The Future of Journalism

Via Newspaper Death Watch (I think), a post on why the future of journalism is bright. Given that I'm normally a pessimist when it comes to the future of journalism, especially newspapers, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed with a lot of what this Mark Glaser guy has to say.

Also, I really like the fact that he's writing at pbs.org. Given the insanity surrounding PBS in the last few years, I'm glad to see a sane voice there at the moment. Anyway, the post is basically a ten-point list; I'll excerpt and comment on whatever points strike my fancy.

Without further ado:

4. There are more fact-checkers than ever in the history of journalism. Maybe it’s true that professional fact-checking has taken a big hit in the layoffs at mainstream media outlets, but it’s also true that bloggers and free-thinkers online have provided an important check and balance to reporting. They might have an axe to grind or a political bias, but if they uncover shoddy reporting, plagiarism or false sourcing, it’s a good thing for journalists and the public.

See what I mean? I think the guy actually gets it. For me, the point of journalism is to inform people of what's going on in the world. It's necessary because individuals don't all have the time to personally check out each and every event or incident or happening - so some people have as a profession doing just that (and then telling others). This isn't new; some form of this has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

A second reason to have journalism is that it allows, when done well, for people to become relative experts on a topic and present it to others in an accessible format (think Marcy Wheeler on the Scooter Libby stuff) or Nick Kristof and his coverage of Darfur.

Of course, the journalism business relies on being able to tell the truth accurately, which is a pretty complex task that takes a lot of brainpower and fact-checking. The more complex and larger a story is, the more likely it is to make a mistake. Ergo, having more people to fact-check - people that are often well-versed on the topic at hand, even if they're not employees of a news organization - the more accurate to reality, and therefore better, a story will be.

This is controversial, believe it or not, in some ways. The reason it's controversial is that it takes the 'expert' label away from journalists, editors, and other media types and gives it - potentially - to a whole lot of people. Some journalists don't like this, because it's a removal of their gatekeeper function (Yes, I am thinking of Hasso Hering), and with that comes a drop in status and/or power.

Too fucking bad. If the point of journalism is to report on the world in the most accurate way possible, then an individual's - or a profession's - ego should have no part in it. I was taught way back in high school that an essential part of being a journalist is the ability to take criticism and critique honestly and openly, and to use that criticism to make the story better. To me, that is the desired effect of having, as Glaser notes, "...more fact-checkers than ever in the history of journalism."

Also, it makes journalism more democratic and promotes skill-sharing, two things that I think make for a better, more interesting, and more just world. Plus they have the added bonus of removing power from the corporate media.

Glaser also says:

6. More voices are part of the news conversation. In the past, if you wanted to voice your opinion, correct a fact or do your own reporting, you had to work at a mainstream news organization. Now, thanks to the rising influence of independent bloggers and online journalists, there are more outsiders and experts exerting influence over the news agenda. Not only does that mean we have a more diverse constellation of views, but it also takes the concentrated agenda-setting power out of a few hallowed editorial boardrooms.

See my above comments - more democratic, etc., etc. Heck, I'd love to see most of the profession of journalism wither away as more and more people take over the production and distribution of news content. Added benefit: More people become engaged in the community they live in as they are more aware of what's going on. Result: more democracy!

I should be more explicit about the above point: Lots of news stories still misrepresent people (often marginalized groups) precisely because as professionals, journalists are only familiar with people like them. Lowering the barriers to entry would hopefully allow more points of view to be heard, which would result in a more accurate portrayal of everyone, not just the people that are most like journalists. I'm thinking of people of color and homeless folks specifically.

...yeah yeah yeah, democracy is messy, and who says the people that get involved won't be asshats? No one, but I'll take an engaged, locally controlled community over a bunch of yuppie suburbanites who might as well be zombies just about every time.

Given the length of this post already, I'm going to stop here, but you should go and read the whole thing. It's pretty good.

