Where Will All the Flowers Grow?

I feel that I should preface this post by warning you all that this isn't an informative or politically oriented piece. In fact, ashamedly, it may even qualify as nothing more than a personal rant, but I feel that so many of my counterparts on the Blogosphere as well as Communications Theorists and possibly even Sociologists may back me up on what I'm about to say.

When will the news sites learn to begin synidcating their feeds?
No, I'm not talking about CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News. As any of you who have read my posts before will know, I believe in having as many players in as many markets as possible. The news - or even info - market is no different. I'm talking about the local newspapers, magazines of cities and the journalistic endeavours of smaller communities.

In order to become a better blogger, and a more informed citizen, I've begun to force myself into the habit of using news aggregators. [I've found Active Refresh to be the best one]. But aside from the obvious information overload that pooling and aggregating all the world's info can do, I've almost found it useless and most definitely futile in attempting to aggregate info on anything other than the major headlines dispatched thru the MSM [which I think any news junkie, aka the people using news aggregators right now, would have already seen] and the muddied pools of posts from bloggers like me. [Yes, let's face it. For a good amount of time, we are pretty damned annoying - even to ourselves!] As a New Yorker, or more aptly a Manhattanite, I was certain that my city - often called by many both here and abroad as the capital of the world - with its multiplicity in periodicals would have a majority of them offering an RSS or ATOM syndication to which I could subscribe. Sadly, I found this to not be the case.

Neither the New Yorker nor New York Magazine nor the New York Post nor TimeOut New York have any syndications to offer to the info junkie like me. And what about outside the city, you say? You mean Albany or Buffalo, Syracuse or even Poughkipsie? Fuhgettaboutit!!

I thought syndicationa and news aggregators were supposed to be the future of gathering info on the web. NOBODY has the time to visit and muddle thru all the sites [and the ads] on the web inorder to get a complete scope of what's going on in the world and who's saying what. Was it all just technophilic hype, or am I and others simply ahead of the curve?

The idea behind aggregators - being able to sample your pool in the web, pull it all back home, and at a glance and for a few seconds know it all - I've always found to be not only appealing but also inspiring. Allowing for the current mulitiplicity of information to continue in a more productive, efficient, and even economic way.

How can the seeds of future knowledge be planted without streams of syndication.
Where will all these flowers grow?
Long time passing, when will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As always, I'm not claiming to know it all about the topics in this post. If anyone has any insight into any of the matters covered here, I'd greatly appreciate your comments. I'm looking to learn and grow, not bitch and moan.

Maybe Rummy's Not So Dumb?

Ok, so I know I'm gonna get a lot of slack from my liberal friends for posting this, but I just read this and found it to be rather interesting. I don't want to open the whole Iraq can of worms, but I think this either suggests a.)Rumsfeld has repeatedly pejured himself, or b.)maybe Rummy isn't the one who fucked up the Iraq plans from the git-go.

U.S. military forces can best be used when the military mision is clear and achievable and when there is a reasonable exit strategy . . . When the main burden of the U.S. presence shifts to infrastructure and naiton builiding . . . we are into missions that are not appropriate.
- Donald Rumsfeld, January 2001 Senate Confirmation Hearings

What's In a Name?

Ever since I started studying, and later participating, in journalism & other communications I've had this suspicious feeling that the advent of blogging would lead to a creative destruction in the communications arena. Don't worry, I'm not an evangel of the market like so many of my GOP counterparts, but those of us in this arena need to face a simple fact. There's no oversight or regulation in this profession, thus subjecting us to more pure market forces. Don't think of this market in terms of many, but rather in terms of the varying qualities of information offered from the Grey Old Lady at the top down to the Lowly Underlings like me.

Right now, the market is doing what markets do -- sifting itself out. This gives us the status quo right now, "easy entry and access" translates into a veritable information chaos. This chaos is both good and bad, and probably results in more information being in the info-market than there would otherwise be. The thing of it is, I'm not really all that sure if legally classifying or otherwise licensing "journalists" would be a bad thing or detrimental to this benevolent chaos. There's been many a time when I've thought that the profession was in need of a more agreed upon set of standards, practices, and ethics; though admittedly, I've looked only at the more reform, progressive angles of that than the limiting standards that more likely would be applied.
What do you all think?

The story below is what provoked these thoughts from me. Of course I believe that all sources should have the safety of protection, but I wonder if leaving bloggers out of the loop could cause a backlash. Or is the blogosphere more like a butterfly market -- once touched it never gets up off the ground again.

