connecting*the*dots

Check out this video segment of a former Navy Seal turned independent journalist, Kaj Larsen, out in Afghanistan, tracing the footsteps of Osama bin Laden’s last know location: the caves of Tora Bora.

If MTV hit big due to the early adoption of cable TV, Al Gore’s Current TV is on the verge of hitting big because of the aligned stars of political backing, the philosophical and tangible aspects of open source, broadband access and the passionate content contributions of everyday citizens. The result is unbundled media, monetized to empower both the individual contributor and entrepreneurial business minds, while capturing the hearts and minds of home viewers currently pacified in their modernist couch potato, veal pens.

Apparently, the revolution will be televised…

I don’t often use these guys as an example of great journalism, but this Hardball segment is on point. They convincingly expose Dick Cheney’s lies regarding the tie between one of the primary 9/11 terrorists and Iraq.

The entire piece screams conspiracy to sell and then launch an illegal war.

Of course, this leaves me with a few questions:

• Who holds these men and woman accountable to such contradictions and lies? Congress? Another special prosecutor?
• Do we have to wait until there’s a Democratic administration in office before an investigation is launched?
• Is Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation expanding?

If it’s proven that this unethical administration schemed to launch an illegal war by knowingly using false evidence — a war which has already killed tens of thousands of people — I want justice.

And no, my sense of justice would not equate with a misdemeanor.

Indy films definitely hit a substantial delay in finding their way to my new home in Greensboro, NC, so after a month or so of waiting, I finally had a chance to see Good Night, And Good Luck this past weekend.

Classic.

Heading into the film, I had already regarded Edward R. Murrow a warrior for exposing the truth and championing the rights of the common man and woman, but if GNAGL enlightened me to anything it was to his absolute dedication to a pure journalistic method and a deeply, refined and realistic business acumen.

The Prototypical Newsman

With his classic, stoic, "just the facts ma’am" delivery, Murrow captivated his audience. He came across as an authority figure to the less media savvy audience of the 1950’s, but he also played the role of friend and confidant in the daily struggle to keep on keeping on. Murrow knew very well that if he didn’t consistently frame the paradoxes and contradictions of reality (in this case, Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt), he’d be fair game for criticism and his career would head south quicker than a goose caught up in an October jet stream. That recognition of ethical behavior and accountability was too refreshing to view on film, because in our modern day, mass media world, those self-applied standards of journalistic integrity have all but flown the coop.

Understanding Power

If the film was even close to truly representing the relationship between Murrow and William Paley (the head of CBS), they provided an amazing service by exposing the foundation which drives decisions within the media ecosystem: advertising.

While Murrow bartered with Paley at every turn in order to continue exposing the world around him, Paley seemed forever caught between a rock and a hard place; he needed to keep Murrow happy with his role at CBS by providing the latitude necessary to fuel his journalistic passion while somehow balancing the finicky palette of his paid advertisers. The character development of Paley was rich and multidimensional, as I truly felt his angst in the midst of his paradoxical role within such a Darwinesque ecosystem.

And to see Edward R. Murrow, champion of the people, interviewing Liberace, well, it spoke volumes about the character of the man. He didn’t play the role of prima donna, refusing to lower his standards to run chatty interviews. He didn’t use an agent to threaten litigation. He recognized his role in adding value to the network by spreading his good name across programming that would return a dollar for Paley and the executive team. Though, the look on his face while he ran a fluff interview reminded me of a look and a feeling I’ve seen and heard hundreds of times over.

Modern Day Murrows

The majority of present day citizen journalists—Murrow molded bloggers—have day jobs. We design websites, write code, run businesses, multi-task like madmen, etc. Do we all wish we could blog for a living? I’d venture to say that most of us would say yes, as long as we wouldn’t have a strict editorial edict with advertising pressures. You see, we’re a bit spoiled like that.

Murrow had to navigate closed, controlled environments with a high degree of grace in order to shed light through one window of opportunity, one night a week. Bloggers? Well, we’ve become accustom to firing from the hip, espousing our opinions, perspectives and, yes, researched journalism on a intra-day basis, with no editor or advertising revenues to be concerned with. Has this new paradigm created irresponsible reporting? No more than the closed venue of the mainstream media. The difference is that we’re now empowered to network common visions and dreams, driving the potential of a new day into an actual sunrise, and the power of that freedom is upsetting the status quo.

