell phones, and how-low-can-you-go hip-hugging jeans. It is a sign of our collective strength as a nation that we genuinely give a shit about the latest developments in the Cruise-Cruz romance. When Mariah Carey’s latest breakdown is once again treated as front-page news, that is the day the healing will have truly begun.”

POST POSTSCRIPT – Six years later, Bin Laden is still free, our troops are deployed in a nation building exercise in a previously dictator led country we decided to dismantle that had nothing to do with the attack – and Afghanistan is sliding back towards the Taliban.

And the day before the sixth anniversary of the attacks headlines were dominated by Britney Spears.

The biggest blogs these days are actually getting TV shows – Perez Hilton and TMZ.com.

And according to Technorati, well, the rest of the known blogosphere is focussed on gadgets and making money.

God bless our troops. God bless the world.

And good day everyone.

Lead in Baby Bibs!!!!!!!!

Posted on by

Ya know, I’m sure this is a bit of fear mongering, but yesterday I cursed out loud “holy fuck” when I saw this headline in the New York Times: Some Baby Bibs Said to Contain Levels of Lead.

It would appear, every day a new story pops up to remind us that the infrastructure we rely on, to provide us the capacity to do seemingly ordinary things in our lives – from brushing our teeth, to crossing a bridge, to hanging out on a corner with friends in safety – isn’t all that reliable anymore.

We’re No Better Informed About Our World Than In 1989

Posted on by

Despite the information and communication revolutionary time we live in, Americans remain in the dark about our world.

Pew released a survey back in April detailing Americans knowledge of current affairs, comparing the status quo to that of 1989.

We’ve had a literal explosion of new media and communications services and tools come into being these past 15 years. They have completely reshaped how we get our news and how we connect with our communities.

Social Networks, Blogs, RSS, News Aggregators, Email, Email Lists, Message Boards, Websites, News portals, the Web, the Internet, Cable network 24/hr. news, talk radio, online magazines, collaborative news filters, algorithmic news filters, the list goes on and on.

You would think with so many choices, so many avenues to get informed, we’d actually be better informed.

You’d be wrong.

On average, today’s citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. The new survey includes nine questions that are either identical or roughly comparable to questions asked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, somewhat fewer were able to name their governor, the vice president, and the president of Russia, but more respondents than in the earlier era gave correct answers to questions pertaining to national politics.

In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle’s name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.

The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs.

I’m among a bunch of folks who tend to trumpet online services as a cure-all for our past lack of information awareness and communications access.

On the opposite side of the bench have been those who have sounded alarm after alarm about how our ever growing media-and-communications-scape will fragment us ever further and result in ever tightening echo chambers, making us less informed about subject matter as a whole.

Turns out both perspectives are wrong.

Here we are, with so much new technology, so much new media, transforming the way we live our lives, and yet we are as informed, as ill informed, as we were in 1989.

Related:

Newsweek: Dunce-Cap Nation

Wired: Infoporn: Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed