Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Limits on freedom, redux . . .
In this digital age, more and more government documents are being posted on the Internet, which has - as its upside - allowed unprecedented access to a vast ocean of information. This permits the public, press and watchdogs to see past its oily surface scum to what's hidden below.
Now, however, the DOD (Department of Defense) is posting a "No Swimming" sign on that ocean of information, by severely restricting the information that can be posted on the DOD's web site.
To belabor the metaphor, lifeguard Don Rumsfeld has decided that the hoi-polloi are not to be trusted in the restricted waters of his own private beach front.
Now, however, the DOD (Department of Defense) is posting a "No Swimming" sign on that ocean of information, by severely restricting the information that can be posted on the DOD's web site.
To belabor the metaphor, lifeguard Don Rumsfeld has decided that the hoi-polloi are not to be trusted in the restricted waters of his own private beach front.
Brought to you by Roger Scimé - desperately dog-paddling in shark-infested waters.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Candidates e-mail Web videos
Interesting story from MSNBC about the newest form of political advertising: emailing Web videos to supporters. See "Bush, Kerry turn to Web video ads."
Limits to . . . er, what was that again?
If we're going to have a serious discussion about candidates' web sites, we really shouldn't overlook web sites of the anti-candidates.
In 1999, the web site gwbush.com was launched, and to say it was not sanctioned by the Bush-Cheney campaign would be an understatement. The campaign was understandably angry (!) and launched a concerted attack on the site's owners.
This prompted a remarkable statement from the man who would later become the sole arbitor of who could be designated an "enemy combatant" -- and held without trial, charge or attorney for the rest of his or her life: "There ought to be limits to freedom."
In 1999, the web site gwbush.com was launched, and to say it was not sanctioned by the Bush-Cheney campaign would be an understatement. The campaign was understandably angry (!) and launched a concerted attack on the site's owners.
This prompted a remarkable statement from the man who would later become the sole arbitor of who could be designated an "enemy combatant" -- and held without trial, charge or attorney for the rest of his or her life: "There ought to be limits to freedom."
This is Roger Scimé free (at least for now) at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
See what happens when you don't have a First Amendment!
Like a lot of Americans, I like to check out what other countries' media are saying about us. That's why I regularly visit such exotic web sites as al Jazerra, The International Herald-Tribune, and even - God help me! - The Washington Times.
Most often, though, I surf, look or listen to the BBC - in all its iterations (respectively: web, PBS and NPR).
What will I do, however, if the British government succeeds in dismantling the old gal, as this Yahoo News story suggests it's considering
Any suggestions?
Most often, though, I surf, look or listen to the BBC - in all its iterations (respectively: web, PBS and NPR).
What will I do, however, if the British government succeeds in dismantling the old gal, as this Yahoo News story suggests it's considering
Any suggestions?
This is Roger Scimé, still blogging from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Memo to Matt Drudge: Let's (not) do the Time Warp again!
Dear Matt,
Er, it was an error -- wasn't it?
I couldn't help but be amused by your headline of the last few days: FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS. For a moment or two, I found myself thinking in alarm: Omigosh! Now, it'll be all over talk radio and Fox that the press is biased! A double standard: going after Bush, but not Bob. Please, please, don't say that, Matt!
Fortunately, I needn't have worried. Anyone with the intelligence of a carrot would have followed the link to the story itself, which is a bit of misdirection, based upon the headline.
For those of us who have less than the intelligence of a carrot, the actual story can be found here. My point is that the story has nothing at all to do with GWB (George II), but rather with GHWB (George I).
Matt, oh Matt. How could you have made such an error?
Er, it was an error -- wasn't it?
This is Roger "(It's just a) jump to the left" Scimé dancin' the night away from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Improving reporting about campaigns and candidates
Campaign coverage has been repeatedly criticized over the years for focusing on polls, the horserace, on scandal and personality, while ignoring coverage of issues, context, and the practical advice necessary to help citizens get more involved with elections.
The American Prospect has an article today, Wake up Time, providing five pointers for improving political reporting in the U.S. today. Those of you who support Bush may have a hard time getting through the preamble, but read the author's five points carefully to see how much "new media" has changed the environment in which political reporting takes place. The author recommends:
1. Go beyond the "he said, she said" and tell us what you believe to be true and important about a story.
2. Challenge the master narrative with genuine investigative reporting.
3. Show proportionality in covering controversies.
4. (Show) A little solidarity on behalf of the truth...
5. Don't let non-news organs drive the news cycle.
In each of these areas, he shows how the "new media" are changing the way old media should operate. Newspapers, television and radio aren't disappearing, but they are changing as the competition changes, and understanding how to resist that which reinforces thin, superficial, misleading political reporting, and how to build on reporting that is truly a public service is a challenge for this era.
Campaign coverage has been repeatedly criticized over the years for focusing on polls, the horserace, on scandal and personality, while ignoring coverage of issues, context, and the practical advice necessary to help citizens get more involved with elections.
The American Prospect has an article today, Wake up Time, providing five pointers for improving political reporting in the U.S. today. Those of you who support Bush may have a hard time getting through the preamble, but read the author's five points carefully to see how much "new media" has changed the environment in which political reporting takes place. The author recommends:
1. Go beyond the "he said, she said" and tell us what you believe to be true and important about a story.
2. Challenge the master narrative with genuine investigative reporting.
3. Show proportionality in covering controversies.
4. (Show) A little solidarity on behalf of the truth...
5. Don't let non-news organs drive the news cycle.
In each of these areas, he shows how the "new media" are changing the way old media should operate. Newspapers, television and radio aren't disappearing, but they are changing as the competition changes, and understanding how to resist that which reinforces thin, superficial, misleading political reporting, and how to build on reporting that is truly a public service is a challenge for this era.
Getting it wrong . . . getting it right
Matt Drudge is at it again. Trying to build on its success in breaking l'affaire Lewinski during the previous administration, that accumulator of others' stories who fancies himself the reincarnation of Walter Winchell, is pushing the rumor that John Kerry once had an affair with an intern. So far, though, the story has failed to gain any traction other than with the British tabloids.
In a burst of initiative, CSJ's Columbia Spectator tried to track down the rumor and . . . well, here's the story.
Hey, Matt: Better you should seek to emulate Ari Fleicher; that way you needn't tell us anything.
In a burst of initiative, CSJ's Columbia Spectator tried to track down the rumor and . . . well, here's the story.
Hey, Matt: Better you should seek to emulate Ari Fleicher; that way you needn't tell us anything.
This is Roger Scimé, who channels no one but himself, from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