Get Off My Lawn, Part II

Hering's at it again - this time he thinks the music that companies pipe into restaurants and stores is too loud. He also thinks it's a bad idea because - well, I'll let him explain it:

What about the kind of music that the providers of these sound systems assume we like? ... With that much individual choice available — and in use, considering the vast number of people walking around with phones in their ears — mass exposure to background music is the last thing that anybody wants or needs. Or so you would think.

Again, I sort of understand where he's coming from (though I've never actually been in a place where the music is so loud as to inhibit conversation, except for bars, where it's understandable), but he just comes across as an old man complaining again. Maybe if he did some digging and found out why music is played in the first place and then wrote about that...but that would require research and reporting. Apparently that's too much to ask for an editor, or something. As it stands, the editorial reads like he wrote it at the last second. In school, we called it "bullshitting" or "pulling it out of your ass." I suppose in the 'real world' it's called "working under pressure," or something...

Obligatory Post About Joss Whedon

I should note that I never really got into Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I'm a sucker for Firefly and Serenity.

Anyway, this is pretty funny - and really, really good:



My favorite quote:

"Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this Earth..."

Update

I hate the heat.

That is all.

A Question

The State Police contingent that works out of Corvallis is headed by a guy named Phil Zerzan.

Living in Eugene is perhaps the foremost proponent of Anarcho-Primitivism, the idea that people should become hunter-gatherers and ditch technology. His named is John Zerzan.

Given the uniqueness of the name, I've got to wonder if they are related. How funny.

Anybody out there have any idea?

I Think They Call it a Bleg

Anybody know why the text of my posts becomes single-spaced after a block quote but not before?

Thanks in advance.

Corvallis is Changing

Inspired by this post at Blue Oregon (even though the post in question doesn't really touch on what I want to talk about all that much), I think Corvallis is in the midst of shooting itself in the foot, the leg, the thigh and possibly the femoral artery.

What? My lousy metaphors don't make sense? Deal with it.

Anyway, this is something that has been percolating for quite a while in my brain, and now that the heat of the day has passed, I'm going to try and explain a bit.

I started going to college in the fall of 2001, so I was in town pretty much every day. I moved to Corvallis in the spring of 2002 and have lived here ever since. Also, I like to eat out often, as does my partner. As a result, we have a decent sense of the ebb and flow of restaurants and other businesses in town since we end up all over the place in search of food.

In the last 5 years, I've noticed that there's been a lot of change in town - new buildings, renovation of old buildings, the closing down of old shops, etc. Among the more notable are the closing of Albright and Raw, the Avalon, Lyons Restaurant and several large businesses on 9th St.

Most of these things have either been replaced, razed, or stand as empty buildings. They've been replaced with - you guessed it - chain stores.

Paul Turner of the Darkside (and formerly of the Avalon) has something to say about chain stores that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:

I’ve done my part to bring this type of cinema to town. Now it’s your turn. Do you want the Darkside, the Majestic, Robnett’s, Red Horse, and Sunny Side Up in your future? Make no mistake: every dollar you spend at Carmike, Home Depot, and Starbucks is another nail in the coffin for these local establishments.

I think he's spot-on, and that's why I think Corvallis is in the midst of some fundamental long-term change: In the last 5 years, I've seen at least a dozen chains enter town, including Borders, Carmike Cinemas, Home Depot, Ruby Tuesday's, the forthcoming Applebees, an Elmers Restaurant, multiple Dutch Bros., Bed Bath & Beyond, and more. All of these have put pressure on local businesses, even forcing some of them to go under. Hell, even the local Goodwill built a new store that looks just like a low-budget Walmart (scary, I know).

My point is that Corvallis has a reputation - which the Blue Oregon post alludes to - as a great place to live. Part of that reputation is due to some very specific land-use planning: Lots of parks and green space, but more importantly, a limit on the size of stores to limit big-box stores and a genuine effort to keep downtown vibrant by promoting and support local business.

I think the reputation has lived on well after the fact.

Don't get me wrong; my understanding is that the downtown businesses wield some clout, and they are judicious in defending their turf. I'm referring more to the set of decisions (probably made the city government and City Council, though I have admittedly not followed closely enough to be sure) that have allowed the new development.

