open Democracy News Analysis - media & the net - Comments

ChristianBP on "Civic hacking: a new agenda for e-democracy"

ChristianBP — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:54:37 +0100

First of all may I say an excellent article with a lot of thought provoking material.

"The question is: how can you translate this self-evident quality of the network into an application which can help people overcome life problems, or participate in civic communications with others interested in the same issue? At present, this is the problem: you can’t. Why not? Because no one has developed the application."

I have authored an application (published by my company) that allows citizens to collaborate in writing position papers a working example of such a system can be found here. The software could however be adapted to government or organisational functions. I got the idea when I was campaigning against software patents and observed how existing systems of indirect democracy approved changes to laws. I tried to refine this process as much as possible and add it to a write in referendum process. The result is a very pure form of direct democracy.

In regards to funding, my company didn't approach the state for any subsidies. We are hoping to make revenue from advertising and selling enhanced reports to subscribers that can break down results by area, sex, age etc. but in a way that doesn't identify voters by name. We are going to make the subscription price low so that all kinds of people will get the information often reserved to marketing departments of large companies.

abuelita42pj on "Booking the future"

abuelita42pj — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:33:46 +0100

Books will not be dying as mentioned and there are additional reasons than listed above. Books are not only for one-time reading and then they are tossed. Many esp. by classical or long-term authors are kept for re-reading. Whether they will all be paperbacks or some of each will tell with time. History, various art subjects, and literature will always be desired by some to be hardback just so they can be kept and possibly passed on to the next generation. Many authors can't be looked for on the internet if the person knows nothing about him/her or the newest book or old ones. Books must be displayed--even if it's just on a bookstore shelf to be seen, looked over and decided on. Many bookstores may have to become smaller with a large internet for searching or a variety of bookstores with more specialities. Many people go into bookstores not thinking of any book in particular and walk out with 1-10 new ones--full prices, sale prices or throw-away prices. That's more difficult to do on the Internet. Internet reading is limited even if you are talking about Kindle or its ilk. Bath tub or beach side is not very kind to computers or hand machines even on batteries. Do you really wish to drop a Kindle into your bath tub or into the gritty sand and expect it to work right later?? I doubt it!! Just some reason why books will be here a long time to come.

Cornelia Amiri on "Booking the future"

Cornelia Amiri — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:32:27 +0100

Thank you so much for writing this. I really appreciate reading your explanations and predictions for the industry. I agree with most of it but there some aspects that I'm not sure will occur the exact way predicted here. It's a very interesting article.

Algot Runeman on "Booking the future"

Algot Runeman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:56:39 +0100

This is a very interesting take on the economics of ebooks.

Posted an appreciative blog entry about it on http://mosssig.wordpress.com which is a blog encouraging open source and open education. Hope you continue to give us your insights.

What do you think would happen if companies like McDonalds gave away a card [like their Monopoly game] with a Web code on it that linked to a choice of age-appropriate ebooks (Happy Meals would have codes for kids' books and Big Macs would be for teens and above). McDonalds would buy some form of rights and might help bail out the current publishers, but I hope, would NOT slap DRM on it.

I know I would go for the "Happy Meal" promotion more than I do a bunch of others that have been done.

Robert Bettmann on "Journalism's many crises"

Robert Bettmann — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:39:27 +0100

I recently concluded a blog post on the decline of print journalism with the following: "There is no evidence that the interest of consumers has dramatically changed; the marketplace is evolving. New models are developing within a newer economy to support the interests of news consumers and providers. The situation is quite reminiscent of Mark Twain’s experience with the New York Journal (a daily that ceased publication in 1966.) Following publication of his obituary in the Journal, Twain quipped, 'The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.'"

[You can see the whole post here: http://dcblog43.com/?p=966 ]

I think the value of pure research, the arts, and the humanities do need to be defended - now, more than ever. But there is only the weakest of connections there to the decline of print journalism.

toddgiltin on "Journalism's many crises"

toddgiltin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:17:26 +0100

Daniel, I have no blind faith in any institutions, including nonprofits, which can have their own irresponsible commitments, cronyism, and other institutional skews. I certainly don't say that journalism should be left to governments, but government subsidies of various sorts (starting the classic one, reduced post office rates) are surely part of the solution.

Agilis Lux on "Journalism's many crises"

Agilis Lux — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:39:59 +0100

We are reading Asia On-line and shift a
few clicks away to NYT or other international publications. But lets
start with those privileged Greeks of the inner circle of their way
of democracy, who have had a time spending tax payers money for their
fun. Then this churches, how did they enjoy having the monopole on
education...

Then came the book. The guys on the
Island have had their trouble with that protestant "pamphlets"
that had been prohibited. Sure, in todays main-stream media jungle
being a photo-journalist, mercifully tolerated by all this brilliant
writers, for me it is clear that the medial manipulation entire
societies actually was born out of “The
Enlightenment” but lead us politically and economically to a
concentration of power that are similar to feudal structures of the
pre-gutenberg, medieval times. Those earlier power structure we can
recognize in today slim owner elite in the media world. Is it not a
fact that this elite is holding a monopole on what we call “reality”,
or on what media consumers are getting offered as “reality”, -
and what we for long now due to a lack of alternative sources of
information declare as “reality”?

