Summation

I am thinking back to late January and trying to recall what I expected this class would be like. For some reason, four months feels like a year ago.

That may sound like hyperbole, but I believe its rather relevant to a lot of what we discussed in class, although perhaps only tangentially. The sheer mass of information, images, ideas, and opportunities for interaction with media is so substantial that each day feels like a week. If I have a moment to reflect on where my day’s interaction with media began, where it ended, and how I got there in between, I am often awestruck by the transitions.

More than anything, this class forced me into that state of reflection. Instead of taking the distanced-critic approach to media, it required me to engage with and interact in ways I am often incredibly resistant to. I can locate reasons for some of the resistance: the interconnected threads of social networking and the span of my digital footprint, an aversion to publishing anything without overanalyzing what it says and who could find it. But other aspects were more surprising. For example, I hated posting vapid comments for the sake of simply posting them. I thought a lot about whether submitting a comment actually counted as an interaction. Are there hierarchies of engagement? Is the back-and-forth approach to commenting or “fisking” actually all that different from the one-way communication journalism has historically operated in?

The simple answer is, of course, yes and no. Of course there are more opportunities to publish one’s own opinions or feedback with the Internet than there were when letters editors made the decisions. But publication and promotion are different. Some of our blogs were heavily trafficked, while others saw very little. And the process of promotion is still connected to the purse strings – whether that money is spent in resources like how much time one has to plug their work or the old-fashioned route of advertising. Simply replying to a news article and leaving a comment opens up some opportunities for engagement, but they are limited. It starts to get interesting when journalistic institutions turn over their publication spaces willingly, provide resources for newsgathering, and engage with their readership/audience in ways that break down the barrier separating them in the first place.

I spent a lot of time in this course challenging the definition of journalism itself (and it is worth repeating again that this is not a dispute over the definition of a journalist – as I believe anyone can do the work of journalism). Though I don’t think journalism has to be published on certain platforms or written by people with specific experience or degrees, I do think at its core it is about providing information and ensuring a check and balance on the powerful (be they institutions of government or of business). Storytelling itself plays an important role in how we understand the world around us, as well as opening up new avenues for providing insights not typically afforded space in newspapers or other traditional news outlets. I think I have to concede in my own definition of journalism to at least include a broader swath of approaches, such as the literary journalism of David Foster Wallace.

But I maintain my position that reviews and criticism are not journalism. They play an invaluable role in how we understand the world around us, and I love reading record reviews as much as the next gal (probably more), but its an important line to maintain.

The other most valuable aspect of the course was the chance to hear how young journalism majors approach these concepts and tools. I admit to being surprised by how liberally they applied the definition of journalism, how few people were willing to answer our guest speaker when she asked for a list of the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment, and to the sheer quantity of folks who seem interested in sports or feature writing. Where are we going to find our local beat reporters or government watchdogs if so few journalism students are interested in doing that work?

In the end I valued how much time was spent experimenting with the new media tools of Web 2.0. Knowledge about what these things are and how they can be used to engage with readers, locate sources, and compose sources are great resources for aspiring journalists. It was interesting how few of the students really knew anything about blogging, online publishing conventions, or networks like Twitter. My boyfriend suspects that growing up under eight years of the Bush administration created a fearful generation of Internet users. Maybe he is right.

All in all the class was certainly educational – though perhaps not for the coursework itself. But it provoked me to think, challenge some of my own assumptions, harass my friends and family into discussions about journalism and democracy, and even forced me to write some blog posts. What more could I ask for in my final class as an undergraduate?

Fail

Dear Day of Commenting,

You were a great idea. In fact, you should become a holiday. A day dedicated to providing feedback, commenting, reacting and reacting to comments on feedback.

If you were a holiday, you would be like many other holidays in my life. Days that come, which I will probably have to work on anyway, and likely will ignore.

I wanted to give you the attention you needed, but it just wasn't going to happen.

Sincerely,

Bad Feedback Citizen

Tweetaholism

Assignment: follow a ton of people on Twitter who post, like 50 tweets an hour.

Verdict: I have written about Twitter on this blog multiple times and don't need to really rehash my feelings about the service. It has its usefulness, and as someone who works in a social media immersed environment I have spent a fair amount of time managing it.

If anything all this assignment managed to do was the following:

1. Tweetdeck appeared to be a potentially useful tool
2. There must be a reason its Tweetdeck Beta -- I couldn't get it to download
3. Managing these updates in Twitterfox was a nightmare. This changed the service from providing a few useful posts an hour to an overwhelming and obnoxious quantity of information.

In fact, this assignment may have turned me off to Twitter all together. Since I had already established a pattern of use, disrupting it for this assignment was challenging. I followed a few links here and there, but mostly I couldn't keep up with the pace. I'm wondering of other students also experienced this. It's a challenging time of year to add following the Tweets of Twittaholics on top of all the other work involved in ending a semester. In my case, this was a week of travel and a crazy work schedule that had me away from the computer or completely buried in reading and writing without any time to devote to following the insider company happenings of the Tribune company. (Besides, I am already reading those posts from the public media world).

And then there's the media's obsession with Twitter. With Oprah Winfrey's foray on to the network, its popularity is plummeting its users' cultural capital. And it continues to crack me up that even after I presented my thesis this afternoon – which was on the use of communications technology in street protesting – a couple students came up to me afterwards to say that they know what Twitter is but they have never seen a “real person use it.”

My boyfriend called this obsession by corporate America months ago. “Twitter? Its a thing? Okay, we need three of them. Someone buy us three Twitters.”

Twitter is my information overload realized. Without defining a very limited network of people whose posts interest me, the service mostly drove me crazy. If my sole directive in life was to follow people and determine trends, this would be fine. Alas, I have other things to do.

I never direct messaged anyone or @ed them, because again I had nothing to say. This assignment also came up during a week where I had little to post myself.

Once the ordeal was over I deleted almost everyone from that list, leaving only Jeff Jarvis, Patrick Thorton, and Robert Scoble. We’ll see how long that lasts. I’ve had Twitterfox turned off for a while now so that I could get some work done.

Commenting on commenting (Assignment 3b)

For my “intro to online marketing” assignment (oops, I mean Assignment 3 – haha), I originally wrote an obnoxious treatise on what the definition of journalism is. I figured that it would get quite a reaction from my classmates, even if that reaction was just pissing them off and getting lots of “you f****g suck” posted on my blog. After all, this assignment had absolutely nothing to do with soliciting comments of value. Here we were shooting for quantity, not quality.

So with that in mind, it was actually pretty easy to get people to comment. But I had to write about something bound to cut across a wider spread of my social networks. And after I received umpteen emails, tweets, and even invitations to join groups on Facebook with names like, “Yes, I have seen the video of Susan Boyle singing,” I knew I had found my ticket.

I do think that the content of the post, to some extent, matters. I say “to some extent” because ultimately the Internet is certainly populated with hordes of folks who are happy as clams to respond to banal, vile, vapid content. To write this post, I started in the real world. I made my pitch to my boyfriend, to a classmate, and to a few other folks who happened to be standing within earshot once I started ranting. This was something a lot of people had seen and reacted to. What better fodder for a commenting fire?

The comments themselves are on the sophisticated side, which is entirely due to the group of people I solicited feedback from. I sent out a few emails to friends and others in my extended acquaintance social networks. I posted it as a note on Facebook and tagged a few folks to get their attention. I used the subject line “help me do my homework” to guarantee the emails would be opened. But I also restricted the amount of people who could view the post to certain pockets of my social network. Not because I didn't want their opinion about Ms. Boyle, but because I don't like sharing writing with a wide range of people unless I am very proud of it. In that sense, I could never be a blogger in the way that Ms. Huffington told Jon Steward it should be done. I don't want to just put it out there, leave it, and see what happens. I have writer's insecurity issues.

