Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
I received this email from a OneWebDay Volunteer. Sounds like a good idea...
------------------------
Dear friends of OneWebDay,
We need you to vote for OWD's proposal <http://tinyurl.com/owd-idea> at
Change.org!
Joshua Levy at Change.org (NOT change.gov, fyi) contacted Susan and the OWD
Board to partner with his project "Ideas for Change in America project."
The project is a citizen-driven effort to identify the best ideas to effect
the change the Obama Administration has promised.
Here's how the competition works: anyone can go to www.change.org/ideas and
submit a policy idea, discuss with others, and vote on the best ideas from
around the country. Just before Inauguration Day, change.org will host an
event in Washington, DC and hand-deliver the top 10 rated ideas to a
representative of the Obama Administration. They'll then mobilize the
collective energy of the millions of people on Change.org, MySpace, and
partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full
consideration of the administration and the 111th Congress.
We identified several ideas that we thought resonate with OWD values, and we
even added our own, "Recognize OneWebDay as National Day to Celebrate and
Promote the Social Benefits of the Web." We hope you will sign up and vote
for our idea, check out the other great ideas we found, and maybe post some
of your own ideas. And, please, help us spread the word!
What you can do:
* Sign up at https://www.change.org/admin/sign_up. If you already have
a change.org account, skip to the next step
* Vote for the OWD submission at <http://tinyurl.com/owd-idea>.
* Also take a look at these great ideas and vote for them if you like
them
o Interactive Government -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/interactive_government
o Support Network Neutrality Legislation -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/support_network_neutrality_legislation
o Support the Free Software Movement -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/support_the_free_software_movement
o Create a National Broadband Network -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/create_a_national_broadband_network
o APIs for Federal Services -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/require_the_production_of_apis_for_federal_services
o As you forward this along, please feel free to add ideas you
like
* Spread the word! Forward this message along to your friends,
colleagues, and any lists where you think people will appreciate the
invitation to participate.
The leadership team at OWD is hard at work crafting the plan for OWD 2009,
and we hope you plan to be involved.
Best,
Matt Cooperrider
------------------------
Dear friends of OneWebDay,
We need you to vote for OWD's proposal <http://tinyurl.com/owd-idea> at
Change.org!
Joshua Levy at Change.org (NOT change.gov, fyi) contacted Susan and the OWD
Board to partner with his project "Ideas for Change in America project."
The project is a citizen-driven effort to identify the best ideas to effect
the change the Obama Administration has promised.
Here's how the competition works: anyone can go to www.change.org/ideas and
submit a policy idea, discuss with others, and vote on the best ideas from
around the country. Just before Inauguration Day, change.org will host an
event in Washington, DC and hand-deliver the top 10 rated ideas to a
representative of the Obama Administration. They'll then mobilize the
collective energy of the millions of people on Change.org, MySpace, and
partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full
consideration of the administration and the 111th Congress.
We identified several ideas that we thought resonate with OWD values, and we
even added our own, "Recognize OneWebDay as National Day to Celebrate and
Promote the Social Benefits of the Web." We hope you will sign up and vote
for our idea, check out the other great ideas we found, and maybe post some
of your own ideas. And, please, help us spread the word!
What you can do:
* Sign up at https://www.change.org/admin/sign_up. If you already have
a change.org account, skip to the next step
* Vote for the OWD submission at <http://tinyurl.com/owd-idea>.
* Also take a look at these great ideas and vote for them if you like
them
o Interactive Government -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/interactive_government
o Support Network Neutrality Legislation -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/support_network_neutrality_legislation
o Support the Free Software Movement -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/support_the_free_software_movement
o Create a National Broadband Network -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/create_a_national_broadband_network
o APIs for Federal Services -
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/require_the_production_of_apis_for_federal_services
o As you forward this along, please feel free to add ideas you
like
* Spread the word! Forward this message along to your friends,
colleagues, and any lists where you think people will appreciate the
invitation to participate.
The leadership team at OWD is hard at work crafting the plan for OWD 2009,
and we hope you plan to be involved.
Best,
Matt Cooperrider
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Help us Make History: 10 Full Days before the OneWebDay e-Democracy Time Capsule Closes!
OneWebDay is September 22, and you can get involved!
OneWebDay (OWD) is a global event, like an Earth Day for the Internet. It is a platform people can use to educate and activate others about issues that are important for the Internet's future. As OWD grows, it will build a global constituency that will work to protect and develop the benefits that the Internet brings to society. Every year, OWD focuses on a key Internet value. In light of this year's historic US election and the rise of a new online "public square" all over the world, we are focusing on online political participation.
To mark the third OWD in Washington, DC, the DC OWD planning committee launched the e-Democracy Time Capsule in beta on August 22. It is now ready for the public. Check it out by visiting timecapsule.onewebday.org
Anyone across the country and the world can contribute by adding text, images, and video that celebrates e-Democracy to an open blog. We invite you to add the following entries:
Best of the e-Democracy Web: Your favorite tools, citizen journalist site, etc. What empowers you to act online?
e-Democracy heroes: Brag about your friends and colleagues- who is behind the best political technology, content, and critical policy fights today?
Legislation and Policy: What are the issues we face in delivering the best possible future for e-Democracy?
Letters to the future: How do you see the e-Democracy Web growing (or failing) in the future?
We have 10 full days to pack the Time Capsule with the great content YOU submit. Go to http://timecapsule.onewebday.org/how-to-contribute/ to help us make history. If you've already blogged about these issues, please cross post at the Time Capsule. And don't forget to brag about your contribution to your friends on your blog, link over to the Time Capsule, and help us spread the word before OWD!
On One Web Day, September 22, we will hold a closing ceremony for the Time Capsule at the New America Foundation. Stay tuned for details.
Why a Time Capsule? Both politics and technology move so fast, sometimes we forget to recognize that these new tools and the people who use them have opened a brand new chapter in the big social experiment we call "democracy." We built a central hub to gather and document all of the amazing things that people are doing online to participate politically. Furthermore, the Internet of the future may be very different than the one we know today. As Internet gatekeepers strive to put fences around our new public squares, we will work in the coming weeks and months to find historians and archivists to help us create a physical, non-digital version of the Time Capsule that can be shared, studied, and used for discussion and debate for generations to come.
We hope you will join us in documenting the progress we have made in empower people online and in building a future that delivers on the fuller potential of the e-Democracy Web!
Visit timecapsule.onewebday.org
Cheers,
The DC OWD Planning Committee
OneWebDay (OWD) is a global event, like an Earth Day for the Internet. It is a platform people can use to educate and activate others about issues that are important for the Internet's future. As OWD grows, it will build a global constituency that will work to protect and develop the benefits that the Internet brings to society. Every year, OWD focuses on a key Internet value. In light of this year's historic US election and the rise of a new online "public square" all over the world, we are focusing on online political participation.
To mark the third OWD in Washington, DC, the DC OWD planning committee launched the e-Democracy Time Capsule in beta on August 22. It is now ready for the public. Check it out by visiting timecapsule.onewebday.org
Anyone across the country and the world can contribute by adding text, images, and video that celebrates e-Democracy to an open blog. We invite you to add the following entries:
Best of the e-Democracy Web: Your favorite tools, citizen journalist site, etc. What empowers you to act online?
e-Democracy heroes: Brag about your friends and colleagues- who is behind the best political technology, content, and critical policy fights today?
Legislation and Policy: What are the issues we face in delivering the best possible future for e-Democracy?
Letters to the future: How do you see the e-Democracy Web growing (or failing) in the future?
We have 10 full days to pack the Time Capsule with the great content YOU submit. Go to http://timecapsule.onewebday.
On One Web Day, September 22, we will hold a closing ceremony for the Time Capsule at the New America Foundation. Stay tuned for details.
Why a Time Capsule? Both politics and technology move so fast, sometimes we forget to recognize that these new tools and the people who use them have opened a brand new chapter in the big social experiment we call "democracy." We built a central hub to gather and document all of the amazing things that people are doing online to participate politically. Furthermore, the Internet of the future may be very different than the one we know today. As Internet gatekeepers strive to put fences around our new public squares, we will work in the coming weeks and months to find historians and archivists to help us create a physical, non-digital version of the Time Capsule that can be shared, studied, and used for discussion and debate for generations to come.
We hope you will join us in documenting the progress we have made in empower people online and in building a future that delivers on the fuller potential of the e-Democracy Web!
Visit timecapsule.onewebday.org
Cheers,
The DC OWD Planning Committee
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Celebrating Independence and Interdependence on the Web
Over this Independence Day weekend, I spent some time thinking about what we celebrate every July 4th. Obviously, there are the historic events of a nation state founded in rebellion against monarchical authority and a revolutionary document declaring independence from that authority. As we gathered with our family and our friends to gaze at a sky made brilliant by fire and sulfur, did we stop to consider the state of independence today? Is independence simply a legacy inherited from our long departed founders? I think not. If our history tells us anything, it is that our independence, rights, and liberties are never complete; they are always the fruit of long struggles, both personal and collective. What contemporary authorities must we challenge today as we work for a better world tomorrow? And what, today, deserves our celebration as we honor the spirit of independence?
According to Merriam Webster:
in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing...
One space where individuals and communities can experience the challenges and opportunities of independent self-governance is the World Wide Web. As outlined in the Future of Music Manifesto, digital technologies and the web have created a space for musicians and their audiences to connect�, independent of the large music industry conglomerates that had previously dictated the terms of the music market for both creators and fans. It has turned the profession and industry of journalism upside down, while opening new territory for citizen journalists and independent media. From the pioneering grassroots journalists in the global Independent Media Center network, to the contemporary global political blogosphere curated by Global Voices, people are learning that they can do more than consume media messages produced by large and remote corporations - they can declare their independence and be the media. Using the Web, people connect to each other and create innovate ways to tell the stories that matter most to them.
On July 4th, we celebrate the independence of the US. On September 22, One Web Day gives us a chance to celebrate how the Web to empowers individuals and communities to claim ever more independence and liberty. It will be celebrated in cities and towns all over the world.
The idea of celebrating "the Web" might sound, at first, a bit too abstract. What are we celebrating? Web pages, links, lolcats? Is it about the servers, routers, and technical protocols that push electronic bits around the globe? These things have a lot to do with "the Web," but ultimately, they are the means, not the end. By bringing people together in celebration, One Web Day shows us the human face of the Web. For a spider, the power of a web is not in the strands of silk, but in their intricate interconnectedness. For our increasingly global society, the same is true of the Web: its power lies in the connections it builds between people, the linking of stories and voices and human relationships. It is about the flip-side of independence, which I believe is interdependence, for we can never face the power of illegitimate authority alone. To the degree that the Web strengthens our interdependence and our ability to struggle for independence, I think that's something worth celebrating.
As we prepare to celebrate One Web Day, let us also take the time to ask what authorities would stifle the liberating potential of the Web. As One Web Day founder, Susan Crawford, has tirelessly argued, there are any number of Internet gatekeepers who would quell the rising tide of independence and freedom on the Web. Just as our founders questioned the political and moral authority of the monarch, so we should challenge those forces that today claim the power to determine the future of the Internet and the World Wide Web. It should go without saying that we also need to do a better job than the founders in fighting for the inclusion of everyone in the digital world we are building.
Can one day accomplish all of this? One day will not be enough. However, we must start somewhere, and One Web Day gives us the opportunity to focus our attention and energy on the promise and challenge we face building a Web that engenders the ideals of independence and freedom. One Web Day is September 22. I hope you will join me in celebration of and in struggle for One Web for All.
According to Merriam Webster:
in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing...
One space where individuals and communities can experience the challenges and opportunities of independent self-governance is the World Wide Web. As outlined in the Future of Music Manifesto, digital technologies and the web have created a space for musicians and their audiences to connect�, independent of the large music industry conglomerates that had previously dictated the terms of the music market for both creators and fans. It has turned the profession and industry of journalism upside down, while opening new territory for citizen journalists and independent media. From the pioneering grassroots journalists in the global Independent Media Center network, to the contemporary global political blogosphere curated by Global Voices, people are learning that they can do more than consume media messages produced by large and remote corporations - they can declare their independence and be the media. Using the Web, people connect to each other and create innovate ways to tell the stories that matter most to them.
On July 4th, we celebrate the independence of the US. On September 22, One Web Day gives us a chance to celebrate how the Web to empowers individuals and communities to claim ever more independence and liberty. It will be celebrated in cities and towns all over the world.