Yes,
yes, I know, educated groups of the societies and intellectual elites
of course recognize the potential of the new mass media in relation
to higher education implicit enlarged options for democratization but
just don't forget that also the owner-elite of media organizations
has global interests ( e.g; Cheap News Network etc.) which entail
centralizing, and so consequently by interacting more and more with
owners of other industrial and important complexes sub-ordinates
itself under their rules.

Monsanto
blackwaters somewhere out there and one political rule in politics
is, when the waters are getting too muddy: create confusion to
frustrate. They let loose the pack of “experts” in chat shows,
and with the full blast of a PR machinery till “reality” is
fitting the purpose again. China, Russia, Europe US all the same. So
after all having as a photo-journalist grown to the absurd, I feel at
ease in these times of ours. Its not much to make a living, but lots
of fun. So, crisis? Living in France, we always have some kind of
crisis! A “Winged word” came out of the French revolution and the
proclamation of Secularism: “living like god in France”, because
he felt good after he lost his job there....

TanyaW on "Journalism's many crises"

TanyaW — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:36:05 +0100

No wonder why the EU wants to get its hands on the Internet

jdubow on "Journalism's many crises"

jdubow — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:20:05 +0100

Almost all analyses of the media focus on externalities. Yet the main problems arise from within. Journalists suffer from an ongoing identity crisis. The definitions most journalists give about what they do- afflicting the comfortable etc, a fourth branch of government, opposing the government, uncovering scandals and so on, aren't the reasons people buy their products.

One reason people buy news media is to learn the news. News, in simple mathematical informational terms, is proportional to what you don't know. Most (about 90%) journalistic output is, according to numerous polls and studies, created from a liberal viewpoint. This advocacy journalism most people don't consider news, it is "read the title, read the story, know what the article has to say".

The problem goes deeper than that. Not only is the context liberal, but it is also politically correct. That means that certain issues or viewpoints don't get reported at all and those issues that are reported are constrained in what can be said. Deviations are disaffirmed and slandered.

During the past twenty years readers knew what viewpoint the press would have. Republicans were bad. White males were (mostly) bad. Israel was really bad. Bush was always bad even when he wasn't. The war in Iraq was totally bad. Gender issues were confined to press releases from NOW headquarters. Boys are sexual predators who need continual sedation and incarceration. Fathers are useless appendages. Fossil fuel companies are as worse than cigarette manufacturers. Arabs are misunderstood. There are no terrorists. Western Civilization has no contributions of value to the present. Critical thinking is, if you are of European ancestry, criticizing your parents, your religion, your origins, your traditions and yourself. If you aren't of European ancestry you are ok. Need I go on.

An ongoing litany of self-abnegation gets old fast, especially if verifiable facts support a more balanced viewpoint. Moreover, journalists were shown to be wrong (I use the collective designation since so many media outlets have very similar viewpoints) on many issues of importance to large fractions of the population, probably a majority if all significant issues are included.

If journalists think they need to be part of the story, or have a media viewpoint then they aren't being journalists, they are being political and social actors. If they are doing others jobs then who is doing their job? The problems are really simpler than Gitlin describes. Most people want to understand what is going on in the world around them in order to have the information needed to function effectively in todays' world. Understanding implies a presentation that is a accurate depiction of the present situation in a framework that allows for extrapolation and a degree of prediction of the future. Objectivity isn't a necessity as long as all the key factors are presented and the journalists focus is creating an accurate depiction of the situation they are covering. In another context, does anyone not see the qualitative difference between Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall...." and the outpouring of politically correct revisionism that clogs today's intellectual arteries. One is an imperfect search of truth and accuracy. The other is a paid political announcement.

Until journalists recognize their true customers and get back in touch with them we will have ongoing crises of journalism. Our civilization needs journalists to do the legwork that Gitlin describes in his article. It needs journalistic media that inform the citizenry. Too bad it doesn't have them today and hasn't had them for over a generation. Somethings have to change, but change must start from within.

Daniel Tunkelang on "Journalism's many crises"

Daniel Tunkelang — Sat, 23 May 2009 16:02:38 +0100

Todd, first I'd like to thank you for linking to my blog from such a thoughtful article. I cannot claim a professionally informed opinion about journalism, but I am certainly an interested amateur. Also, I do help build the technology used by a number of online news companies.

You note: "whatever the readership online, it is not profitable." That, of course, is the rub. The advertising-supported model for newspapers is struggling, while no other model seems to be viable in an age when people expect information to be free (as in free beer). There's a chorus of voices telling the news organizations to "be like Google", which presumably means having them act more as aggregators of others' content. What is clear is that the clock is ticking for newspapers to find better ways to monetize either their content or their readers' attention.