Seriously, get back to me on this. I want input, please : - )

Shield Law Sponsor: Bloggers 'Probably Not' Considered Journos By Mark Fitzgerald Published: October 10, 2005 4:17 PM ET INDIANAPOLISBloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists under the proposed federal shield law, the bill's co-sponsor, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), told the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) Monday afternoon. Lugar emphasized, however, that debate is not yet closed on how to define a journalist under the proposed law. "As to who is a reporter, this will be a subject of debate as this bill goes farther along," he said in response to a question from Washington Post Deputy Managing Editor Milton Coleman. "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?" According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity." A key reason some journalists oppose the popular federal shield proposal is fear that giving Congress the power to define who is and isn't a journalist could lead effectively to the licensing of journalists. In other remarks about the legislation at IAPA's 61st General Assembly, Lugar acknowledged that the legislation could amount to a "privilege" for reporters over other Americans. "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." Lugar said he was inspired to write the legislation by the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. "I've known Judy Miller for many years," he said, adding that they became close when she was reporting on his efforts to dismantle the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. The bill is necessary to help the United States regain its status as an "exemplar" of press freedom, Lugar told the IAPA. "Even as we are advocating for free press (abroad)... we'd better clean up our own act," Lugar said. Mark Fitzgerald (mfitzgerald@editorandpublisher.com) is E&P's editor-at-large.

Find this article here

I Love Bennett

I'll spare everyone from my usual Bennett schpiel this time. Thought this was rather apt, though beyond that I'm not honestly sure what I think of it. Perhaps that's why it's so on, instead of off, since I seldom really know how I feel, think about security issues anymore . . .

Al Gore on the State of the Media

The People's President, Al Gore, delivered a stirring and thoughtful speech to the "We Media" conference in New York on October 5, 2005. The conference is a gathering of media industry figures, and focuses on innovative methods of presenting information. Gore's speech was a stunning idictment of the current state of the media in the United States, and he pulled no punches when talking about the Bush Administration's manipulation of the media. This is a different Al Gore than we saw in 2000 -- I think he's building up for an '08 Presidential run. Like Churchill, he's had his "wilderness years," and like Churchill, he could be the very leader we need in our time of crisis.

Gore began his speech by asking the audience, "I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered 'an alternate universe'," and to me, that sums up the past five years quite nicely. Gore then talks about a subject that I think is one of the most vital in our public discourse today: the blurring of news and entertainment. This blurring has led to many Americans believing in things that just aren't true.

From Gore's speech:

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Instead of these celebrity obsessions, Gore asks why there wasn't more of a national discussion on such things as the prison torture scandals and indeed the Iraq war as a whole. "Why is apathy and lethargy increasing" Gore asks, and it's a question we should be pondering daily.

Gore argues that since television is a one-way discussion, owned by only a few corporate interests, that freedom of speech and the press is being repressed. He quotes a study that calls the US press only the 27th most free in the world. This is a frightening fact for this country, a place which prides itself on its freedoms.

Gore calls for a better national discussion and a move away from 30-second commercials and sound bite sloganeering. He lauds the internet as a vital and growing new medium, but cautions that television is and will remain the number one information source for most people around the world.

Gore is a man who saw the media turn on him in 2000, with insane amounts of air time being wasted on inane stories about what kind of clothes he was wearing, asinine out-of-context quotes like the "invented the internet" story, and superficial observations such as how many times he sighed in a debate. In a country where many Americans pick their President based on who they'd rather sit down and have a beer with, a vision like Gore's is very important.

Gore concludes by saying that he is worried about the state of our democracy. Given the Bush administration's media tactics -- buying reporters, producing fake news stories, giving White House press passes to guys like Gannon -- I'm inclined to agree with him. The transcript is well worth a read, but I recommend listening to the speech as well. It will be well worth your time.

Cheers.

Seeing Them as Horses

I heard that Mark Green only has 2 people working on his campaign. I thought that was funny.

Though it figures . . . perhaps people are finally taking my advice [though not likely from me] that politicians should be viewed as horses at a track. Don't bet on the old one that's lost several times before -- you bet on the stallion that has all the qualities to take it all to the next level.

Watch and Green will pull another book out of his ass in 6 months just for a publicity orgasm and renewed money/faith, esp. if he's out of the latter two by then.

I Think Ted Rall Finally Gets It