The idea of celebrating "the Web" might sound, at first, a bit too abstract. What are we celebrating? Web pages, links, lolcats? Is it about the servers, routers, and technical protocols that push electronic bits around the globe? These things have a lot to do with "the Web," but ultimately, they are the means, not the end. By bringing people together in celebration, One Web Day shows us the human face of the Web. For a spider, the power of a web is not in the strands of silk, but in their intricate interconnectedness. For our increasingly global society, the same is true of the Web: its power lies in the connections it builds between people, the linking of stories and voices and human relationships. It is about the flip-side of independence, which I believe is interdependence, for we can never face the power of illegitimate authority alone. To the degree that the Web strengthens our interdependence and our ability to struggle for independence, I think that's something worth celebrating.
As we prepare to celebrate One Web Day, let us also take the time to ask what authorities would stifle the liberating potential of the Web. As One Web Day founder, Susan Crawford, has tirelessly argued, there are any number of Internet gatekeepers who would quell the rising tide of independence and freedom on the Web. Just as our founders questioned the political and moral authority of the monarch, so we should challenge those forces that today claim the power to determine the future of the Internet and the World Wide Web. It should go without saying that we also need to do a better job than the founders in fighting for the inclusion of everyone in the digital world we are building.
Can one day accomplish all of this? One day will not be enough. However, we must start somewhere, and One Web Day gives us the opportunity to focus our attention and energy on the promise and challenge we face building a Web that engenders the ideals of independence and freedom. One Web Day is September 22. I hope you will join me in celebration of and in struggle for One Web for All.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Newseum: Best Seen from theTop Down
My folks toured the Capitol last week, and a friend of theirs treated us to a visit to the Newseum. I was glad for a chance to see it, because I know that the Newseum is giving thousands of DC tourists an education in the history, practice, and purpose of journalism, and I wanted to know just what kind of education it offers.
Before entering, I laid out a very simple set of criteria for judging the merits of the museum. First, by whether it meets its own mission, to provide "a forum where the media and the public can gain a better understanding of each other." Second, by asking of each of its exhibits, what argument does it make and to whose benefit?
Upon entering the Newseum, you get a pretty clear idea of how the answer to the second question is going to come out, as you are confronted by a granite wall bearing the names of the founders and funders of the museum, a cabal of media giants that includes the New York Times, Bloomberg, Comcast, Cox, Hearst, ABC News (aka the Disney Corporation), NBC News (aka General Electric), Time Warner, and the Annenberg and Knight foundations for some nonprofit credibility. The entity behind the Newseum is the Freedom Forum, the philanthropic arm of newspaper mogul, Frank E. Gannett's empire. (For a handy guide to these communications empires, check out the Columbia Journalism Review's guide to media ownership).
As we were getting oriented to the 643,000-square-foot space, a friendly guide instructed us to view the introductory film in the lowest level first, then take the elevator to the top level, as the museum "is best seen from the top down." The orientation film is a fast, splashy ad for the news industry. What is news, it asks? Great "firsts," war, peace, love, hate, life, and death, all the great human themes distilled to their most iconic, information-free state. According to the film, there are "big lives" and small ones, good wars and bad. As visitors will be reminded throughout their time in the Newseum, "news" is intimately tied to "Freedom," the single-word lyric to the cheesy anthem that rings in the ears as the film closes.
The space is topped by an impressive terrace offering grandiose views of Capitol Building, the National Gallery of Art, and other Smithsonian properties. Welcome to the lofty heights, folks, leave your sense of self-empowerment at the door, and prepared to be awed and overwhelmed.
The collection is indeed large and impressive, including 4 full pieces of the Berlin Wall, a 3,000 year old Cuneiform brick from Sumeria, perfectly preserved newspapers dating from the early history of the printing press to the current day, and a beautiful and poignant gallery of Pulitzer Prize-winning photography. Also, the space is brimming with dozens of interactive, multimedia infotainment devices like the NBC News Interactive Newsroom, where "you can be a star," but I didn't pay much attention to these.
I was looking for any scrap of critical reflection on the social and political impact of the news industry, and I found some scraps. I was surprised to find a few panels in the opening exhibit that discuss bias in the news, mistakes, frauds, and the ownership and control of news outlets. Of course, in the bias panel, What Liberal Media? was placed side-by-side with Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Mother Jones reports on a Newseum film concerning news bias that is funded by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. I didn't see it, but I can just imagine it was as fair and balanced as the "news" pouring out of Murdoch's properties. As for mistakes and frauds, according to the Newseum, these are the exceptions that prove the rule of journalistic excellence, and infamous news frauds like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are just so many bad apples.
On media ownership and consolidation, a display correctly tells visitors that we live in an era of unprecedented consolidation in the news and media industries, where a handful of companies "with little or now background in news" have rapidly acquired the majority of news properties. But that's about as deep as it gets. Why is the media consolidated? How did it happen? There is no mention of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that initiated this wave of consolidation, the aggressive and well-funded lobbying for consolidation by groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, or the history of bad policies coming out of an FCC captured by industry interests, an FCC often antagonistic to the public interest. The display leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. Maybe media consolidation is like the weather, just something that happens, nothing I can do about it.
Later, in the "First Amendment Gallery," we learn that "the First Amendment only restricts the government from interfering with free speech. It does not apply to private companies."
These subtle nods to the ever tightening corporate control over the flow of information in society are present, but I fear most attendees will miss them or forget them as larger, flashier messages intrude. As if to cleanse the mind of these darker aspects of the contemporary news industry, visitors quickly find themselves in the 9/11 Gallery, confronted by a large piece of the World Trade Center, twisted and tortured by the attack of that historic day. And then, of course, there is a film. Let me quickly say 2 things: remembering the attacks and the heroism of those who responded is important, and many journalists are to be commended for sharing in that heroism. In the theater, I sat near to a young boy who probably wasn't alive in 2001, and I could tell he was learning a lot from the reporters telling their stories from ground zero.
On the other hand, the exhibit and film definitely approached a "shock and awe" persuasive strategy, and I know I left in a daze, exhausted, my critical faculties dulled for rest of my experience. If one didn't enter the Newseum with some critical faculties to start with, I don't think they would develop them after being exposed to this exhibit.