Had I truly wanted to promote it far and wide – had I felt comfortable enough promoting the post to the full extent of my social network – there are plenty of other things I would have done. I would have posted it on Digg and told my friends to either comment or Digg the article. I would have urged them to cross-post it to other places. I would have posted it on Twitter.

But in the end, I rather enjoyed the results. In true micro-niche format, I was able to engage in an open environment (anyone is welcome to read the post, should they find it) but with an invited group of participants. And it wasn't just a circle of people patting each other on the intellectual back.

Receiving feedback was definitely more rewarding than not.

The Susan Boyle phenomenon (assignment 3a.2)

People won't shut up about Susan Boyle.

But despite all the teary-eyed colleagues who claim that "you just have to see her performance!" or the mass email that I and every other woman at Smith over the age of 23 received last week, I'm honestly not convinced. Though Susan gave a lovely performance, this whole thing stinks of a pre-packaged formula meant to spice up viewership and give the audience an emotional connection with the Britain's Got Talent brand.

I took a good seven minutes out of my lunch break to watch the video and I would describe my reaction as the following journey:

1. This woman is not ugly (which is what everyone who had described her to me up until that point had said).
2. Everyone's reactions to this woman -- who is funny and dorky and cute like a grandmother might be -- reminds me how hideous our culture actually is.
3. Of course she had an amazing voice. They wouldn't have put her on otherwise. The producers knew that people would be "surprised."
   
4. Every reaction each judge has merely reinforces the fact that Susan's acceptance is entirely based on her ability to perform in this well-honed sphere of "talent." Had she failed to deliver, she would simply return, in the eyes of the viewers and judges, to being an unattractive woman.

I have been told that I'm overintellectualizing this whole thing. Why can't I just "let her have this moment" and why do I need to "ruin it for her?" But for me, this moment has very little to do with Susan Boyle. It has a lot more to do with our reactions to this video of her performance.

And mind you this whole ordeal has been completely shaped by an editing room that went out of their way to be sure that you knew she was thought of as a social reject.

The only reason we (the grand all-encompasing "we") accept Susan Boyle is because she excels as a singer and because we don't expect her to. And even that definition of "excelling" is shaped by the parameters of the show itself. What would have happened had she opened her mouth and sounded like, say, Joanna Newsom (who, full disclosure, I cannot stand as a singer)? Conversely, if Joanna Newsom looked like Susan Boyle, would she be as lauded and praised as she is? (Second point of disclosure: I actually really like Newsom's songs, but not her singing them).

This, my friends, is all about optics (my favorite buzz word du jour) -- how it looks for the camera.

Our reaction to Susan just makes me sad. And though I am certain that her experience was amazing and uplifting and I don't look to take that away from her, I do want to grab all my friends who are falling for this by the shoulders and shake some sense into them.

Susan Boyle's story was fabricated for you by a bunch of producers who think you are a sucker. And guess what? You are.

Assignment 3a

Photo courtesy of majunznk via Flickr and Creative Commons

We’ve had this debate going on for a while, my journalism professor and I, on what the definition of journalism is.

Unlike the majority of my classmates, I am not a journalism major. I study this strange hybrid field of humanities and social sciences referred to as American Studies at a different school. There are a lot of things an American Studies major can focus on and I chose to go with the closest thing I could cobble together that seemed like a media studies program in a communications school.

Now, in my last semester, it is clear to me that my focus has been what they call “cultural studies” – a field that, in no shortage of "American Studies" irony to me – is populated with theorists who are predominantly German (Benjamin, Horkheimer, Adorno), British (Stuart Hall), or French (oh Foucault, we cannot escape you even when we try).

So I don’t come to the table as a journalism student, but someone who instead has an immense respect for journalisms’ role in democracy. (Us American Studies majors all tend to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about democracy). And I am versed in the negative impact that free-market theory has had on the news industry in America. Despite the immense promise of the Internet for providing new sources of news and information, 40% of the people in this country do not have access to high-speed Internet. And those divisions largely fall along racial and class lines. Today’s Internet doesn’t run on dial-up. (If you don't believe me, watch this video).

The majority of people are still getting their news and information from “traditional” sources – like newspapers, television, and radio. The same sources that are predominantly controlled by the same six companies across the board. What we need most is a diversity of perspectives and boots on the ground reporting on what is happening in local communities. What we’ve got are behemoths like Clear Channel and Tribune who have gotten so big through decades of deregulation in Washington.

The commercial media industry’s deep pockets have continued to buy off policy makers, while the rest of us have to suffer through syndicated drivel in the form of talk radio and reality television. The reason? Because paying for reporters is expensive. And these companies don’t feel they have a responsibility to the public interest. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. Why pay for journalism when you can get a part-time critic to talk about the latest microbrews on tap at the hipster bar?

Which brings me back to the debate at hand: what is journalism? Note that the question is not “who is a journalist?” as I think that is an entirely different issue and at this moment in time it is a moving target. But our disagreement on “what is journalism” appears to center around a fundamental disconnect between the ideas of critique and commentary and reporting and information.

Journalism is about accountability. And we are experiencing first hand the results of a press who does not perceive their responsibility to be asking tough questions to those in power. What has our press been doing when we’ve needed it most?

But coming back to our classroom debates, I can boil this down to a simple question. Can someone to explain to me how a restaurant or music or book review is journalism? There is a stark difference between reading about how the mashed potatoes made someone feel and a report about where the potatoes are coming from and how a new tax is impacting the restaurant expenses and forcing it switch to a new provider for potatoes. One tells me where to have dinner, the other helps me understand critical issues relating to government, commerce, and community.

It’s not that I don’t value a good review, and it’s certainly not that I don’t understand how they impact our understanding of the world around us. I love music, culture, satire, and all the nuanced splendor that makes the American experience so messy and complex. But I’m not foolish enough to claim that my opinion about the new Animal Collective disc is journalism. I wouldn’t call this blog entry journalism. In fact, I produce a weekly radio show that has national syndication and features stories about public policy and activism and I wouldn’t call that journalism either. Journalism is where the hard questions get asked. It’s how we keep powerful entities in check. It is the Fourth Estate. And this is the reason that it is a profession protected by the Constitution.

So what gives, people? You are all students of journalism, you are privy to details that I know nothing about and a history that I have only scratched the surface of. Someone tell me where the line was crossed? At what point did we just start deeming everything that was published in a newspaper as journalism?

Next thing you know someone is going to start telling me that advertising is journalism.
Or horoscopes.

The Host

Photo courtesy of danicamarica via Flickr and Creative Commons

In her 2004 piece on “the American imagination” and radio, Susan Douglas writes about the particularly personal relationship that radio listeners have had with the medium throughout the 20th century. “Radio kneaded our psyches early on and helped shape our desires, our fantasies, our images of the outside world, our very imaginations. Unlike other major technologies…radio has worked powerfully inside our heads, helping us create internal maps of the world and our place in it, urging us to construct imagined communities to which we do, or do not, belong.”

What Douglas suggests is that there is something particularly invasive and simultaneously personal about the medium. The illusion experienced by the listener is that you may be the only one (an image reinforced by numerous romanticized narratives about radio, such as the classic movie Pump Up the Volume which features the voice of a young Christian Slater beaming into the minds and hearts of a Gen X audience searching for meaning). And even though the voice on the other end may be consciously aware that they are speaking to an audience, there is a loneliness and uncertainty to that very concept.

Commercial talk radio, unlike the pre-1980s radio Douglas describes or the pirate radio Slater’s character is operating, is a beast whose primary aim is profit. However instead of pure entertainment, something that obviously conveys to listeners an objective of sensationalism in exchange for ad revenue, contemporary talk radio occupies that space which David Foster Wallace refers to as the “meta-media” or “explaining industry.”

Under most classifications, this category includes media critics for news dailies, certain high-end magazines, panel shows like CNN's Reliable Sources, media-watch blogs like instapundit.com and talkingpointsmemo.com, and a large percentage of political talk radio. …this is how much of contemporary political talk radio understands its function: to explore the day's news in a depth and detail that other media do not, and to interpret, analyze, and explain that news.

Wallace’s brilliantly crafted essay on talk radio host John Ziegler stitches together the complex landscape in which this brash, unapologetic, and essentially predictable personality operates. His claim that talk radio is “a frightening industry, though not for any of the simple reasons most critics give,” is elegantly explored through a framework that touches upon big issues such as public policy, commercial practices, race relations while simultaneously weaving in the heavy influences of individual personalities and interpersonal relationships.

Ultimately Wallace makes many of the points I have found myself repeating – although he makes them far more elegantly than I ever could – about whether or not talk radio is journalism. “The fact of the matter is that it is not John Ziegler's job to be responsible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his on-air comments are productive or dangerous, or cogent, or even defensible.”

The most comments I ever got on Facebook ever.

I meant to post about this a few weeks ago when I did it, but something fascinating happened when I posted a simple question to my Facebook profile in the form of a "note."

A bizarre chain of discussions surrounding the "double space" has prompted me to inquire further. Here's the question: do you put two spaces after a sentence ends when you are typing? What is the standard?

Some say yes, some say no. I want proof. Give me citations. Chicago, MLA, AP style, tell me what you know.

I "tagged" about twenty people in the note who work across a variety of fields: journalists, copy-editors, professors, poets, administrative assistants, college students, the list goes on. It was like opening a floodgate. A remarkable twenty-one responses came in within a little more than twenty-four hours. People were unbelievably passionate about the debate. And I will tell you that there is absolutely no agreement on the subject. I myself am sticking with the double-space.

But I did have fun tagging one of my bosses at work who vehemently disagrees with me. To the point that he recently removed every double space in a piece that I sent his way. (Which is actually what prompted me to post the question in the first place). I told him that I was now "crowdsourcing" grammar and style. It's the wave of the future...

Here are some of the best replies...

Aaron:

One thing I find interesting though is that often my extra spaces are removed automatically. Such is the case in the comments I'm posting right here. Facebook apparently disagrees with my assessment.

I find this highly annoying. I believe that formatting greatly affects the power of written communication. Therefore, every effort should be made to preserve the formatting choices of the author, regardless of medium and venue. Furthermore, I think any website offering space for written publication (like this one) should necessarily include functionality for standard formatting options such as bold and italic, which is quite simple in the age of html.

As it stands now, we never know which sites are going to recognize our html formatting and which ones won't. So often times we look like idiots for writing something like this....

Ashley:

if you're writing a paper for school, two spaces. if you're writing anything else in the whole world, one space. i'm a goddamn copy editor. xo

Jennifer:

I was always told that in publishing and journalism it is one space to not take up much needed characters and space with excess space. I know in texting everyone seems to be moving to the single space to avoid using up characters. But for proper letters and clarity I find the two space much needed.

Craig:

One space. One space. One space. It's the 21st century. And yet I still capitalize Web. ... (Don't get me started on the proper spacing around ellipses.)

Fred:

Pick up any contemporary book -- I just glanced at The Omnivore's Dilemma -- and you'll find a single space after the period. To my eye, the additional bit of space looks funny. (And I was taught to type in the 80s on an actual typewriter when the two-space rule was still very much in effect. It was only years later that I actually looked at how it... Read More was done in well-designed books and magazines that I decided to forgo the additional space. In short, I trust the designers of contemporary books and magazines more than my crusty old typing teacher.)

If nothing else, I like to believe that all those saved spaces are forestalling the onset of carpal tunnel.

The call-in assignment...

Jean-Luc Cornec's sheep phones courtesy of temp13rec via Flickr and Creative Commons

Okay. The radio assignment.

I tried. I did try. I spent a good 45 minutes listening to the Thom Hartmann show on WHMP. I caught him with a guest who was talking about global economics and as interesting as the topic was I didn't really have anything to contribute. So I waited for a new guest. And on came some woman who had written a book about whiteness and race and I thought to myself, "okay, this I can handle. I will call and ask a question about those people who believe that racism is now over in America because we elected Obama over McCain." (In case you are wondering, I think that people who believe that are incredibly unaware of racial issues in America and the reductive ignorance of a statement like that pretty much terrifies me).

So I dialed. And I was expecting to be put on hold or to reach an automated "press one for live questions" menu. Instead, a woman answered the phone directly. And then my brain and mouth launched into a debate with each other. Uh, why am I doing this? What is the point of my call? Do I care more about getting a good grade on this assignment or about making a valuable contribution to this conversation?

Instead of asking her if I could go on the air, I asked her if the show was pre-recorded or live. (Honestly, I was curious). She said it was always live. I paused for a moment and considered my options. And then I thanked her and hung up the phone.

I will be the first to admit that there's a lot of irony to my reaction. I can elaborate on this more in class, but suffice it to say that I've got a long history with radio and spend a lot of my time preaching the greatness of it as a medium. And don't get me wrong, I still think radio is amazing. Radio is one of the best communication tools we have -- it is a one-time investment that can keep us connected to news and culture with no additional cost. But as I sat on the phone with the woman who answered my call I realized that the entire root of my motivation was this assignment. I didn't want to ask a question just for the sake of doing it. I was just going through the motions. And that sort of empty interaction is not going to elevate the discourse on anything. So I hung up.

I've decided to take this assignment in stride as a sort of conscientious objector. Now don't get me wrong, had I taken the time to consume talk radio non-stop for the past few weeks I am absolutely positive I could have found a discussion going on that I actually wanted to participate in. And for that, I recognize that the reason I was unable to really complete the assignment is partially based on poor time management. (In all honesty, my thesis is due in ten days and I work about 50 hours a week on top of taking this class…excuses, excuses, I know). But after going through the forced motions of the LTE assignment, I just couldn't bring myself to do it again.

So let me instead close by going into some detail about why I think elevating the discourse is important enough for me to refuse to complete the assignment. I considered calling in to a program that played music to sound off about the host’s choices. But as I pointed out in my last post, that is not journalism. That’s cultural critique, it’s opinion, but it’s not reporting. My opinion on whether the music is any good, or on the things one should consider before adopting a pet from the pound (another fabulous program running on AM talk radio this morning), or even me calling in to Rush’s show to tell him that I can’t stand him and feel he is a symbol for everything that is wrong with America today – none of it is journalism.

If we re-frame this class as one on the role of interactivity in an emerging digital media space and its impact on culture, politics, and democracy then I would have a completely different take on this entire thing. Because all of these elements, from LTEs to talk radio to restaurant reviews to Twitter are all impacting culture, politics, and democracy. But that doesn’t mean they are journalism. And framing it that way has me asking the following: at what point did the lines completely blur between reporting and commentary?

I’m the first to say that when dealing in definitions about journalists and journalism we are confronting an important issue that is both nuanced and complex. This whole landscape of “citizen journalism” (a term that is immensely problematic) directly challenges a lot of the established and accepted definitions of what defines a journalist.

But that’s exactly it. I don’t know if the definition of a journalist is necessarily as important as the definition of journalism.

Talk Radio, part II. (play vs film)

Photo courtesy of kiddharma via Flickr and Creative Commons

Scott and I got into a fun little debate over Bogosian's Talk Radio last week. Since he has asked us to post a blog comparing the play and the film, I am copping out slightly by re-posting my most recent response to our conversation (which covers my thoughts on the comparison). The only thing I have to add that is not included below is that I think Eric Bogosian might actually secretly be Anthony Bourdain. Anyone else see the similarity?

Back to the matters at hand. Here is my latest rant. Feel free to join in...

I'm not arguing against talk radio as an institution for meaning-making. On that nice, academic scaffolding we can legitimize talk radio's existence. But I wouldn't make the argument that talk radio is journalism. Or, to be fair, not the talk radio featured in the play. Sounding off is not journalism. Sounding off is entertainment. Journalism holds those in power accountable. I'm not arguing that talk radio can't. I would argue that Bogosian's macho-rebellious cool cat is off on a personal philosophic journey. It has value, but it's not journalism.

Talk radio, as we know it today, has its own sordid history in the United States. Bogosian may have written the play in mid-1980s, but being just a young toddler myself in the grand decade of neon and new wave, all I can really hear is a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity. And though the rise of the right-wing conservative talk radio is often related to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, it was really the 1996 Telecommunications Act -- which repealed ownership limits on radio stations -- that turned the local downtown station into a repeater tower for the nationally syndicated ideology of the right-wing. Which returns me to the whole idea of gatekeeping and meaning-making. It was pretty easy for U.S. politics to turn to the right when talking heads who were cheaper to syndicate than paying for local reporters and investigative journalism.

After watching the film (and I presume that Bogosian oversaw screenplay and had his hand in direction as well) it just becomes more clear that this is about the one-man's libertarian journey for meaning and not about the institution itself.

And fun as it is, it sure ain't about journalism...

Talk Radio

I actually love Eric Bogosian. When I was in high-school, I read his play Suburbia which by then had been turned into an indie flick staring the then-unknown Giovanni Ribisi. The play was better than the film, but that is so often the case.

Bogosian is always trying to get at the heart of complacency, but I think he challenges his readers and viewers to understand that complacency is not always what it seems. In Suburbia his characters were washed-up twenty-somethings -- too young to actually be washed up at all. Talk Radio has a slightly different focus. Barry Champlain may be washed-up, he may not. He may be brilliant, he may be a farce. But he's got a mouthpiece and that's enough to keep him going.

While reading it I tried to put my finger on exactly what the relevance of this play for a class on the commenting feedback loop was. Certainly the endless loop of callers who were supposedly interacting with each other through Barry's show were "commenting" on some level. But those comments weren't able to build off of each other in any meaningful way. Instead, Barry served as gatekeeper -- cutting off everyone but himself and yet no more or less profound or stupid as his callers.

The callers are part complacent, part oblivious, part self-obsessed, and part oblivious. But that doesn't mean that their impact is negligible. It only means that Barry is the broadcast tower that projects them. I believe Bogosian's ultimate focus is on the loneliness of life and the search for meaning. This is not a dramatic departure from his characters in Suburbia, either. Those kids were just a little nicer to each other as they stumbled around looking for the path to meaning.

As readers we can judge them on their substance, but that seems shortsighted. Talk radio is not journalism. Their is no reporting in the mouthpieces that sound off, or let their listeners do the same. Instead its like group therapy. Which can have a greater impact on public opinion than the facts and figures. So the hard-nosed who/what/where/when/why of journalism has to compete against the analysis and exposition of the neurotic self. On a Birmingham School level, we have to recognize that giving a broadcast tower to expound upon the inane inner workings of a woman afraid of her garbage disposal is not something that can be so quickly dismissed. Listeners will interact with texts (whether auditory, on paper, or visual) in a way that is not purely passive.

But contrast the forum for "discussion" on the talk radio program with the breadth and scope of the Internet. There is no Barry standing in the way to hit the "off" button. Granted some sites are moderated and others are not, but ultimately whether you are terrified of your garbage disposal or convinced the panda bears are dying off you now have a way to connect with others who agree with you. And no one is going to hang up on you and shut it down. (I should preface this with the point that this assumes that we maintain net neutrality).

The content of Barry's show don't get us any closer to solutions. In a lot of ways the play is a classic Gen-X reactionary text that leans towards frustration and apathy over any sort of concrete action. And as I was reading I was reminded of the following quotes from this recent post on TechPresident:

Imagine for a moment being one of us. Taught in school that all people are created equal, that all countries are sovereign, that freedom, democracy, and capitalism are embraced by all people and nations because they are ultimate ideals that allow us to prosper and live as we choose in the pursuit of happiness. Old enough to read the New York Times online and blog on Huffington Post, we see a very different world. Equality? Not for the poor, not for LGBT. Capitalism? It appears to have been a house of cards recklessly constructed by greed for the benefit of a few. Sovereignty? Not for resource-poor or oil-rich countries. Ideals? Not for the media or our political and business leaders.

...

The problems and the contradictions being left to us are so big that there are no easy answers. It appears that everything has to be undone, before it can redone. So let us figure out how we want to proceed. Let us "waste" our time like Mark Zuckerberg building a 150-million person online network because it may be the only hope we have. Your generation doesn't know what it means to be a global citizen the way our generation will have to. And those values you taught us, they seem pretty empty when you don't act on them yourselves. If you want us to change the world, don’t look at your sixteen-year-old listening to an iPod while writing on Facebook and watching YouTube and yell at him that he's wasting his privileges. Instead, start cleaning up your own messes. Lead by example. End your own hypocrisies. Start caring about the rest of the world and not just yourselves.

What do you think?

Commenting vs Forums

I just cracked the Slate commenting code!

Okay, it wasn't that complicated. But it was hidden which is interesting in and of itself. In the list of options next to the piece I was reading on the Amazon Kindle (the generic print, email, facebook, etc) was a link titled "discuss." Lo and behold, "discuss" led to a forum specifically built around the article.

Instead of using a comment-style format, Slate relies on a forum approach which is reminiscent of the old-school bulletin board days of the Internet. And there are a surprising quantity of categories -- over 64 different threads with as few as zero and as many as 21. And each thread can be rated (I can't really tell if the rating system is done by users or moderators, but most of the time when there is a rating system it is done by the users). So the thread with the most replies is 21, but has a rating of -2. Next in line is a discussion with 18 replies and a rating of +5.

I tried to post a reply, but after 6 efforts to retrieve my username and password from the system (which told me repeatedly that my email address already had a registered user and that I could recover my password by just entering my email address and username -- which I don't remember!) I gave up. Had I managed to get in, here are the basic points I would have conveyed...

To Tweet and be ReTweeted...

I have been using Twitter since the summer of 2008. I think that I joined because everyone else in my office started using it on the same weekend -- the weekend that our organization threw a massive conference in the Midwest that drew over 3,500 participants. Twitter was one of the many social media sites that conference goers were using to interact with each other and the outside world at the event. I remember the first few months being rather useless. I never went to the website (why would I?) and therefore never updated. Because I never visited it, I never saw what the people I was "following" were saying. I couldn't really see the point.

Later in the summer I read Clay Shirky's book Organizing Without Organizations and decided to give Twitter another shot. This time, I decided I would use it as a social tool for real life and I posted updates like "headed to the dirty" (read: the Dirty Truth, a bar in downtown Northampton) or "anyone wanna go to the show at the elevens tonight?" It was about at this time that I discovered the great advantages to syncing my phone number with Twitter. Within a few seconds I was suddenly able to send text messages to "40404" and sound off about anything.

But posting in the social media sphere is like bringing up the old kōan "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Tweeting in the forest silently was pointless. Because I couldn't see what others were saying I completely lacked the validation that comes from using social media. I needed to experience what 140-character statements my friends were saying. And I needed to be sure that my "followers" were enjoying my contributions. In short, I needed interactivity.

In the last three months my use of Twitter has increased dramatically. I've tried syncing it to my Facebook status and mobile Tweeting, but the ultimate reward was installing an application that allowed me to see what the folks I was "following" were saying. TwitterFox was a game changer because it gave me the window to interactivity that I needed to make using Twitter at all worthwhile.

I follow an interesting crew of folks. Mostly activists, journalists, and information aggregators, nearly every Tweet I read has a link in it. I realized the other day that during this time when I am in still juggling full-time work and finishing up school there are many days where all the news I read is the news I get through my collegaues reports and the news aggregators I subscribe to.

There's an overwhelming amount of information out there. And it just makes me wonder still if the role of journalist is shifting into information facilitator. Someone speaking at a conference I went to recently put it quick succintly: The "who, what, when, where" is easy enough for anyone to find. But the why? That's where we need journalists most.

Yelping away over here...who will notice?

New Radiant Storm King at the Sierra Grill, courtesy of Local Media

We were asked to post a review on Yelp.com -- which of course I completely managed to forget about until today. Having just got back from The Dirty Truth, I didn't really feel in the mood to rehash the experience. Also, I'm not so much a fan of reviewing food. But reviewing a music venue...that was a little more up my alley.

So why not go for the two-for-one?

I posted the following review of the Sierra Grill on Yelp, mostly focusing on their Thursday nights during which they push aside a few tables and turn the place into a hopping local music venue. I actually know the guy who does the booking there and I think he's doing a pretty good job of it (at least for the shows that I have gone out to see).

On a meta-level, I once again hated contributing to the cacophony because I am always so cautious about the language I use and the things I am willing to leave a record of online. It especially frustrated me that I couldn't figure out how to hide my name behind some sort of pseudonym. I'm sure the option is in there somewhere, but I just couldn't find it.

Anyway, here it is...

As far as Northampton restaurants go, the Sierra Grill is a tasty and delicious treat. A menu that is largely deconstructed and full of tiny nibbles that can be used like Lego blocks to build a full meal, Sierra Grill is affordable for any wallet and mold-able to any appetite. The beers are good, the wines are good, and the flavored mashed potatoes are to die for.

That aside, on Thursday nights the Sierra transforms from the haven for academics and white collar workers of the Pioneer Valley into a music venue for a variety of sounds. Simply pushing aside a few of the tables does the trick rather nicely and depending on the act you are guaranteed to find a handful of hip youngsters sitting patiently on the floor as local folkies strum their guitars or stomping their Converse-clad feet to a 4/4 rock beat. Sparing one ill-fated Thursday where I caught a band that had way too much love for hippie jam-fests, the acts have all been worth seeing.

The bookers are doing a good job at filling the venue with the abundant pool of local talent and is even bringing in smaller touring acts as well. Entrance is usually pretty cheap ($2 - $5) and its pretty easy to get a basket of fries to go along with your beer and rock music -- even pretty late in the evening.

If you ask around to the right folks, you may even unearth some stories about what the place was before it became a hotspot for those overeager to shell out $5 - $6 per microbrew. Expect to hear at least a few folks at the microphone giving props to the Bay State Hotel for having live music again...

An epic journey of commenting

Last minute postings...

I began the process of commenting on ten stories, posts, etc. today. Waiting until the day of class is certainly going to impact the second part of the assignment (following the activity), but I have learned from experience that a lot can happen in one day online so hopefully I'll have at least some things to report back.

Comment #1) MassLive.com: Western Mass. road, rail projects in line for federal stimulus aid

I chose to comment on this story because I am a sucker for infrastructure projects (yeah, I know that sounds boring but just wait until this becomes something you care about, too). Personally I track the building of broadband and high-speed Internet more frequently than light rail systems, but as a Western Mass resident of almost seven years I know how badly we need updates to our public transportation options.

Comment #2) BoingBoing: LAist visits Barbie's full size Malibu house

Originally I wanted to comment on this great op-ed by Sarah Haskins in the Washington Post on Sunday, but I was suffering from a complete brain failure on what I wanted to say about it. Since a post of, "wow, Sarah. I love you. You are great" seemed like a waste of binary space, I decided to participate in the great act of connecting by posting a link to it on this BoingBoing post about a full size Barbie house. I suppose the only really interesting thing that I can find out about this is if people find a comment that is merely a link interesting or an additional waste of binary space...

Comment #3) Valley Advocate: Bardsley on the BID

Northampton is considering a BID (Business Improvement District), which is a public-private partnership that will give public funds to downtown businesses for "improvement" efforts/projects. When described by proponents of the BID, these efforts are summed up as cleaning up trash and planting flower pots. Opponents argue that this is essentially the re-creation of something like the Chamber of Commerce, except all businesses within the zone must buy-in and the results could fill streets with security cameras and additional security who will spend most of their time ushering people out of formerly public spaces (read: the sidewalks of downtown).

To put it bluntly, I am mad at the BID but haven't had a lot of time to follow its movement through city council. Here is my comment.

Can anyone post an update on where the BID is at in the legislative process?

The idea that downtown Northampton needs someone to clean up trash and graffiti is absurd. Has anyone who is arguing the downtown needs some sort of "clean up" ever actually been to a city whose downtown spans farther than two miles? Downtown Northampton is about as clean as they get.

This is a class issue under the gauze of some white Christmas lights.

Comment #4) Boston.com: SJC to rule whether Lowell curfew violates teens' rights

Curfews for teenagers? I think they do more harm than good. Looks like the courts may agree with me. My advice to the comment reading world? Screw curfews and focus on giving kids a place to go.

This was a very contentious commenting-fest with a lot of inane statements and assorted banality. I resisted the urge to tell the commenter who said that the teenage girls featured in the article must have been practicing to become prostitutes ("that's a recession proof business") to go f*** him/herself. My comment:

These curfews are pointless and I look forward to seeing how the courts rule on them. Kids need places to go, that is the biggest problem. I grew up in suburban eastern Mass and I can assure you that the only public spaces that existed were parking lots and retail chains. Put some funds into public projects that build community centers (and staff them with smart and creative people, not folks who are completely out of touch) and have them stay open past 9pm.

Comment #5) MassLive.com: UMass Amherst opens new $5 million traveler information center

I thought I was going to be outraged by this post, but then I realized they were talking about the new Transit building that houses all the buses for the UMass Transit Authority (a very important and neccesary bus system in the Valley). Actually, my best friend was a bus driver there for a few years. But in particular I responded to the part that had to do with the bus tracking systems they are hoping to have in place. Certainly a comment about surveillance will be provocative enough to get a reaction out of people?

Comment #6) YouTube.com: Yacht Rock (Episode 1: What a Fool Believes)

Alright, this one was a bit of a cop-out. But the commenting world of YouTube is vicious, so I figured my blasé post might still get a reaction. Mostly I just wanted an excuse to share Yacht Rock with the readers of this blog. So go enjoy it and talk about how great it is until your friends are sick of hearing about it. (That's what happened to me anyway...)

Comment #7) John Gorman's blog: Radio: RIAA v. NAB - two wrongs don't make it right

I wanted to comment on the Pitchfork article that clued me in to this debate (somehow I had missed this one), but it turns out the Pitchfork doesn't allow comments! Social media blasphemy! Not such a bad thing, though, because that led me to seek out a place online that would and I came across Gorman's blog which had an excellent rant against both the RIAA and the NAB in this debate. I look forward to following this one...

Comment #8) Slate.com: Uncivil Union

At first glance I thought that Slate didn't allow readers to comment at all. They have stashed the comments aside on a separate page, which surely impacts the tone and quantity of discussion going on around their articles. They have more of a bulletin board set-up. In this case, I was responding to someone's post about the Employee Free Choice Act. Now the my commenting tongue has warmed up a bit, I was a little more agressive than I had been.

His comment:

The employer- the one who OWNS or has been put in place by those who own to run the business- should have every right to hire, fire or otherwise manage as he or she sees fit. Thats how the overwheming number of businesses ARE run. Your attitude is precisely why unions times have passed and they need to be abolished. Yes, workers should have a safe work environment and should not work under slave conditions like those prevelent 80 years ago but thats about it. The lazy, incompetent or simplly insubordinate should be fired without any input from you. A boss should be able to hire his family and friends and cut out early on Friday- hes earned those perks by being the one in charge

My response:

Disagree. The employer, the one who owns or has been put in place to run the business, has no business without the workers. You say that union times have passed, but the decline of unions in this country is not because they have outlived their usefulness. They have been crippled by bad public policy (i.e., the Taft-Hartley Act). Poor working conditions still exist for thousands of workers across this country. And these workers are intimidated regularly by union-busting campaigns. Your analysis that a boss has "earned the perks" by "being the one in charge" reflects an ignorance on how privilege functions.

Comment #9) Slashdot.org: Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sound" of MP3 Format

Slashdot has one of the most intimidating posting environments. The readers all spend way too much time consuming information and tend to be well educated but lacking social skills. I responded to this idea with a more "cultural studies" approach. I assume I will be eaten alive. Also, I know I lost points for not registering and posting as "Anonymous Coward."

Anyhow, here it is:

It is interesting to consider this in the context of defining artistic creativity within parameters of the culture it arises from. Portability seems to be the most important thing as our audio players change over time. Technology is inextricably linked to art.

Comment #10) Consumerist.com: Overpriced, All Caps Book Inspires Amazon Reviewers

In my final post of this epic day of commenting, I grew weary of forcing myself to offer substantial commentary in the online world. I've been trying to balance this assignment with finishing two chapters of my thesis and calling into meetings for work all day long. As someone who has spent a great deal of her academic and professional life aware of their digital footprint, I figured my final post to this humorous article on the Consumerist may as well be tied to my college email account instead of my personal. Looks like I screwed up on that one, though. The spam filter at Smith appears to have trapped my email verification.

Too bad. It was probably the funniest thing I had to say all week.

Someone get me a drink. That took FOREVER.

Letters editors have their own axe to grind...

Photo courtesy of The Spacebase via Flickr and Creative Commons

Some final thoughts onWahl-Jorgensen's work on letters-to-the-editor.

There are lengthy sections of the book that focus on the feelings of letters editors towards activists and activist organizations.

To them, the letters section belongs to "the people," and this elusive entity consists of private individuals, the "average Joe." In their discussions of expression entitlement they distinguish these private individuals from well-organized activists groups who have "an axe to grind." Activist groups consist of private individuals gathered to advance a cause, whereas private individuals often have "an axe to grind." In some ways, this is therefore a spurious distinction to make, but one that springs out of legitimate concerns for allowing everyone entry to the public sphere, regardless of their status and resources (102).

Wahl-Jorgensen is exactly right -- activist organizations are indeed composed of individuals. This is an entertaining dichotomy. Letters editors seem particularly concerned with questions of democratic debate and deliberation, something that would imply an interest in civically motivated individuals. But should this civically motivated individual be affiliated with other civically motivated individuals...well, that becomes a problem.

It's not that I am unsympathetic to these claims. In fact, I have had some interesting interactions over the years with people regarding these very debates (another story for another time). I share the conviction that the form letter is not the answer. I understand it is unlikely to be published. I also know that anything composed by the central office of an activist organization will never be as powerful as someone telling their own stories. And I believe, in my heart, that anyone who is crafting those form letters and trying to get them published thinks the same thing.

However, There is a middle road here. Activist organizations are not often composed of well-heeled individuals. Their memberships reflects the very "private citizen" that letters editors so despareately seek. An effective activist campaign that is incorporating letters-to-the-editor as a tactic to elevate their issue in communities will do everything they can to get activists to put these stories into their own words. By rejecting anything that comes from a particular issue group, be it environmental or gun-rights, letters editors are severely limiting the conversation and playing the gatekeeper role that the rest of the paper already plays in covering "the doings of the powerful" (105).

A letter to Wahl-Jorgensen

We've been asked, in the spirit of reading a book about the culture of letters-to-the-editor, to compose a letter to the author of Journalists and the Public: Newsroom Culture, Letters to the Editor, and Democracy, by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. Though forcing myself into the format of a "letter" to an academic scholar about the content of their work makes me cringe, I'll take my marching orders with only the slightest protest (which I am now done with, thanks for listening).


This book serves as an excellent primer for students just entering the field of democratic theory of media studies -- particularly by highlighting the connections between the two. The format was brilliant -- by placing letters to the editor in the context of democratic theory before launching into an enthnographic study of the newsroom culture that curates and publishes them, you gave readers an opportunity to place the high fluent (albeit well intentioned) theory of letters pages as public sphere for debate and representation of popular opinion against the juxtaposition of the workload reality that commercial newsrooms are faced with on a day-to-day basis.


I suppose there are a number of things to walk away from this book with, but the biggest takeaway for me was the impact that the commercial industry has on the newsroom. The letters editors featured extensively at the Bay Herald, as well as those interviewed throughout, believed one thing about the role of letters in the public sphere while juggling with the reality of increased demand on their time. Although the consolidation of newspapers with other media outlets is not the sole thing impacting the letters pages and their ability to mirror the public debate surrounding the issues of the day, it is at least one that could be impacted through public policy changes. The other problems cited -- the "idiom of insanity," the extensive submissions from racists or other prejudiced individuals with an axe to grind -- could be alleviated if the editors had time to reach out in the community and cultivate relationships with their readership and authors.


I wonder what you would write today, as newspapers across the country are folding and the journalism industry is desperately seeking solutions. How do suppose a non-profit paper's letters pages might differ? Or do you believe that as online readership has increased that letters still play the same role -- in your mind and in the minds of those you interviewed?


Always more questions than answers, huh?

Cheers.

Commenting on 90s nostalgia

Photo courtesy of Peacefulbean (good karma) via Flickr and Creative Commons

Steve Waksman, one of my former professors at Smith College is a scholar of popular culture, music in particular, and has started a blog to experiment with the promotion of his upcoming book The Metal/Punk Continuum. Consistently following my own tendency to post comments only to locations where I have some tangible connection to the author, I replied to one of his posts this evening (see below).

I realize that my patten of entering the public discourse in such cautious and calculated moves does detract from some of the intentions we have laid out -- either explicitly through class discussions or the course materials or even implicitly -- regarding deliberative democracy and the public sphere. But it does bring me to think about the networks in which I travel and the unintentional connections made and webs spun. I remembered to visit Steve's blog when I saw Scott's post on Van Morrison. I'm unintentionally building links between these two posts through my digital footprints.