Corporate media and industries are absolutely petrified by the potential of ordinary people gaining broadcast reach. And as much as I plan on assisting corporate America through this transition into the fast track of iterative development and customer accountability, until they can recognize that everything has changed and that we, the people, are now empowered, I won’t lose one wink of sleep over their concerns.

Can There Be Flat Hierarchy?

It’s true that if it weren’t for the relentless corporate push to rapidly develop and monetize the web in the mid-90’s, blogging technology might not have come about as quickly. Just as true was that VC investment in the potential of the web greatly contributed to the explosion of the infrastructure of information retrieval — collaborative filtering, search algorithms and now folksonomies.

So yes, we are all in this together. The talent needs the funding, but not as much as the funding needs the talent. Remember the last time we danced to this tune: capitalist power players funded the development of the internet on the shoulders of false stickiness, returning large dividends of ad revenue while the innovators focused on innovation. Many of those same capitalists continued to overinvest by underwriting ridiculous IPO’s until the bubble burst. Was it coincidence that a majority of them could reinvest in the internet at a basement entry price, while the talent scrambled about just to retain paid gigs?

Now the power players are scrambling to monetize our blood, sweat and tears at every turn, on every feed, on every page, while we continue to blaze paths two steps ahead of them with our eyes focused on the greater good. We’ll keep doing our thing, they’ll keep doing theirs.

In the end, what else can we say to them but “Good Night, and Good Luck?”

I’m not concerned with the debate over pedigree and process. Anyone too caught up in that discussion isn’t seeing the forest through the trees. What I’m asking is whether or not bloggers rights should be covered as journalists in the  Free Flow of Information Act of 2005.

The way I see it, once you strip away the editorial and advertising structure that relegates a journalist to either a story or the conviction found within, the only difference between a journalist and a blogger is that the former can lose his/her audience or be fired based on poor/erroneous reporting, where the latter can only lose his/her audience.

That one difference is huge in the conversation of controlling the “free flow of information.”

My POV is from a journalistic or op-ed perspective, disseminating topical information and perspective without peddling a product in my content on even the most subtlest of degrees. So after reading the first draft of the act, and especially the perspective of Senator Richard Lugar (R - Ind), it seems as though the conversation is being held within the parameters of a business conversation, focused on the issues of veiled product peddling. Here’s one quote from Lugar:

Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?

This is a healthy debate, but primarily focused on the “business side of blogging.” I’m sorry, but this quote rings of code words to me. The messy and potentially polarizing part of this issue would be debating the right of individuals to become a part of a revenue stream while not being controlled by an editorial presence.

Why is that messy?

Well, quite frankly, blogs represent a revolutionary change to the current forum of public debate, political discourse, and all types of commentary that the mainstream media provides, at cost, for sector, industry and entertainment products. Those “closed” arenas all have price tags and salaries attributed to them, blogs don’t. The longer the power structure doesn’t mention this explicitly in public, rest assured, the more you can be sure that it’s a disconcerting issue for them. Read this other quote from Lugar:

“I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press,” he said. “At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail.”

Call me paranoid, but I read that as “we’re going after those rumor spreading bloggers,” not as “we’re going to protect free speech.”

Politicians and/or corporate executives obviously feel more comfortable when an organization provides the over-the-shoulder breathing and editorial direction to ensure credibility. Apparently, letting people choose to believe what they want to believe only works when the words come from salaried reporters, pundits and entertainers.

So how is it that other types of independent voices, such as Rush Limbaugh (who, like bloggers, owns his own network and syndicates himself into the ether) seems to be able to produce whatever “facts” he damn well pleases.

What’s the difference between the two? That was a rhetorical question, but I’d be interested in your opinions.

The debate is well under way, with Ken Fisher asking some important questions over at Ars Technica, while Stephen Newton, a PR consultant, presents his perspective on marketing blogging.

What do you think about the future of blogging?

Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly invited two guests onto his program to whine about being held accountable by watchdog web sites for the things he says on-air. Number one on his “smear list” is Media Matters for America.

Personally speaking, I couldn’t have been more delighted.

You see, I’m in the midst of finishing up my part as the information architect on the next version of the mediamatters.org web site. When the site launches, it’ll be even easier for Joe Q. Public to provide media misinformation tips to the Media Matters analysts. The information retrieval system will be advanced as well, improving direct navigation and contextual browsing to topical items of interest. All in all, it’ll be a more educational, interactive and intuitive user experience.