Hundreds of journalists rendered an impeccable service on 9/11 in the face of the worst of human horrors? True.
The fact of that service establishes all journalists and their corporate overseers as ever vigilant, ever courageous? False.
Somewhere between September 11, 2001 and the aggressive march to war that followed, I think that most journalists in the mainstream media lost their nerve. And that's all I'll say about that.
Overall, the narrative of the Newseum is about scale. At every turn, the visitor is confronted by giant screens, full size news helicopters, satellites, and news vans. The world is big, you are small. The world is remote, we bring it to you. The world is too complex for you, we simplify it for you. Also, did we mention "Freedom?" We have a lot of it here in the USA. Go, USA!
Like so much of the news today, the Newseum celebrates the overwhelming, the iconic, and the spectacular at the expense of the substantive, the challenging, and the truly educational.
What is the Newseum good for? While there is plenty of valuable material inside, I believe the Newseum serves primarily to say "you are free, America, and your freedom is brought to you by Newscorps, Time Warner, and the Disney Corporation."
Before entering, I laid out a very simple set of criteria for judging the merits of the museum. First, by whether it meets its own mission, to provide "a forum where the media and the public can gain a better understanding of each other." Second, by asking of each of its exhibits, what argument does it make and to whose benefit?
Upon entering the Newseum, you get a pretty clear idea of how the answer to the second question is going to come out, as you are confronted by a granite wall bearing the names of the founders and funders of the museum, a cabal of media giants that includes the New York Times, Bloomberg, Comcast, Cox, Hearst, ABC News (aka the Disney Corporation), NBC News (aka General Electric), Time Warner, and the Annenberg and Knight foundations for some nonprofit credibility. The entity behind the Newseum is the Freedom Forum, the philanthropic arm of newspaper mogul, Frank E. Gannett's empire. (For a handy guide to these communications empires, check out the Columbia Journalism Review's guide to media ownership).
As we were getting oriented to the 643,000-square-foot space, a friendly guide instructed us to view the introductory film in the lowest level first, then take the elevator to the top level, as the museum "is best seen from the top down." The orientation film is a fast, splashy ad for the news industry. What is news, it asks? Great "firsts," war, peace, love, hate, life, and death, all the great human themes distilled to their most iconic, information-free state. According to the film, there are "big lives" and small ones, good wars and bad. As visitors will be reminded throughout their time in the Newseum, "news" is intimately tied to "Freedom," the single-word lyric to the cheesy anthem that rings in the ears as the film closes.
The space is topped by an impressive terrace offering grandiose views of Capitol Building, the National Gallery of Art, and other Smithsonian properties. Welcome to the lofty heights, folks, leave your sense of self-empowerment at the door, and prepared to be awed and overwhelmed.
The collection is indeed large and impressive, including 4 full pieces of the Berlin Wall, a 3,000 year old Cuneiform brick from Sumeria, perfectly preserved newspapers dating from the early history of the printing press to the current day, and a beautiful and poignant gallery of Pulitzer Prize-winning photography. Also, the space is brimming with dozens of interactive, multimedia infotainment devices like the NBC News Interactive Newsroom, where "you can be a star," but I didn't pay much attention to these.
I was looking for any scrap of critical reflection on the social and political impact of the news industry, and I found some scraps. I was surprised to find a few panels in the opening exhibit that discuss bias in the news, mistakes, frauds, and the ownership and control of news outlets. Of course, in the bias panel, What Liberal Media? was placed side-by-side with Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Mother Jones reports on a Newseum film concerning news bias that is funded by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. I didn't see it, but I can just imagine it was as fair and balanced as the "news" pouring out of Murdoch's properties. As for mistakes and frauds, according to the Newseum, these are the exceptions that prove the rule of journalistic excellence, and infamous news frauds like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are just so many bad apples.
On media ownership and consolidation, a display correctly tells visitors that we live in an era of unprecedented consolidation in the news and media industries, where a handful of companies "with little or now background in news" have rapidly acquired the majority of news properties. But that's about as deep as it gets. Why is the media consolidated? How did it happen? There is no mention of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that initiated this wave of consolidation, the aggressive and well-funded lobbying for consolidation by groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, or the history of bad policies coming out of an FCC captured by industry interests, an FCC often antagonistic to the public interest. The display leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. Maybe media consolidation is like the weather, just something that happens, nothing I can do about it.
Later, in the "First Amendment Gallery," we learn that "the First Amendment only restricts the government from interfering with free speech. It does not apply to private companies."
These subtle nods to the ever tightening corporate control over the flow of information in society are present, but I fear most attendees will miss them or forget them as larger, flashier messages intrude. As if to cleanse the mind of these darker aspects of the contemporary news industry, visitors quickly find themselves in the 9/11 Gallery, confronted by a large piece of the World Trade Center, twisted and tortured by the attack of that historic day. And then, of course, there is a film. Let me quickly say 2 things: remembering the attacks and the heroism of those who responded is important, and many journalists are to be commended for sharing in that heroism. In the theater, I sat near to a young boy who probably wasn't alive in 2001, and I could tell he was learning a lot from the reporters telling their stories from ground zero.
On the other hand, the exhibit and film definitely approached a "shock and awe" persuasive strategy, and I know I left in a daze, exhausted, my critical faculties dulled for rest of my experience. If one didn't enter the Newseum with some critical faculties to start with, I don't think they would develop them after being exposed to this exhibit.
Hundreds of journalists rendered an impeccable service on 9/11 in the face of the worst of human horrors? True.
The fact of that service establishes all journalists and their corporate overseers as ever vigilant, ever courageous? False.
Somewhere between September 11, 2001 and the aggressive march to war that followed, I think that most journalists in the mainstream media lost their nerve. And that's all I'll say about that.
Overall, the narrative of the Newseum is about scale. At every turn, the visitor is confronted by giant screens, full size news helicopters, satellites, and news vans. The world is big, you are small. The world is remote, we bring it to you. The world is too complex for you, we simplify it for you. Also, did we mention "Freedom?" We have a lot of it here in the USA. Go, USA!
Like so much of the news today, the Newseum celebrates the overwhelming, the iconic, and the spectacular at the expense of the substantive, the challenging, and the truly educational.
