saltykris

The internet has changed journalism. We can now reach out, grab whatever news we want, with few impediments and low (or no) costs. By picking the news we want, from the news sites we want, we can pander to our own interests and live within our own filter bubbles (see my recent post on filter bubbles). This has dramatically affected the business model for journalism: how can a newspaper make money when most of its readers would rather search online for a source that gives out equal information at a lesser (or no) cost?

Clay Shirky describes this as a “revolution.” He equates the changes journalism and newspapers are facing to the same changes that the book industry faced when subsumed by the printing press in the 1500’s. Their business model is no longer viable, and when asked what new model will help the newspaper industry survive, he states: “Nothing. Nothing will work. There is not general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.” However, he goes on to note that books did survive the printing press, and after a variety of experiments, they prospered. What journalism and the internet need now is experimentation to find the new models that will work.

Dean Starkman sees this too (rather starkly, if you pardon the pun). In his article ‘The Confidence Game,’ he lays out the arguments of Shirky and the other believers in “future-of-news” (FON) consensus. They see a future where news organizations will be less important as, instead, news will be “assembled, shared, and…gathered” by readers. The industry will become flat, crowd-sourced, with no plan, extensive freedom, and large networks that will find ways to publish the news for free (think Wikipedia for the daily news). Starkman (again, starkly) disagrees. He flatly notes that to get journalists to cover the news and write about it, especially for the minutia of day-to-day coverage, you normally need to pay them

Wikipedia works great as a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. It covers knowledge of the past. But it is not on a deadline. And the daily news cycle absolutely has a deadline. If you could write the news on your own time, when you got around to it, after your daily job, and when you were no longer in the mood to have a beer and watch TV, crowdsourcing might work. But to drive traffic today, you absolutely must be timely, and crowdsourcing is not always a timely option.

Another problem with the ideas of the FON believers involve substance in a news piece. FON believes that news can be something as simple as a tweet or facebook post. These social media tools are great, but they don’t have substance. They are like reading a headline – but when I normally click on something, I want to see the details of an article backing up the soundbite (well – the written equivalent of a soundbite).

Finally, I need a sense of general neutrality in my news. Crowdsourced news seems to open itself up to easy application of the filter bubble. The writing may become biased and the author not even realize it. While this may happen in mainstream journalism as well, because of training and journalistic ethics, it is at least moderated. Other news organizations simply aggregate news stories already out there and spin it with a new biased headline. I want to know that the news I am consuming is not inherently biased.

So how is journalism to survive? By both trying new things and trying old things. Some organizations can adapt and will probably continue to limp along, or even get back up and get moving. Think of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal and their paywall mechanisms. Other organizations will spring up and find new ways to present the news and earn revenue (think of Vox, Quartz, or Slate). The bottom line – the FON believers are wrong: some news organizations will continue to survive to cover the news, pay journalists, and tell a story. But they are also right: some new journalism will spring forth and find new ways to make money and tell their stories in the internet age.  And I will continue to get my news by paying for some of it (the Economist) and some for free on the internet (the Washington Post)

Just finished another audible book during my daily dog walks and long weekend runs. Bunker Hill by Nathaniel Philbrick. I have been a big fan of Philbrick for years – ever since my father bought me a copy of his book about the white whale that smashed and sunk the whale ship Essex in 1819 (soon to be a movie!). Philbrick tends to be very even handed in his description of historical events and obviously loves the maritime world. Sometimes, he gets a little too bogged down in the details, but such is life.

The book starts with the small tax on tea imposed by the British Government – which was to be used to pay for colonial administration – and leads through the events in Massachusetts until the British abandoned Boston, including the battles of Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, and the Siege of Boston. I felt I should learn more about these events because not only are they important and I know nothing about them, but also I now live in Cambridge. Truth be told, I now need to go visit some of these locations and see if I can put the pieces together in my head…

One slight criticism that pervaded my listening to this book – it is very descriptive. It includes a lot of specific locations and troop movements. I have no doubt that the actual physical book includes a huge quantity of maps explaining the directions and locations of all involved, but there was no map in the audible version. It wasn’t tell a few minutes ago when I looked up where Bunker Hill is actually located that I realized I have been there many times. Bottom line-it was a hard book to work through on tape…probably would have been much better in print.

So, what did I learn:

-Philbrick does a very good job of being evenhanded. He shows the flaws of players and strategies and moves on both sides of the revolution. He paints John Hancock as being a man who pursued his own commercial interests (interestingly by trying to buy up the whale ship market at one point). He shows that men and women on both side of the fight were very flawed, but that they also help deep beliefs. One central character is Joseph Warren, a doctor who was basically running the show in Massachusetts through the Committee of Safety and the Provincial Congress while Samuel Adams and others were at the Continental Congress. Warren was a strong leader, but he decided to run towards the fighting during the battle of Bunker Hill, fought as a regular soldier (he held the rank of Major General at the time), and died there. The book strongly hints that he would have challenged George Washington for leadership of the new army had he survived.

