connecting*the*dots

photo by driki

Minnesota Public Radio
Bill Buzenberg, Sr. Vice-President of News

Public Insight Journalism
Created a database of listeners — Audience Insight Repository — who are willing to give both personal and expertise information. Based on this understanding of who their users are, they can send out requests for specific insight from specific areas of expertise. Now their reporters are smarter, more thorough and deeply connected.

My question: Do they link back to their new found sources? (I followed up with Bill afterwards; he said that some participants would rather be anonymous, while others are given credit over the airwaves. He thought that the idea of linking out to individuals from the website’s transcript or off-shoot article of the broadcast is an idea worth exploring. In leu of a micropayment model for citizen journalism, I think it’s the least structured media can do — expose the source of knowledge, build community and truly work together.)

Terry Heaton, Donata Communication
“You’ll find your next business model within the distruption of this new media, not in the safety of the old.”

Personal Media Over Mass Media

• Media is unbundled at the point of origin and rebundled at the point of consumption.
• Mediated people make their own media.

David Liroff, WGBH Vice President and CTO
“The new rules haven’t been written yet.”

“A global consciousness; all of our institutions, governments, organized life, thrives on the idea that geographical distance prevents interpersonal communication.”

“We’re not going to broadcast our ways out of this one.”

Terry Heaton
Telcos buying legislation to screw you and me

[…]

Meanwhile, there’s a House hearing tomorrow on a new bill that gives the Telcos what they want and will alter the way the internet is used by allowing them to divide bandwidth into a haves and have-nots system. By refusing to spell out net neutrality, this bill gives that authority to, of all people, the FCC and sticks a screw you finger in the eyes of small businesses and entrepreneurs in the U.S.

Declan McCullagh writes for CNet News:

“A November draft of Barton’s (Republican Joe Barton of Texas) bill (click here for PDF) explicitly said broadband providers “may not block, or unreasonably impair or interfere with” Internet access. The final version (PDF), on the other hand, simply gives the Federal Communications Commission the authority to set rules and publish violations.”

Barton released the text of the bill (the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act) Monday and scheduled a hearing for tomorrow. A vote could come as early as next week. Why the hurry? Because that’s the way flimflammery works.

Despite all the nice rhetoric about the Telcos needing to recoup their costs, the reality is that this legislation has been bought and paid for by Telco profits, and the only thing it guarantees is the furtherance of that. Call or email your Representatives and tell them you want net neutrality spelled out in the bill.

If you care about this and other internet freedom issues, I’d advise you to use this as a reason to pop on over to EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and become a member supporter.

UPDATE: Kevin Marks has written a smart post on the Telcos trying to force their obsolete dedicated pipes model on an already supportive network model.

The cluetrain: Doc Searls reporting Terry Heaton essay-ing Gordon Borrell

President Bush has been pumping the "…you are either with us or against us…" rhetoric since his November 6th 2001 news conference regarding the then upcoming war against terrorism. At the time, most Americans felt he was speaking to countries that were either harboring terrorist training camps (Afghanistan) or on the fence in supporting our war planning (Turkey).

Following Bush’s recent Veterans Day speech, it’s apparent he’s speaking to American citizens as well.

To the Bush administration, any dissent—specifically, the pursuit of the potential lies which led us to war in the first place—is unpatriotic. Their perspective is that this “revisionist” talk during war time puts our troops in danger and jeopardizes the mission at hand. Terry Heaton provides a compelling argument against the foundation of this thesis.

With the politics at full rage, enter stage right Senator Chuck Hagel (R - Neb) to provide a level headed perspective:

“To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic,” Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. “America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.”

Hagel should have this perspective on war and dissent.

As a Vietnam War veteran, he put his life in danger for a corrupt cause, while watching his buddies fall and a nation respond with anti-war protests. Now, as a US Senator, he has the ability to balance those experiences with the responsibilities of national security and foreign policy.

My only issue with his perfectly lucid and spot on argument is the timing.

Where was Chuck Hagel the last few years on these topics of war planning, the freedom of speech and political discourse?

This response seems to fit into the age old process of grass roots representation of the people altering the perspective of corporate interests, which in turn affects Congressmen, as their constituency have already begun to turn the corner.

While the corrupt nature of this administration is an absolute disgrace and criminal in the least and most of the GOP is already jumping ship like rats on the Titanic, I think there’s something more to Hagel’s rhetoric.

As a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, Hagel could very easily be distancing himself from a lame duck and unpopular administration. The GOP is losing their grip on Washington as each day passes and the chance that a Republican candidate will return as president in 2008 is becoming extremely slim. So if you’re the Republican Party, what choice do you have other than vulturing the replaceable icon at the top of your own pyramid organization?

If I were running that show, I’d ensure that George Bush continued to “stay the course” with his verbal indiscretions, while setting up top Republican leaders to contradict his perspective.

Smoke and mirrors, folks.

I’m not so cynical to absolutely believe that Chuck Hagel doesn’t believe what he’s saying, but the proof is in the pudding. There’s more than enough free speech and web infrastructure legislation for him to champion. The question is will he step up and take a bi-partisan position, which will undoubtedly challenge the power structure of old school capitalism that prolongs conflicts such as the Iraq war, or will he just drop quotable comments into the ether.

Here’s your shot, Senator. Lead or get out of the way.