What is the Newseum good for? While there is plenty of valuable material inside, I believe the Newseum serves primarily to say "you are free, America, and your freedom is brought to you by Newscorps, Time Warner, and the Disney Corporation."
Friday, June 20, 2008
Allied Media Conference
Checking in from Detroit and the 10th Annual Allied Media Conference, the place to meet people working on "media strategies for a more just and creative world." For once, I'm one of the oldest people in attendance.
This morning, I sat in on the "Be the Web: Using Web 2.0 innovations to organize and connect" session. I liked a comparison the presenter made between hierarchical and folksonomical data organization, where he showed us a Web form he'd had to use for an employer to report demographic data (gender, ethnicity, etc.). He said that he felt like folksonomies and tagging are closer to representing our complex identities than these nested data boxes (ie, male, single, caucasion, etc.). I'd never heard someone link Web 2.0 design principles to identity politics, so that was interesting. Wouldn't it be cool to gather folksonomical demographic data for an organization? It could generate a tag cloud to represent the multiple, overlapping identities collected within the membership of the organization. Something like that...
He talked about del.icio.us and twitter, but I always like to learn about new apps and wasn't disappointed. He talked about jott and tumblr. Jott uses voice recognition to interface with email, listserves, feeds, you name it. It can push, it can be pulled; in other words, it can add telephony (land or cell) to your organizer's bag of tricks. Tumblr is the main app for tumbleblogging (new to me, too), or posting short burst, multi-media files, like Twitter, I think, but with pics, vids, and audio files.
A number of issues came up: security, privacy and the reliance on corporate tools and platforms, connecting Web 2.0 organizing to work with communities without access. I warned the group that they have to move away from thinking that they are shifting from old school organizing to these tools, but that it is always adding new layers, and once you start using the new tools, you commit to alway adding these new layers. Email is irrelevant to most 14 year olds. These tools, because they are proprietary, corporate domains (API's or no) and because every individual connects to her or his own favorite mix of platforms, can never attain perfect reach. Using these tools, organizers have to remember they are building and activating social networks overlaid and dependent upon the platforms they choose to engage. Organizers need to be careful that the suite of tools they decide to use don't create gaps of non-interoperability in the social networks they are building. This means you have to be careful using the radical tools, like crabgrass, too. Corporate platforms can come with complications, but, as large and densely populated networks they have reach.
None of this is easy. Must. avoid. shiny. object. syndrome.
I will be starting to use crabgrass for a project soon. More on that as I use it.
This morning, I sat in on the "Be the Web: Using Web 2.0 innovations to organize and connect" session. I liked a comparison the presenter made between hierarchical and folksonomical data organization, where he showed us a Web form he'd had to use for an employer to report demographic data (gender, ethnicity, etc.). He said that he felt like folksonomies and tagging are closer to representing our complex identities than these nested data boxes (ie, male, single, caucasion, etc.). I'd never heard someone link Web 2.0 design principles to identity politics, so that was interesting. Wouldn't it be cool to gather folksonomical demographic data for an organization? It could generate a tag cloud to represent the multiple, overlapping identities collected within the membership of the organization. Something like that...
He talked about del.icio.us and twitter, but I always like to learn about new apps and wasn't disappointed. He talked about jott and tumblr. Jott uses voice recognition to interface with email, listserves, feeds, you name it. It can push, it can be pulled; in other words, it can add telephony (land or cell) to your organizer's bag of tricks. Tumblr is the main app for tumbleblogging (new to me, too), or posting short burst, multi-media files, like Twitter, I think, but with pics, vids, and audio files.
A number of issues came up: security, privacy and the reliance on corporate tools and platforms, connecting Web 2.0 organizing to work with communities without access. I warned the group that they have to move away from thinking that they are shifting from old school organizing to these tools, but that it is always adding new layers, and once you start using the new tools, you commit to alway adding these new layers. Email is irrelevant to most 14 year olds. These tools, because they are proprietary, corporate domains (API's or no) and because every individual connects to her or his own favorite mix of platforms, can never attain perfect reach. Using these tools, organizers have to remember they are building and activating social networks overlaid and dependent upon the platforms they choose to engage. Organizers need to be careful that the suite of tools they decide to use don't create gaps of non-interoperability in the social networks they are building. This means you have to be careful using the radical tools, like crabgrass, too. Corporate platforms can come with complications, but, as large and densely populated networks they have reach.
None of this is easy. Must. avoid. shiny. object. syndrome.
I will be starting to use crabgrass for a project soon. More on that as I use it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Beyond Broadcast: Larry Irving Keynote
Again, I had to pass through American University's walled-garden-connectivity-hell hoops to get online, so I haven't been able to record the key points, which is a darn shame, because this is a good talk!
Larry Irving is doing a great job challenging some of what we've heard about funding and business model, reminding us, James Wilson did, that we need a media space independent from commercial pressures, driven by discursive necessities and democratic logic. This is especially true, because the advertising market values people differently depending on race and gender and class, and reliance on advertising dollars is a dependence on masters who don't value everyone equally. Why does this even have to be said?
Even further, he's talked about how even foundations can pull the funding if they don't like the message.
Now he's talking about the wireless revolution and the need to open white spaces.
I'm remembering now that I say him talk at the Rainbow PUSH Media & Telecommunications Symposium, moderating a panel of telecom execs and one guy from Pew Internet and American life. I remember the panel being highlighted by a bunch of softball questions and plenty of time for the execs to talk about everything they were doing to deepen broadband penetration.
Now, this guy is on fire. You can find his agenda here.
More on white spaces and the NAB: Larry is advising that people who care about white spaces should throw in with Google on the policy fight. BUt he also makes the point that you might have to go your separate ways on other issues.
Larry Irving is doing a great job challenging some of what we've heard about funding and business model, reminding us, James Wilson did, that we need a media space independent from commercial pressures, driven by discursive necessities and democratic logic. This is especially true, because the advertising market values people differently depending on race and gender and class, and reliance on advertising dollars is a dependence on masters who don't value everyone equally. Why does this even have to be said?
Even further, he's talked about how even foundations can pull the funding if they don't like the message.
Now he's talking about the wireless revolution and the need to open white spaces.