In other words, I think the mentality of many Corvallis residents has changed and they don't remember why their town is so awesome in the first place, and the consequences of that forgetfulness are going to be, in the long run, a shift from local and independent businesses to mega-corporate chain stores. Corvallis, I predict, is going to lose a lot of what makes it unique and loved by everyone, and lots of people aren't going to be any the wiser, especially since I'd bet new arrivals don't have any idea of the history of the town.

And don't even get me started on the class aspect of all this; I'll save that for another post. Suffice to say, this G-T article has some useful information.

Cindy Sheehan Might Run for Congress

According to the Washington Post and via Americablog.

From the Post article:

CRAWFORD, Texas -- Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

I like this idea; I think it's a great way to put pressure on the Democrats in Congress to act - Sheehan seems like the kind of person who won't be placated with platitudes. And she has the celebrity status, especially with the left of the Dems, to get attention.

It could backfire, sending Sheehan into obscurity and making her an outsider...though it would be both tragic and a really telling example of what matters to the Democrats. I won't hold my breath.

Surfing While Heat-Addled

Kids Create Mushroom Cloud With Matchsticks.

A Post That's Not Really About the iPhone at All...

It strikes me that I haven't blogged about the tendency of a local paper's editor to write the most inane and/or dishonest editorials around. I think it's time to rectify that situation.

From the Albany Democrat-Herald, editor Hasso Hering writes about the iPhone:

The main idea behind the iPhone, and other less advanced gadgets of the same sort, is to allow people to stay in communication with the world. But what is the nature of that communication? Is it worthwhile, or does it take place just because it is technically possible? And after a while, even spirited chit-chat gets old no matter how cool the technology is that allows it to take place.

...

Communication devices are good things only if they carry worthwhile information and news. They tend to make life worse instead of better if, at a price of $500 plus a monthly bill from a phone company, they produce mostly more chatter and noise even while they attract people’s attention and take up their time.

On the one hand, Hering sounds like a caricature of an old man - the whole editorial is of the variety I'd called "get off my lawn, you punk kids!" He writes lots of those.

On the other hand, I think Hering raises a really good point, even if he doesn't realize it (and it pains me to no end to say that): What is the point of technology in the first place? I would say that technology is mostly a means to an end, but in modern capitalist culture, technology does seem to be an end to itself: If we can, we should.

That this idea is problematic should be obvious. The fact that it's not is kind of scary - after all, I think it leads to many military officials and police officers wanting to use their new technology, be it a microwave beam that makes one's feel like it's skin is on fire on anti-war protesters and Iraqi civilians or cluster bombs and Agent Orange - or nuclear weapons. And that sort of technology-for-technology's-sake attitude leads to a technocentric view of the world in which empathy and compassion have a tougher time surviving.

...and for the record, Hering is missing the point of the iPhone. He complains that all its features either exist already or are superfluous. Sort of - but no single piece of technology has done all the things the iPhone can while being intuitive and stylish at the same time. Besides, I think the iPhone is merely one stop along the way to a society enveloped in one giant WiFi cloud where all information is at your fingertips. Whether or not that's a good thing is something we can debate (I'll take the 'no' position).

It strikes me that Hering's editorial is really about how since he doesn't like the iPhone, no one else should either. Buried in that is an assumption that Hering knows what's best for everyone else. This, I think, explains the vast majority of the editorials he writes. (I should also note that this is different than having a platform and knowing you still have to persuade your readers that you're correct, something that many other columnists and editors realize.)

I wonder where that comes from - is it because Hering is an old white guy and just used to having the privilege of being listened to? Is it part of being a veteran editor from a different age of journalism, one in which the guys (and it was always guys) at the top of the hierarchy were allowed, unlike reporters, to voice their opinions (and people were expected to listen)? Is it something particular to Hering - i.e. just his (authoritarian) personality? Is it all of the above?

I don't know. What I do know is that Hering's attitude - that he is somehow smarter or more deserving of being heard than the rest of us - is old, outdated, and quite frankly, sexist - and has no business being in a newspaper in the 21st century.

Oh, and it's anti-democratic and anti-merit if you think about it.