-Interestingly, the Colonists initially were not fighting for their independence. They wanted to restore the rights their fathers had – they simply wanted to be able to provide their own self rule while still respecting the rights of the Sovereign (the English King) over them. What made them mad were the small customs that England was collecting to pay for the colonial administration (and the French and Indian War debt) and the fact that England appointed their Governor instead of allowing them to elect their own local leadership. Another passage hints that a compromise could have been reached (and was discussed in England) by allowing the Colony to elect their own officials and simply giving them a sum of taxes to pay each year and allowing the Colony to decide how to raise the funds. It is not till the end of the book, after the major battles and during the Siege of Boston, that the Declaration of Independence is signed and the colonists shift from ‘fighting the ministers and advisors of the King,’ while still supporting the King to actually fighting for their own independence. This is a subtle distinction, but I think it appears to be key in the minds of the colonists – they wanted to remain part of England and loyal to the King – they just did not like his policies.

-The book also covertly poses as a metaphor for the revolutions of today. The key element is that while the social media (the pamphlets and speeches of the 1700’s) are great and inspiring, a lot of people fight and bleed and die in a revolution. The book does not back down when describing the various battles (maybe it even gets a little too bogged down in the details here). Revolutions are brutal, visceral events and this was obviously clear based on the events in Massachusetts. It is equally clear in the Middle East today.

-My favorite part of the book was in the epilogue where John Quincy Adams, who had watched the Battle of Bunker Hill as a young child in 1775, looked out over the anniversary of the battle 60+ years later. John Quincy Adams was the embodiment of seeing the Constitution as a living document. After serving as President for one term in the 1820’s, he went on to serve in the House of Representatives and fought to abolish slavery for 17 more years. The book closed by noting that while the events in and around Boston in the early 1770’s were the beginning of our struggle for independence, that struggle continued throughout the war and then afterwards – even to today – as we continue to try to understand and redefine what freedom and independence really mean. If you watch or read science fiction or star trek, have no doubt, this struggle will probably continue for hundreds of more years to come.

-What was missing from this book: The rest of the country. While the book was clearly focused on the Massachusetts colony and the events around Boston, it barely even touched on the other colonies and the Continental Congress. I found myself wondering what was going on outside of Massachusetts. Were they really the only ones struggling against the British at this point? What was driving the other colonies to push for independence? What was the Continental Congress doing? Questions for another book….

Definitely worth reading, but probably should read it rather than listen to it. Score: 6.5 for the lack of maps in an audible book.

I delved into Wikipedia, searching for something where I had expertise and that I found interesting. It didn’t take long to find the right page: the USCG Barque EAGLE. EAGLE is the most famous Coast Guard ship still afloat; she has sailed the seven seas (in reality, she has only made it to 6 of them) since 1936. Most importantly, I spent more than two and a half years sailing on the EAGLE and know a few things about her.

The Wikipedia article is fairly comprehensive. It includes a brief overview of the training program, the ship’s history, and the design. The strongest part of the article is the description of the ship’s origins as a sail training vessel for Germany prior to and during WWII. However, there are some significant aspects of EAGLE’s story that could be greatly expanded or added. It seemed strange that the most unique and valuable aspects of EAGLE, her sailing rig and the type of training that takes place onboard, are barely mentioned. There is very little description or explanation of the complicated sailing rig. Likewise, the entire reason the ship still exists, to train cadets, is skimmed over and not explained. A stronger explanation would include a description of how the training program is carried out and what skills the cadets and officer candidates are expected to gain. Another area of omission is the lack of detail regarding significant events that EAGLE has taken part in. EAGLE has been a key player in all 6 OPSAIL events, but only the 1976 event is described. Additionally, there is no mention of when EAGLE collided with a freighter in Baltimore Harbor in 1967, causing major damage to the ship. Finally, there are numerous small inaccurate statements in the article, such as when the ‘only’ time enlisted members trained onboard is mentioned, when in reality numerous enlisted classes have served on the ship.