Anyhow, here's my commentary in response to Steve's post on hating 80s nostalgia. Since I can't speak with too much authority on distaste for a decade that I remember for colorful clothing, synthesizers, music videos, and Fisher Price tape recorders, I opted to talk about my personal favorite decade so far -- at least for music -- the 90s.

The 90s are completely under appreciated. Especially musically. But I recognize that part of the love I feel for the music of this decade is nostalgia. Some of it might even be ironic. But even the music that was bad -- even the height of the corporate posturing of grunge -- was better than the Clear Channel hard rock of today. I often wonder if this is merely my own skewed perception of the years I spent in high school or if somehow that decade was actually in some way "better" musically... I too have great love for punk bands of the 80s (based on my own narrow definition of what "punk" is). I didn't discover the best of it until I was much older (great albums by The Pixies, Sonic Youth, et. al.). All I remember actually listening to in this first decade of my life was Prince. Who is incredible in his own right. (I recently watched Purple Rain. Still amazing. On many levels. But perhaps irony is the highest).

Tweeting the NSOTU

Photo courtesy of -nathan via Flickr and Creative Commons

Some anecdotal observations from "watching" Obama's address to the nation this evening.

I'm not new to a multimedia, multi-platformed, swithtasking approach to watching major moments in political television. I gathered friends over for nearly every last debate (back when no one really knew a lot about Mike Gravel other than the fact that he had one of the oddest and most humorous online videos in presidential candidate history) and dealt with the span of their reactions to my insistance that I have a laptop in front of me and a Twitter feed ticking by.

Back then, barely a year ago, I found it difficult to keep up. I would be reading a Tweet, trying to listen to a friend's comment, and pay attention to what the candidates were actually saying all at the same time. Maybe it was just being a late adopter, but it was hard to keep up.

Tonight however it was like second nature. I saw a post come up in my Twitter aggregator (TwitterFox -- which throws it into a manageable add-on for my Firefox browser) with a simple tag: #NSOTU. It took me less than a full second to realize that was the tag for tonight's speech (read: Not State of the Union). Before President Obama was even a few minutes into the speech, someone posted a link to the full text of his speech. So in addition to listening to the commentary of the people in the room, reading the Tweets, paying attention to the visual images on my television and listening to Obama speak, I was reading along.

It was hard to keep up, with about 50 new posts per minute requesting my browser to refresh itself. A lot of the comments made it feel like I was sitting in a much larger living room with a bigger group of friends. In other words, a lot of commentary was focused on how fast Pelosi rose to her feet or placing bets on when we would finally hear the phrase "clean coal."

But occaisionally there was a spark of deliberation. And though it seemed a mere speck in a large mine of banality, someone would inevitably catch it and react. So small pockets of conversation were flittering around and I saw as voyeour -- all the while keeping to myself but reading along.

Changing landscapes

Image of FlickrLand (Flickr's social network) from GustavoG via Flickr and Creative Commons

Though Wahl-Jorgensen's book is rather dry and academic, I honestly find the content fascinating. And thanks to my many years in academia, I appreciate the endlessly annotated nature of the writing, even if its coming in my least favorite to read format of parenthetical notations. However any attempt to discuss any aspect of the journalism industry seems somehow dramatically outdated when compared to the reality of the current newspaper crisis. With reports as high as 15,000+ jobs lost for journalists in 2008, the landscape for journalism has been so dramatically impacted that it can be difficult to stay focused on an assessment that doesn't take these changes into account.

Lately I've been agreeing with thinking about journalism in a new frame. With so much information at our fingertips, it is possible that the role of the journalist is changing from information provider to discussion facilitator. Wahl-Jorgensen's placement of letters to the editor next to other forms of "mediated participation" falls short in today's world of Twitter and viral social networks. The idea of radio call-in programs or television talk shows as an advanced state of participation seems distant.

But the real difference is not simply how many more ways there are to participate, it is in how we define participation. Ultimately it is important to keep one distinction in mind: those old formats relied on a gatekeeper to control access to the audience. With platforms on the Internet everyone gets a shot, everyone gets a microphone, and everyone can get an audience. Moderated comments on a newspaper article or website may control some of the conversation, but for each location it is restricted in it can move to dozens of other un-mediated locations.

Letter to the editor -- Part Two

I wrote my second LTE for The Boston Globe after noticing a piece discussing the merits of being a child of affluent parents if applying to private college -- especially during the economic recession.

This letter has a similar theme from the last one, but with an altered framework. Unlike the last letter I sent to the Hampshire Gazette, the article that prompted the Globe letter was influenced by the comments of readers that trailed after the post.

Reading through some of the drivel made me favor the commenting method of sites like Slashdot, which allow the community to rate the best ones up and push the poor ones down.

Anyway, here it is:

The American Dream sure is seeing a revision. Instead of opening her arms to the tired and the poor, she'll just be sure to check your credit rating before opening the gate.

Peter Schworm's piece in Tuesday's Globe (“Economy lifting college prospects of the well heeled”) makes one thing certain – if students from affluent families are more likely to be admitted into private schools than those requiring financial aid, we can be assured that our public schools will see an even greater increase in applications in the coming years as they are turned away from these institutions.

Investment in public higher education is vital during difficult economic times. State community colleges and four year schools are in dire straights. By the end of last year, dramatic increases in applications at state schools (see Boston Globe “Applications soar at public colleges,” Dec. 23, 2008) were already present. We have a choice: we can prioritize education for the next generation of American workers or we can leave education only to the wealthy.

Letter to the editor -- Part One

Photo courtesy of bill dwyer via Flickr and Creative Commons

I sent this in to the Daily Hampshire Gazette this evening in response to an article in Monday's paper regarding a 129% increase in applications at Holyoke Community College. I suppose now we will just wait and see...

As an alumnae of Holyoke Community College who is about to graduate from Smith College in May, I am heartened by the increase in applications reported by Kristin Palpini in Monday's Gazette (“HCC hit by wave of college hopefuls”). I enrolled at HCC merely because it was affordable, but was inspired with the quality of education I received. Programs such as the Learning Communities, which pair off traditionally separated academic disciplines (such as math and literature), presented challenging coursework. All were taught by a dedicated faculty who are tirelessly committed to the mission of education despite being under constant threat of budgetary cutbacks.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reflects President Obama's campaign promises to both invest in education and long-term economic growth. According to the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM) this includes a possible $813 million for education funding in this state. At least $142 million of this will be allocated to public higher education. PHENOM also sees potential for piloting free tuition at three of the state's community colleges through federal budgetary relief for Medicaid.

The 129% increase in applications at HCC is a tremendous opportunity. Education is one of our best investments in difficult economic times. I hope our legislators work with the strong network of Massachusetts residents and organizations to ensure that every single person who wants to enroll in college is able to access the quality education our state schools must provide.

Old formats spewing old stereotypes; remain closed for comments

Photo courtesy of Certified via Flickr and Creative Commons

Today’s edition of the media-mogul Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post featured a cartoon that has drawn extensive (and I would say deserved) criticism from the blogosphere for its portrayal of a monkey shot dead by police officers with the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill." The cartoon has also been severely criticized by civil right leaders, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton.

The New York Post is standing behind the cartoon and its artist, Sean Delonas, claiming that it is was meant to imply that the stimulus bill recently signed into law by President Obama was shoddily composed and may has well have been written by a monkey. It also attempts to parody a violent pet chimpanzee that was shot dead by police officers in Stamford, CT on Monday. However, America's culture of slavery and certainly its connection to racist sentiments is not as far behind us as Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan may believe.