Media Matters for America has a noble charge; to frame conservative misinformation as it occurs within any aspect of the American media ecosystem. Bill O’Reilly should be scared… as should Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and the entire mainstream media establishment. Media Matters is not about smearing, they’re about accountability.

If you don’t report the facts, Media Matters will point you out.
If you present a racist or immoral opinion, Media Matters will expose you.

The American press is supposed to operate out of principles of integrity and ethics, serving as the fourth estate, the public check and balance of government. That isn’t happening, as the media ecosystem has turned for the worse, pimping information for advertising dollars. So Media Matters, and thousands of blogs, now have a role in contextualizing the reported news, providing perspective and keeping the paid professionals in check.

If the American news machine actually cared more about exposing the truth of a story, and not constructing their format around an advertising model — placing a burden on editors to choose between the news and fact checked news — Media Matters wouldn’t exist.

So put on your seatbelt, Billy Boy. If you don’t stop spewing misinformation from a projected position of news, your rough ride is going to continue to get worse.

UPDATE: It turns out that O’Reilly and his producer goons baited David Kline to come on to discuss political blogging in general, and then switched format midstream to whine about Media Matters. Typical O’Reilly. Well, I’m sure Media Matters will thank him for the unpaid advertising. I would’ve thought that FOX learned their Marketing 101 lesson after hitting Al Franken up with a lawsuit. I guess not.

About a month ago, the Economist published an article about Yahoo!’s schizophrenic nature as a company. Yahoo!’s history as an Internet pioneer moved me to christen them as a change agent for Web 2.0 — the complete opposite of the flaky AOLish operation.

Well, those wacky Yahooligans are off their meds again. God bless ‘em.

In a few weeks, Yahoo! plans on releasing In the Hot Zone, a first person, solo journalism (SoJo) effort by Kevin Sites, who’ll cover the most war torn areas of the globe; areas which receive little to no mainstream coverage in the US. Here’s a taste of the Yahoo! approach:

Our Principles:

We will be aggressive in pursuing the stories that are not getting mainstream coverage and we will put a human face on them. We will not chase headlines nor adhere to pack journalism but vigorously pursue the stories in front of and behind the conflict, the small stories that when strung together illustrate a more complete picture.

We are professional journalists and will apply to our work the ethical code of conduct as outlined by the Society of Professional Journalists:

• To seek and report the truth.
• To minimize harm.
• To act independently.
• To be accountable.

We strongly believe, as stated in the preamble of this code, "that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy."

We also will add four more criteria to our work that will take us above the journalistic code. We also pledge in our reporting and storytelling:

Transparency
An honest and authentic accounting of both our failure and successes, to pull back the curtain on our editorial and technological process. We refuse to propagate the myths of the omniscient, infallible correspondent.

Vulnerability
We will strive to live, breathe, and experience the lives of the people we are covering — including the daily dangers they’re exposed to from combat, disease, and hardship.

Empathy
We may not always agree with our sources, but we will make every effort to understand their positions and report them with clarity, so that our audience may have context and perspective.

Solutions
Our site will contain links to organizations and groups that are working to aid victims of these conflicts and assist in their peaceful resolutions.

Will Yahoo! succeed in this venture? I don’t know, but it really doesn’t matter, because by just making this announcement, Yahoo! has already set the tone for alternative news reporting in a mainstream format (the far reaching walls of the Yahoo! membership and reach).

Even if they fail in the tactical attempt based on any number of conflicts (remember the Chinese reporter incident?) more sites will undoubtedly take on the challenge and pick up the baton running. A change agent, when all is said and done, is about the change. Steering change through it’s evolutionary course isn’t necessary the goal.

Yahoo! is leading at the point where Web 2.0 crosses over into the real. Sweet.

UPDATE: Current TV anyone?

(originally uploaded by Antifluff Superstar)

While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment from the left blogosphere, nothing that the Bush administration has done (or not done) surprises me.

Why?

Because a large percentage of the American public will continue to allow themselves to fall into the trappings of the Bush administration’s lies, no matter the dark alley we are led to.

It’s called fear.

And even though Bush’s overall approval ratings are unbelievably low, his hardcore support continues to be there in force for one simple, but powerful, reason:

The wealthy and powerful stick with the wealthy and powerful to keep and create more wealth and power.