I'm remembering now that I say him talk at the Rainbow PUSH Media & Telecommunications Symposium, moderating a panel of telecom execs and one guy from Pew Internet and American life. I remember the panel being highlighted by a bunch of softball questions and plenty of time for the execs to talk about everything they were doing to deepen broadband penetration.
Now, this guy is on fire. You can find his agenda here.
More on white spaces and the NAB: Larry is advising that people who care about white spaces should throw in with Google on the policy fight. BUt he also makes the point that you might have to go your separate ways on other issues.
Beyond Broadcast 2: Mapping the Money
Diane Mermigas: "Your stars are perfectly aligned with where the Internet is and where digital media is taking us..." Diane just suggested that people here are grassroots... She said, "When I sit down with Rupert Murdoch and some other big media guys, they're full of questions."
Well, I guess if you're sitting down with Rupert Murdoch, the CPB might look grassroots.
"None of the institutions... have [learned] to really integrate" the interactivity that's possible.
Diane is recommending that public broadcasters put their content online and attach ads. It was more nuanced than that, but that's what it boils down to, I think.
Keith Hopper: Follow Google's lead - build your audience and user interaction, then monetize it.
Craig Reigel: Paying people is important, sustainable business models are important. "Bringing in revenue needs to be decriminalized." Some revenue seeking "disrupts mission, some don't."
Four ways for media orgs make money
1) Participate in commerce
2) Advertising
3) Specific support from people with vested interest
4) Take investers' dollars with some promise for sustainability, spend the money, then go bankrupt
Vince Stehle: Radiohead experiment, pay what you will. "Public radio has been doing that for decades." He's just got something wrong - that one can listen to most of an album on Myspace; this isn't how it happens in my experience. Even small indie bands only put up a couple of teaser songs.
James Wilson: Democracy rests on free, independent, transparent press; media is going through turmoil - ergo "We might be seeing democracy at risk." We need to reintroduce "representation, openness, freedom" into these conversations about business models.
This is a political process - "I can assure you that the NAB has agenda... the MPAA has an agenda, and if you don't have agenda, you're going to lose." At which point, I said "hear, hear" a little too loudly.
James brings up NCMR, and the 3k+ participant. Media makers aren't engaging with the activists. Here, here!
Well, I guess if you're sitting down with Rupert Murdoch, the CPB might look grassroots.
"None of the institutions... have [learned] to really integrate" the interactivity that's possible.
Diane is recommending that public broadcasters put their content online and attach ads. It was more nuanced than that, but that's what it boils down to, I think.
Keith Hopper: Follow Google's lead - build your audience and user interaction, then monetize it.
Craig Reigel: Paying people is important, sustainable business models are important. "Bringing in revenue needs to be decriminalized." Some revenue seeking "disrupts mission, some don't."
Four ways for media orgs make money
1) Participate in commerce
2) Advertising
3) Specific support from people with vested interest
4) Take investers' dollars with some promise for sustainability, spend the money, then go bankrupt
Vince Stehle: Radiohead experiment, pay what you will. "Public radio has been doing that for decades." He's just got something wrong - that one can listen to most of an album on Myspace; this isn't how it happens in my experience. Even small indie bands only put up a couple of teaser songs.
James Wilson: Democracy rests on free, independent, transparent press; media is going through turmoil - ergo "We might be seeing democracy at risk." We need to reintroduce "representation, openness, freedom" into these conversations about business models.
This is a political process - "I can assure you that the NAB has agenda... the MPAA has an agenda, and if you don't have agenda, you're going to lose." At which point, I said "hear, hear" a little too loudly.
James brings up NCMR, and the 3k+ participant. Media makers aren't engaging with the activists. Here, here!
Beyond Broadcast
Getting online and getting power has been such a headache... I actually have a headache now, so I'm just going to capture the occasional snippet today and maybe to write something more reflective on Beyond Broadcast later.
Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture:
"Media is a technical platform and a social and cultural platform
Who gets to participate in participatory culture? Access, skillsets, empowerment questions create and bolster gaps.
Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture:
"Media is a technical platform and a social and cultural platform
Who gets to participate in participatory culture? Access, skillsets, empowerment questions create and bolster gaps.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
NCMR 14: Winning Tech and Media Policy Fights in the States
Amina is talking on the state "Winning Tech and Media Policy Reform in the States" panel now.
Because states can be a faster catalyst for legislative change and ideas can move from state legislative bodies to the Federal level, "It's absolutely crucial the this work begins at the state level." This is an interesting point: states can protect consumers at a level that the federal never can, because state governments are accessible and more connected to people's lives on the ground.
I hope someone talks about influencing organizations like the US Conference of Mayors and National Conference of State Legislatures. If not, I'll ask about it.
Cool - WA State Senator Kohl-Welles is up. On the plane, her neighbor asked "aren't there more important things to spend money on" than broadband deployment; when she said she was concerned about connectivity in rural places, he replied "well, can't those people just move somewhere else?"
The Senator mentions a Cascade Curtain, referring to the break between Western and Eastern Washington. I'd never heard that phrase; of course I'm usually just griping about the east side of the state.
She talks Connect Kentucky in a positive light. I hear bad things about that program but haven't been able to look into yet. Finally she talks about a community technology opportunity program.
Ah, our facilitator is walking us through the problems with Connect Kentucky. Here's one - confidentiality provisions block the publis from verifying the state's study of connectivity.
Next up is Catherine Settanni, The Community Technology Empowerment Project. She works locally and launched Minneapolis' free wi-fi network, which includes a community portal. She has a great idea about pressuring the states to ensure that any time taxpayers' money is spent to move something online, it has to include a set aside for digital inclusion efforts.
Susan Satter, senior assistant attorney general in Illinois, is the final presenter. Got distracted for a minute, but tuned in again to hear that Susan thinks that state utility commissions are highly vulnerable to capture, due to being appointed positions, and a point about attorneys general being resources advocates can use, especially in their role as consumer complaint arbitrators.
Senator Kohl-Welles and Julie answered my question:
Because states can be a faster catalyst for legislative change and ideas can move from state legislative bodies to the Federal level, "It's absolutely crucial the this work begins at the state level." This is an interesting point: states can protect consumers at a level that the federal never can, because state governments are accessible and more connected to people's lives on the ground.
I hope someone talks about influencing organizations like the US Conference of Mayors and National Conference of State Legislatures. If not, I'll ask about it.