Allan has issued a statement claiming that, ""The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy." Allan continues this verbal march of ignorance by stating that "again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Though it is possible that the artist's intentions were as Allan states and lacked a malicious intent, it remains a poor reflection on Delonas and Allan's poor education in American cultural history. This tactic of turning a blind eye towards a very recent past in which African Americans were compared to primates, presumed to lack the same intellectual abilities as whites, and were bought and sold as property seems at best an ignorant oversigh and at worse an outright racist act.

The Post cartoon itself and the Associated Press coverage remain closed for comment. Instead, users on news aggregation sites like Digg are reposting the story and commenting on these sites. A write-up on The Huffington Post reveals some 4078 comments on the story.

"Happy V-day, Nice Pants" (or, Commenting IRL)

Photo courtesy of Greg Saulmon at MassLive.com

In the ongoing experiment of active online commenting, I finally posted my first comment to a piece on MassLive today.

I don't know if it is entirely fair, considering my previous disclosures about enjoying the safety of social networks, as I know the author of the post. Still, I pressed send and watched the words vanish behind the wall of the moderator. Something tells me that it will be our very own guest lecturer from last week who either passes it on or hits "delete."

However this post does double-duty, as I not only took the great leap forward of adding my opinion to the pile (that would be a pile of one, as there was not a lot of traffic surrounding it), but the piece I chose to comment on had to do with commenting IRL! (That's acronym-online speak for in real life for any readers who have not spent the last four years of their life consumed by academic treatises on the Internet).

Greg's post is titled, "Things people say when you give them a space to say them." The photo captures a message that is both witty and entertaining as well as timely commentary on our culture.

He writes about these interactions with public sphere from his own experience as an online journalist:

...When you give people the space to say what they want, you're going to get a fascinating mix of incredibly smart and incredibly stupid comments.

So, today in Northampton, when I spotted a collection of paper hearts with hand-written messages taped to the kiosk outside Urban Outfitters, I felt the same little twinge of excitement that I feel when I see a news story followed by a long comment thread. What are people saying? What are people thinking?

In the case of the paper hearts, the messages were mostly predictable: ruminations on love; commemorations of anniversaries.

There among them, though, was the message above -- a paper heart talking to a chain store. In a sense, from Anonymous, to Anonymous. Is it an example of the impersonality of commerce, or an example of how there are more ways than ever to say what you're thinking?

Honestly, I'd say it is a little bit of both...

Jorgensen: selected highlights

"Arenas of political communication" - slide in Jürgen Habermas's keynote at ICA 2006 in Dresden -- Courtesy of Snibe via Creative Commons license

What should be the role of the public and the press? Is democracy better served when journalists and experts communicate the information to the public or when the public can actively participate in the deliberative process? And how do the market mechanisms of the commercial newspaper industry impact these debates?

Karin Wahl-Jorgensen has tackled these questions through a solid network of critique, primarily using the theories of Habermas to compare and contrast various models. She provides a useful framework on the public sphere, while also bringing in legitimate critique from a range of disciplines. But of particular interest to me (the ever-curious cultural and media critic) were her takes on public journalism and exploration of liberal and deliberative democratic theory (particularly as it relates to the press).

Jorgenson glosses over a concept of of public journalism which is interesting, albeit rather abstract and academic. She provides no real background on what it is or any existing models. I'm not sure if she is talking about what is often referred to as “citizen journalism” (a problematic term in and of itself) of if this is another term for some branch of publicly funded media.

With regards to liberal vs. deliberative democratic theory, I found the debate surrounding rational vs. irrational debate fascinating. Though I value and uphold a belief in the necessity of a free (and funded) press to facilitate a democratic society, I think chasing after a distinction between rational and irrational is a red herring. True rationality is a myth, just like objectivity.

Finally, the format of deliberation is shifting away from a reliance on print and experts/gatekeepers. Some seem more willing to experiment with these new possibilities than others...

Bill Keller and the future of news(papers)

(Photo courtesy of Just.Luc via Creative Commons/Flickr)

New York Times executive editor, Bill Keller, made a lengthy "column" out of responding to readers comments and questions on their website last week. The first series of questions delved into some of the big issues facing journalism today -- including what will happen to newspapers in the near future with so much media consumption moving online.

I can see two threads that must be identified here when discussing the "newspaper crisis." One deals with the user's choice of format. Dramatic shifts in media consumption from the printed to the web page can be identified, but they are only part of the story. People still consume traditional (print, broadcast) media at a rapid pace and the websites visited for news online are predominantly the same established brands. And with millions of people in America living without access to affordable high-speed Internet, these trends shouldn't come as too big a surprise.

The second is paying for content and journalists. Commercial media is starting to collapse under the weight of its behemoth holdings. The rampant consolidation that escalated dramatically in the mid 1990s -- allowing companies to continue buying more outlets across mediums and in the same markets -- have bared the brunt of such cost-cutting measures as slashing reporters' jobs in order to maintain the bottom line. It is far cheaper to produce weather, sports, or entertainment pieces than it is to pay journalists to do investigative reporting. The foreign bureaus began to close. Reporters were asked to fill the roles of news anchors instead of writers.

It is possible that the commercial model can't continue to service the public need for reporting in this country. But this could signal tremendous opportunity. The ideas and concepts can be seen throughout the myriad of proposals popping up across the field itself. From establishing a National Endowment for Journalism, to micro-payments for content by the user, to the television tax model used by the BBC across the pond, the discussion about driving a wedge between the co-dependent relationship of advertising and reporting is getting louder.

And if all else fails, we could always go for the flavored ink model.

Fair Use, Fairey, and Closed Comments

I admit to being a bit of a lurker.

It's not that I don't have feedback. I have a lot of it. But I tend to localize it into quasi-personal Internet spaces, like the falsified “safe walls” of Facebook, updating my Gmail chat status, or Twitter. So there is an element of experimentation in this whole “commenting on commenting” initiative we've got going on. I planned to take the plunge directly and instead of providing my feedback through the spurious safety net of this blog I would boldly post my opinion on directly to the article or piece that struck a chord with me in the first place.

Turns out that is easier said than done.

A friend of mine sent along this article last week about the Associated Press going after graphic artists Shepard Fairey for copyright infringement. As a staunch supporter of our desperate national need for intellectual property policy reforms, I figured this would be a timely and interesting issue to provide feedback on. But as I scanned the responses on the Huffington Post I realized that perhaps it would be more interesting to post my comments in a space where there was less online community consensus around the issue. When someone forwarded the same story to me, but this time NPR's coverage I figured I had struck the gold mine: many of the comments on the article sided with the AP and agreed that Fairey had indeed perpetrated copyright infringement. (Actually, the comments ran the gambit from well phrased positions to complete intellectual failures, but that's another matter all together).

The moral of the story is that the comments were closed. Because I had not responded to the piece in a timely manner (which is how long exactly?) no additional comments were being permitted on the article.

We can envision “commenting” as some sort of evolution of the “letters to the editor” format, but there are some failures in this conception. Unlike the printed newspapers that are typically discarded by the time the next issue is released, journalism online meanders and lingers and travels in unpredictable trajectories. Closing off comments with attention to the timing of the story may be putting up a roadblock to creativity. Just like suing artists for copyright infringement over works that should be covered by fair use does.

This is so meta

Photo from fish2000, courtesy of Creative Commons/Flickr


Hello world.

Im using this blog to comment about commenting. As I said, this is so meta.

Consider this the meta of meta. I'm just commenting on the fact that I will be commenting on commenting.

Put the microphone in front of the amplifier and crank it.

With feedback as the objective...well...yeah.