Only when it is not in their best interests will they act otherwise.

These strategic relationships — private industry to public service and back — provide vast resources and networks in keeping the masses in consume and desire mode, while providing each other the cover of a shared vocabulary to continuously spin themselves clear of criticism.

And when I say consume, I don’t necessarily mean eating drug-laced poultry or purchasing unnecessary material products.

This administration has perfected the consumption of propaganda regarding what it means to be an American — or more precisely — they’ve generated clear symptoms of an anti-American as any person who dissents from the party line.

Back To The Future State

Towards the end of the Athenian Empire, Socrates was sentenced to death because he had the bad habit of questioning his surroundings. He was viewed as dangerous, particularly because of his ability to influence the youth of his time.

So he was offed with a swig of hemlock.

Thankfully, we’ve evolved as a society to where outspoken voices such as Noam Chomsky can debate the origin and potential results of foreign policy, while question the motives of all parties involved without the possibility of being put to death by the rulers of our times.

Dissent forms priceless threads of discourse that are necessary to continuously evolve a moral Republic.

But there are other ways to silence a person in this modern age.

Chomsky is a rock star overseas for his political essays and speeches, but he can barely get an interview from the mainstream American media. So without sentencing good ol’ Noam to death, the collective will of the US media — with editors focused on advertising dollars and corporate sponsorship — has created a passive method of forcing hemlock upon our independent minds.

So, how does this tie back to our government?

The very freedoms and rights that our soldiers are fighting to protect have already begun deteriorating through conglomerate ownership of conglomerate media empires.

Unless voices with challenging perspectives are able to creep into the media conversation and the periphery of the average American, middle-America will continue to be ripe for rallying support by the serial spinners of big business and government.

Unless this administration is held accountable to the illegal war and domestic messes they’ve birthed, I can’t envision where this degradation of our moral fiber will end.

It’s almost as if each move the Bush administration makes that concludes without legal or mass public recourse, they consciously create an even greater climate of fear and mistrust within our own society to further propagate their unimpeded actions.

Moving Forward

So, how can we each work towards breaking this unnatural ecosystem of immorality as a nation — breaking through the spin climate of Karl Rove and President Bush’s managementof “global extremism?”

• Either turn off your TV or remain an active participant with critical, deconstruction of the media
• Use the web to find and connect with real people that share your perspectives
• Meet and share ideas off-line, in the real (leave the web for connections and community discourse)
• Influence non-political citizens to become involved in making a difference
• Most importantly: Walk your talk in the daily choices you make in your own life

/soapbox

Newsweek and Technorati are in bed together and I’m really hoping it isn’t a monogamous relationship.

I’m not sure when this started, but Newsweek is now citing "Blog Talk," creating a contextual column from the Newsweek article page (first image, click for larger image) that links to a full Blog Talk page (second image) which presents the last 10 blogs posts that have linked to the Newsweek article. This is being done automatically, sans any editorial review.

I’m currently working on a project for which I presented this exact context scenario for our blogger design persona. I couldn’t believe the serendipity. So to ensure the API and execution would support our needs, I ran a quick test and posted a response to the "I’m So Sorry" article, linking back to the story URL. Within 10 minutes of pinging Technorati, my post appeared on the Newsweek page. Okay, that’s very progressive. Sure, it’s only a glorified trackback system, but the underlying philosophy has huge implications.

We’re quickly moving to a sustainable model for presenting the individual perspective on the same level as mainstream media’s editorial-driven journalism. It’s a win-win; a site like Newsweek gets an increased blogger readership and bloggers have the opportunity to share their perspectives with people that tend to stay away from the scattered blogosphere.

From my perspective, this is the first step to truly legitimizing the blogosphere. What’s next? Well, if Google, Yahoo! and other mainstream news aggregators began to index blogs for their search queries, we’d be one step closer to breaking through the mainstream media stranglehold on information for the average American that receives their news on-line. All of this is what the promise of Community TV was supposed to provide twenty years ago, but ran into the obvious production challenges.

This is really good. It’s good for business, good for bloggers, and most importantly, good for bubbling the truth of a story to the surface. This is discourse.

Finally, a voice without an AP or Reuters feed behind it.

Finally, journalism which tells the story without editorial pressure to take advertising into account.

Finally, someone using TV as a weapon against… TV!