Cool - WA State Senator Kohl-Welles is up. On the plane, her neighbor asked "aren't there more important things to spend money on" than broadband deployment; when she said she was concerned about connectivity in rural places, he replied "well, can't those people just move somewhere else?"
The Senator mentions a Cascade Curtain, referring to the break between Western and Eastern Washington. I'd never heard that phrase; of course I'm usually just griping about the east side of the state.
She talks Connect Kentucky in a positive light. I hear bad things about that program but haven't been able to look into yet. Finally she talks about a community technology opportunity program.
Ah, our facilitator is walking us through the problems with Connect Kentucky. Here's one - confidentiality provisions block the publis from verifying the state's study of connectivity.
Next up is Catherine Settanni, The Community Technology Empowerment Project. She works locally and launched Minneapolis' free wi-fi network, which includes a community portal. She has a great idea about pressuring the states to ensure that any time taxpayers' money is spent to move something online, it has to include a set aside for digital inclusion efforts.
Susan Satter, senior assistant attorney general in Illinois, is the final presenter. Got distracted for a minute, but tuned in again to hear that Susan thinks that state utility commissions are highly vulnerable to capture, due to being appointed positions, and a point about attorneys general being resources advocates can use, especially in their role as consumer complaint arbitrators.
Senator Kohl-Welles and Julie answered my question:
- The senator is an executive of the NCSL, and says that our agenda is starting to come through. She also mentioned that Ron Simms, King County Executive, published an op-ed calling for a national digital inclusion strategy to be developed at NCSL
- Julie reminds us that state legislators very often are motivated by a spirit of public service, but they are often pressed and some times working other jobs, even, and if we want to influence them, we have to provide the model legislation, the messaging, and an opportunity to be a hero on our issues.
Friday, June 6, 2008
NCMR 13: A little self-promotion for good measure
I am putting together a "self-organized" session during the conference. Tentatively looking at using the Sunday, 9:30-11 slot. If you're reading and interested, I hope you'll come. The outline is below...
Understanding Collaboration in Media Change Movements
Organizations that work to create a better media system through media policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, media literacy training, and independent media production are increasingly working with each other across organizational boundaries to attain shared goals, leverage the respective strengths of their partner organizations, and build a more interconnected, robust and responsive movement that reflects the diversity of our communities and strategies. While we rightly celebrate and learn from the positive outcomes of our collaborative endeavors, we rarely reflect on the process of collaboration itself. Besides evaluating the "end product," how do we know if a collaboration has moved our larger strategic goals forward? What are the challenges, costs, and opportunities of collaborative projects? If successful collaborations rely on the relationships between the individuals involved, how do we evaluate and document the practices that make collaborations successful to share that learning with new collaborative partners and to ensure that our organizations can call upon institutional learning with or without the presence of the original players?
In this session, we will have an interactive discussion and begin to earnestly assess how we go about planning, implementing, evaluating, and documenting our collaborations. This conversation will lay the groundwork for a long term project to produce a document that organizations can use to enhance their collaborations, including a taxonomy of collaborative models, a set of "best practices" guidelines, and an evaluation and documentation framework .
Understanding Collaboration in Media Change Movements
Organizations that work to create a better media system through media policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, media literacy training, and independent media production are increasingly working with each other across organizational boundaries to attain shared goals, leverage the respective strengths of their partner organizations, and build a more interconnected, robust and responsive movement that reflects the diversity of our communities and strategies. While we rightly celebrate and learn from the positive outcomes of our collaborative endeavors, we rarely reflect on the process of collaboration itself. Besides evaluating the "end product," how do we know if a collaboration has moved our larger strategic goals forward? What are the challenges, costs, and opportunities of collaborative projects? If successful collaborations rely on the relationships between the individuals involved, how do we evaluate and document the practices that make collaborations successful to share that learning with new collaborative partners and to ensure that our organizations can call upon institutional learning with or without the presence of the original players?
In this session, we will have an interactive discussion and begin to earnestly assess how we go about planning, implementing, evaluating, and documenting our collaborations. This conversation will lay the groundwork for a long term project to produce a document that organizations can use to enhance their collaborations, including a taxonomy of collaborative models, a set of "best practices" guidelines, and an evaluation and documentation framework .
Thursday, June 5, 2008
NCMR 12: Historical and Contemporary Challenges, continued
Angela Campbell, Institute for Public Representation:
What are the unfavorable consequences of social science research in the media reform movement? Better research won't necessarily lead to better policy.
Policy process at the FCC:
The role of 3rd party studies at the FCC:
What are the unfavorable consequences of social science research in the media reform movement? Better research won't necessarily lead to better policy.
Policy process at the FCC:
- FCC gives public notice and request for comment (Notice for Proposed Rule Making or NPRMs), but it is usually industry that intervenes in the comment process
- The FCC issues a decision
- Which can be appealed in court
The role of 3rd party studies at the FCC:
- Industry studies are often preferred in the first place
- If reformers have a study, the FCC will cite "conflicting evidence," and industry wins
- The industry has more studies, and industry wins
- FCC should conduct it's own studies or commission them. Unfortunately under Powell and Martin, this process hasn't worked very well. For instance, Pritchard was commissioned to submit a study that was based on previously published, industry funded study. Academics should support FCC data collection, but they should also monitor it.
- Make proprietary industry data publicly available.
- Legislate that FCC relies on better quality data. The Data Quality Act was not in effect in the 2002 media ownership review. By the time it took effect, it slowed the process, but it didn't stop the FCC from following the Republican majority's predetermined plan.
NCMR 11: Historical and Contemporary Challenges, continued
Victor's starting his presentation of historical precedent in the 1940s. "We come to learn that our current policies are the product of political practices, not best practices." Say it!
"Early on, there was a social contract between media institutions, the public, and the state."
Victor is establishing that
3 lessons:
Still, awesome presentation.
"Early on, there was a social contract between media institutions, the public, and the state."