The sourcing of the article is inadequate. There are 7 cited sources, 1 of which is a link that doesn’t work, three are from the same set of pages at the Coast Guard Academy, and only one newspaper article is included, describing damage taken in 1972 during an allision with rigging hanging from a bridge. In reality, there have been numerous books written (and one documentary filmed in 1998) about the EAGLE that could all be plumbed for excellent material, but none are mentioned. Interestingly, the hand book for sailing the vessel, known as EAGLE Seamanship, is mentioned under further reading but is not cited in the page even though it is an excellent primary source. There are also a few notes throughout the article noting areas where citations are needed, especially when describing how the ship downed three Soviet aircraft in WWII, a story which many have suspected for years may actually be apocryphal.

The article is very neutral. EAGLE is not considered a controversial subject; perhaps the most controversial aspect of EAGLE’s history is its history as a German Navy vessel, which is fully covered in the article. Under the Talk tab, there were only a few questions regarding very minor points of nomenclature.

Likewise, the article is fairly readable, well organized, and strongly illustrated with numerous pictures of the ship over the past 78 years. The section on the ship’s history as a Coast Guard vessel does feel choppy in that it jumps between a few incidents, and leaves other significant historical occurrences out, however, this is a minor issue in the overall flow of the page. Additionally, all of the illustrations were external shots of the ship. A more comprehensive approach to the ship would include pictures of cadets receiving instruction.

After reviewing this page, I am left with the distinct taste in my mouth that even if I do not chose to focus my final project on this page, I may need to do some updating here…

So this post has nothing to do with school, but I just finished a rather good book (on tape…need something to listen to while I walk to the dog and run). It was The Operators by Michael Hastings. The book was about a embed trip by the reported Michael Hastings when he joined General Stanley McChrystal and his team for a  week or two in 2010. Lots of good nuggets here:

-A lot on civil military relations: How do Senior Military Leaders work with civilian leaders? What does that relationship look like? Who exercises what type of power? What should that relationship look like? At what point are you ‘listening to your expert Generals’ and at what point are you ‘being strong by standing up to your expert Generals’ (or Admirals)?

-Command: It is obvious that Command Climate was a big issue for General McChrystal.  The type of climate you as the boss set matters. What you say, what you do, how you respond to off hand comments all matter. Your people will emulate you. They will follow your example. You can have fun, but you also need to remain professional and respectful.

-Dealing with the Media: One thing that Hastings mentioned was that the Public Affairs person working for McChrystal didn’t set any ground rules during the visit, and that this was unusual. I haven’t don’t many big media things, but even for the short media trips on the ships I have worked on, I set a few ground rules. I think the key is, especially at the big national level, the media has a job to do too. Their purpose is not your purpose. You should be open, but also remember that while you have a bias, so do they.

-What was missing from this book: Hastings talked a lot about the history of the AF and IQ wars, and it was clear he saw them (esp. AF) as a failure. But he never got into what success would look like? How could or should we have done it differently after we invaded in 2001. This would help make his argument a little stronger.

Good book. Worth reading. Score: 7.5.

All people have biases.  We all see the world differently, through a screen built on our upbringing, our values, our education, out history, and maybe even our genetics.  The internet, through its filter bubbles, is feeding this bias.  Filter bubbles are invisible visors put in place by sites like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, and others.  Basically, these sites analyze the types of things we clicked on in the past and then put things on our search results or feed that we are more likely to click on.  If you click often on things relating to Star Trek or Legos or world peace, these sites will show you more things related to those topics even if you searched for something else.  The problem, according to Eli Pariser, is that filter bubbles show us what the internet thinks we want to see, not what we need to see.

These filter bubbles exist in real life too.  We are daily filtered from other opinions based upon what news media we watch (FOX vs MSNBC), what coffee shop we go to (Starbucks vs Dunkin Donuts vs the gas station), who we talk to, how we work out, where we work and live, what we read, and more.  These bubbles in real life, like the bubbles on the internet, insulate and give us a deep sense of confirmation bias.  They confirm what we already know and believe.

Social Networking is a key tool that accentuates and amplifies our filter bubbles.  We tend to like (or ‘friend’) those that are similar to us.  Social networks are not a new things.  As Christakis and Fowler point out in their book Connected, Facebook itself was simply based on a telephone directory (called the Face book) that included pictures of people who attended Harvard (it dated back at least until 1979).  This book in itself created a social network where Harvard students could call each other, develop relationships, share information, and confirm each other’s biases.  All a social network requires is some form of structure (rules), a mechanism for joining, and a reason for people to get together (Shirky’s Bargain, Tool, and Promise).  The internet simply allows these networks to form at less cost and on a much larger scale.