Well, it hasn’t come to fruition just yet, but Independent World Television (IWT) is starting to get legs. I’m really hopeful for their efforts (especially after watching their promotional video). If they’re successful in establishing a broadcast channel in enough places around the globe, this would be, unquestionably, the most important addition to the media landscape in years.

If you build it, they will come.

It was around 1989 that I read Six Days of the Condor — a perfect story for an 18 year-old, chock full of deceit, murder, paranoia, sex, intrigue, spies. For some reason — possibly my attention span at the time — the end of the book threw me for a loop. So tonight, I kicked back with my Netflix choice of the week and watched the film adaptation: Three Days of the Condor.

Three words: Rent. it. now.

It was made 28 years ago, yet the plot line has come to life in eerie fashion over the last few years. I don’t want to ruin the movie for you, so if you are going to rent it, don’t read on.

Condor (played by Robert Redford) is a spy, and per chance, misses a hit on his office that leaves the entire office of seven dead. After some brilliant screenwriting, we come to find out that one of his previous reports, sent off to Langley as usual, hit a nerve within a secret faction of the CIA that just happened to be playing war games concerning the overthrow of an unstable regime in the Middle East in order to gain control of oil reserves.

Sure, the US has been meddling with numerous foreign spots over the past 50 years to keep a stranglehold on power, but shivers the size of nine inch nails traveled down my spine just the same.

The rogue CIA unit ordered the execution of the entire office after reading Condor’s spot-on investigative report, so he does the only thing he can and goes on the run to plan his next step. After outwitting numerous suits over the course of the film, he ends up confronting the CIA Director directly in front of the New York Times office in Manhattan.

After a quick verbal sparring over the morality of what our government was doing, Condor tells the Director that the story is out and the Times will be publishing it all. The film ends with the CIA Director asking Condor,

“What if they don’t print it, then where will you go?”

Redford’s face drops a bit as the last frame freezes on him.

Does Our Press Get Squeezed?

Forget the uncanny plot line that syncs up with the recent activity in Iraq (and the wild coincidence of the main NYC CIA office being in the WTC) all together. It’s eerie to see this on film, but I’m more interested with the final jab.

I often wonder how free our press really is. Our government has indoctrinated us to speak so harshly against media practices around the world, especially during the eighties and in the midst the cold war (when I was an impressionable teenager). The old “look, over there!” trick has done the trick to build a sycophantic capitalist society of productive worker bees.

Here’s something to ponder: Did you know that congress is on the verge of passing unprecedented legislation, allowing media entities to merge with minimal limitations? Can you imagine what this could mean in an Orwellian novel? Or in this capitalist society where an individual, like Bill Gates, has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined?

Less and less competitive news media = a singular perspective.

• Advertising revenue begins to drive editorial premise and journalistic objectivity.
• Agendas are set and met.
• A top down, targeted media push (via news, marketing, advertising, programming, etc.) becomes the mainstay of communication operations.

Our society has evolved from watching the news on TV at 6 and 11 (1970’s) to digesting news 24 hours a day on TV, radio, and the internet (1990’s) to having access to thousands of individual perspectives blasting on blogs (present). So with all of this newfound access we should feel both informed and empowered, right?

To quote Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, “That’s what they want us to think.”

For even the most advanced netizen, information technology is still a hindrance when trying to decipher noise from news, and fiction from fact. Simple to use, individually operated publishing channels are now available to the masses through blogging, but the reach to the majority is minimal at best as they’re presented in a non-digestible ecosystem.

I can easily imagine the power structure in this country thinking:

Let the kids play with their toys — be it bloggers broadcasting opinions based on theory or fact — no one will be able to tell the difference. No one will ever connect the dots even if they do find “truth.” The sheer amount of posts and opinions projected outwards will make all opinions null and void.

Our organized, top-down messaging is so strong via advertising, marketing, media, etc., that the bottom-up representation of the people will become lost in the noise of the the mainstream media, as well as in it’s own scattered presentation.

We’ll then use their information as data to feed our strategic messaging.

Americans have turned into thought veal over the past twenty-years. We’ve been tenderized perfectly to be devoured oh-so-nicely in an economic system that is set up to succeed only if the masses over-consume everything from food to entertainment to material goods to political punditry.

This is the boogie man that lives under my bed. I step on his throat when getting up each morning.