I sympathize with your argument that "journalism is too important to be left to business interests", but I certainly wouldn't want it left to government interests! By my calculation, that leaves NGOs, non-profits, individual activists, and business interests as the likely producers of journalism. That sounds like a libertarian utopia--a free marketplace of ideas arbitrated by readers. But I'm curious how it would work in practice.

Rob Snyder on "Journalism's many crises"

Rob Snyder — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:11:42 +0100

As we work our way through the crisis of journalism, which in the US dates back to the deregulation of television in in the 1980s, it is helpful to remember two contrasting ideas.

One, there was no golden age of US journalism. In the US, the media system that emerged after World War II had all sorts of flaws and blind spots, particularly in its deference to state authority in the Cold War. Two, for all its flaws, the "old media" in the US nevertheless had real virtues that are worth recovering in new times.

If objectivity was American journalism's chief ideal, it was an ideal that was always open to question and criticism. Equally important, perhaps even more important, was the media's ability to assemble and serve a broad public.

Metropolitan daily news papers, national magazines, and national networks created a national public and a belief in common concerns that had to be addressed with information, analysis and debate.

As Todd rightly observes, the mass media's ability to assemble a broad public always flew against the tendencies toward the private strain in American life. But constructing the public was an important function of the American media nonetheless. (Think of what the history of the civil rights movement would have been if freedom marches had remained a "southern" story with no claim on the national conscience.)

I am guardedly confident that someone will figure out an economic model to sustain journalism in the future. In the USA, the pursuit of wealth will always find a way. But in this age of media fragmentation, we need a new model for public service media that is attentive to the wholes and parts of our public life. What that might look like, and how we might achieve it, is still an open question that demands our deepest thoughts and strongest actions.

roderick Russell on "Journalism's many crises"

roderick Russell — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:00:07 +0100

A truly free press is one of the essential pillars of democracy. It is therefore disappointing to read that the press has a crisis of “deference to the authorities” since I have experienced the same myself, or to put it more bluntly, the press seems to have a penchant for toadying to the establishment. Without a free press it is hard to see how real democracy can function.

Just this week UK Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears is being trashed in the press for allegations involving her parliamentary expenses. A few years ago, when she was Minister responsible for MI5 and Policing, some much more serious allegations that involve Ms. Blears were brought to attention of the press, and covered up because the issue related to crimes committed by the UK establishment.

UK-based Lobster Magazine did write an article headlined “The Persecution of Roderick Russell” in their December issue describing this as “a very significant story”. The real significance of this story is that the threats are coming from the intelligence services – MI5, MI6 in UK, CSIS in Canada – and 2 governments are trying to cover it up, with some help from the press. Its URL is:

http://mostlywater.org/node/64811

What this story shows is that when the high establishment pulls their chain it doesn't take much for our institutions and the press to throw every concept of rule of law and democracy to the wind. Consider the following:

In 2005 I went to TheGuardian in Manchester, UK and met with their then Northern Correspondent. I showed him correspondence from UK-Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears (then responsible for MI5 and Special Branch) that proves that my complaints are being covered-up. He was appalled and told me that he would recommend to his Editor that an investigative journalist be put on the case. The Editor turned him down. On the way back from The Guardian’s Office my wife and I were threatened. A week later my eldest son (then in Birmingham, UK) received a series of very nasty telephone death threats, which he recorded. 24 hours later they smashed a vehicle into my house in Manchester. Meanwhile my documentation had disappeared from The Guardian’s secure office. A year later I filed copies of this same documentation with a Court in Manchester, and it disappeared again.

Attached behind the article for verification is a letter from the Guardian’s Editor confirming the disappearance of my documentation, a few of the letters from Cabinet Minister Hazel Blears that so shocked their Northern Correspondent, and a transcript of the death threats.

“Deference to the Authorities” (toadying) is such a powerful practice today, that even the liberal media conforms to it. We don't seem to have a free press in the UK or Canada.Is it any wonder that newspaper sales are in decline, along with democracy?

Roderick Russell – Calgary, Canada – (403) 229 – 0864

daniel millstone on "Journalism's many crises"

daniel millstone — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:41:22 +0100

Thanks for posting it. Recently, a friend asked why the MSM so uncritically accepted as fact Mr. Cheyney's claims about his tortuous war on terror. I was tempted to gloss over it with a sneer. But your post is more useful.

oknam on "E Pluribus Facebook"

oknam — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:23:39 +0100

If the users of the facebook ware citizens of Facebook and Facebook were to a country, it is the worst type of quasi democracy. Privacy issues....people are talking about your privacy being exposed to the (online) public and Facebook says they will protect it more. But, the issue is, all the data, information is online! They(Facebook) can reach it whenever they want! It's like a government collecting personal information and saying "it's OK because we are not gonna use it."...Scary...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

about me
まんこ

Anthony Barnett on "E Pluribus Facebook"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:39:51 +0100

Thanks JZ you got me to vote just in time!