But herein lies the dilemma.  If my life offline leads to its own bias, and my life online greatly feeds this bias, both through use of the internet and through social networking, leading to my own personal filter bubble just getting larger, how do I break out and change my perceptions?  How do I learn to look at the other side of an issue without looking down on the other side of the issue?  How do I convince my brother to move past simply listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and reading Foxnews.com in order to find some common ground?  I distinctly remember working to combat the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the summer of 2010.  Louisiana was hot and a lot of very good people were working very hard to try and mitigate the disaster.  Yet, every day the media and many NGOs swept past this story and instead created a byline that we were not even trying to make things better.  There was a self-reinforcing bias to what they believed–their filter bubble.  How do you change this bias and help people see both sides?

First, we need to acknowledge that we don’t know everything, that there are other opposing views in life, and that people are not evil or wrong simply because they believe something else.  And second, we need to actively force ourselves to seek out information that doesn’t conform to our biases.  The internet can help.  The internet makes more information available than we have ever been able to access in the history of mankind.  We simply need to reach out and not get stuck in our own filters.  We need to remember to not simply focus on only getting our news from the Huffington Post, but instead try to also take a look at the Drudge Report.  We should try to learn about both sides of an issue and only then start thinking about pushing out a judgment.

The internet has changed the world. Associations, groupings, and methods of communication that previously were limited in scale or even unthinkable are everywhere. Facebook is a gargantuan and up-to-date yearbook, covering not just college, but also life. Flickr is a giant global photo album. Companies unable to adapt to the relatively cost-free tools of communication on the internet have been forced to close, including newspapers, retail outlets, and even the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica (which no longer publishes a print edition).

In his 2008 book Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky describes how cooperation, collaboration, and communication are now freely available on a colossal scale never seen before. No longer are these means of interaction controlled by governments and institutions. If you want to send a note to a group of 15 people, you do not need to buy a book of stamps and spend 2 hours writing 15 notes, addressing them, and taking them to the mail box. Instead, you spend 20 seconds and send out an email. This rapid ability to coordinate on a large scale has changed how we live, work, relax, and even face the world.

Because of the internet, it is easier to form groups. The cost of coordinating anything, from a small convention of niche fans of the original Star Trek TV series to a group of angry global citizens frustrated with the Catholic Church’s inaction against sexual abuse by priests, has dramatically decreased. With easier mass communication, controlled by individuals and not institutions, there is far less need for managerial overhead, making it far easier and far cheaper to organize. Collaboration and cooperation have dramatically increased, often without a motive for profit (such as when entering data into Wikipedia). People can more easily work together to achieve goals outside the mainstream of previously omnipresent institutions and companies (for example, the way President Obama’s team harnessed the power of the internet to help win the 2008 Democratic primary).

Furthermore, the internet has turned everyone into a member of the media. We are not all licensed journalists, but we do all have phones, cameras, and the ability to rapidly upload photos to a variety of blogs and sites where our words and images can be instantly disseminated. The first means that everything is fair game for the internet, from cute cat videos to images of elected officials kissing people who aren’t their spouses. And once something is released into the public domain of the internet, it is very hard, if not impossible, to take down. Even if something is published on the internet for just a small group of associates, and not meant for the public, once it is on the web, it often becomes public.

In Groundswell, Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff take this concept a step further. They see the groundswell as a force, led by the ‘people’ of the internet, who are smart, have a voice, and possess a will to act. The internet has grown rapidly because of the ease of new technology, the drive and desire for people to connect, and the revenue that follows traffic around the web. As this mass of people has grown, so has their power. Businesses must react, or else (to take their analogy a step further), the groundswell will crest into a wave and break on top of those who do not innovate and keep up.

Li and Bernoff are correct. There is a dark side to the internet that Shirky has, thus far, failed to address. If people, companies, and organizations do not maintain pace with the way the world is changing, then they can be damaged or left behind. Companies that fail to innovate will become has-beens (think about Borders, much of the news industry, CDs in the music industry, or even MySpace).

But there is an even seedier side of the internet beyond competition for business and consumer attention. Everything that goes out over the web, including emails, pictures, and credit card numbers, are vulnerable. With increased communication and access comes decreased privacy. Malicious agents can hack systems and steal information, and then utilize it to spend your money (your credit card number) or post it (the recent celebrity photo-hacking scandal). A single comment in an email can be taken out of context and published to ruin a career or a life. Not only do people and institutions need to innovate in order to respond to the world of the internet, but they also need to be aware of its dangers.

So my name is Kris. I am a sailor. I am currently studying in Cambridge. And I have a class. In this class, I need to blog. This is my blog. I went ahead and paid for an entire year of using this site…not sure at all if I will keep it afterwards, but I have it for one year from today (today being Sept 7, 2014).

Much of this blog will revolve around my social media class and our related readings. Maybe I will find some time to peruse other topics (running, rowing, sailing, the water, and the weather in Cambridge). We will see.