Victor is establishing that
- Public discourse criticizing radio in both the left press, but in popular venues like Reader's Digest
- There was a coalition of disgruntled intellectuals, labor, women's groups and others
- This coalition coalesced around a laundry list of complaints that should be familiar to any of us today
- Results include the 49 fairness doctrine, in unpublished government proceedings, proposals as radical as public utility, community run newspapers were being considered
- Unfortunately, the social contract that developed priveleged media producers
- Failed to coordinate activists, especially between DC-based and grassroots groups
- Dramatic rightward shift in national economic discourse, ie corporatism (alliance between big business, big government, and big labor)
- Progressives moved away from structural criticism to focus on policing content
3 lessons:
- Solidarity, as reformers become more aggressive, the national-grassroots coordination becomes more important
- Recognize connections to larger political and economic forces
- We ignore recurring structural problems at our peril, ie "we give the audience what they want," "the Internet is solving everything"
Still, awesome presentation.
NCMR08 9
I hate academic presentations that are read from the presenter's paper. I know it's the norm, especially in the humanities, but it's just ineffective public speaking.
This is my subject matter, I'm a quick study/information sponge/sharp analyst; I'm a fast typer. If I can't record your major points, you're doing something wrong.
Here's a project: better training for comms grad students in public speaking and presentation techniques. True, the more seasoned professionals give a good talk, but younger communications scholars should be amazing spokespersons for their own work, at the very least, if not for the advocacy community in general.
This is my subject matter, I'm a quick study/information sponge/sharp analyst; I'm a fast typer. If I can't record your major points, you're doing something wrong.
Here's a project: better training for comms grad students in public speaking and presentation techniques. True, the more seasoned professionals give a good talk, but younger communications scholars should be amazing spokespersons for their own work, at the very least, if not for the advocacy community in general.
NCMR08 8: Digital Technology Challenges - Net Neutrality
Ok, I'm tuning in time to blog Brian Dolber, UofI, whose paper is called "'Divide and Conquer': The Racial Politics of the COPE Act and the Network Neutrality Debate."
Claim: the telecoms lobby divided the African American advocates community on the COPE Act. Somehow he's connecting this to Gandy's Panoptic Sort argument, but again so quickly the argumentative chain was hard to follow. Here's a case where a simple, well designed slide presentation would have helped.
Brian's outline of the lobby's strategy:
Claim: the telecoms lobby divided the African American advocates community on the COPE Act. Somehow he's connecting this to Gandy's Panoptic Sort argument, but again so quickly the argumentative chain was hard to follow. Here's a case where a simple, well designed slide presentation would have helped.
Brian's outline of the lobby's strategy:
- Isolating "radicals": illustrated with the astro-turf video from Hands Off The Internet
- Co-opting "realists"
NCMR08 7: Independent Media session, continued
Caroline Nappo, UofI, Librarianship as Media Reform. She's talking about access to alternative collections. Libraries are part of the sustenance of independent media. She's also making some great points about how the history of the library is consistent with the democratic communications theory that drives most of our community's work, again so rapid fire I can't catch it all.
She has a good beat on where the ALA is on these issues, and I want to follow up with her. I pass the ALA building almost every day in DC and regularly wonder about bringing them into our work.
What is the ALA doing? It has not "problemitized oligopolistic media control." I can see that and want to figure it out.
She has a good beat on where the ALA is on these issues, and I want to follow up with her. I pass the ALA building almost every day in DC and regularly wonder about bringing them into our work.
What is the ALA doing? It has not "problemitized oligopolistic media control." I can see that and want to figure it out.
NCMR08 6: Sustaining Independent Media
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the room in time, so I've arrived late for Tracy Van Slyke and Jessica Clark's presentation on their progressive media mapping and impact measurement project presentation.
Tracy: "It's a time of experimentation, but there are questions about how we measure the impact of our work."
Traditional metrics:
Adam Davis, Southern Illinois Universty on Current TV. Current is Al Gore's adventure in user-generated media, launched in 2005, reaching 41 mil homes in the US. Viewers are still only producing 1/3 of the content. Adam's question: "Is current TV a new model for public access and what do Gore and investors stand to gain?"
In the audience, there is scoffing when we are confronted with the enthusiastic blurbs of Gore and his marketing partners' commentary on their business model. I haven't investigated Current TV and have no judgments on it, but I don't know how productive knee jerk reactions to the realities of the corporate sector in this space can be.
There's a rarely spoken inconsistency unveiled here, today already, and I think I'll continue to see it throughout the conference. On the one hand, we recoil at the intrusions of commercial incentives in the media system. On the other hand, we know we are embedded in the system that generates those incentives and embrace measures like tax incentives to increase minority ownership of commercial outlets. Personally, I'm undecided, possibly ambivalent, on the issue, but there hasn't been a larger dialog that identifies and articulates this inconsistency. I don't know that such a dialog is immediately necessary or that community-wide consistency is possible or necessary, but I feel like I encounter this question all of the time.
Tracy: "It's a time of experimentation, but there are questions about how we measure the impact of our work."
Traditional metrics:
- Money
- Attention
- Buzz
- Credibility
- Mainstreaming an issue
- Taking it to the Hill
- Combining pop and politics: pop culture as a "beat" to uncover political consequences
- Reaching nontraditional audiences
- Fighting the right
- Uncovering the news: covering missing stories
- Pioneering new journalism models: creating projects that push the boundaries of "traditional objective journalism," crowdsourcing, live blogging, etc
- Chasing the tech: harnessing new platforms
- Challenging the story
- Building infrastructure
- Poking the bear: from WAM! - to force reaction from the other side to generate buzz. Nice.
Adam Davis, Southern Illinois Universty on Current TV. Current is Al Gore's adventure in user-generated media, launched in 2005, reaching 41 mil homes in the US. Viewers are still only producing 1/3 of the content. Adam's question: "Is current TV a new model for public access and what do Gore and investors stand to gain?"
- User generated content is cheap
- Turned profitable in 2 years
In the audience, there is scoffing when we are confronted with the enthusiastic blurbs of Gore and his marketing partners' commentary on their business model. I haven't investigated Current TV and have no judgments on it, but I don't know how productive knee jerk reactions to the realities of the corporate sector in this space can be.
There's a rarely spoken inconsistency unveiled here, today already, and I think I'll continue to see it throughout the conference. On the one hand, we recoil at the intrusions of commercial incentives in the media system. On the other hand, we know we are embedded in the system that generates those incentives and embrace measures like tax incentives to increase minority ownership of commercial outlets. Personally, I'm undecided, possibly ambivalent, on the issue, but there hasn't been a larger dialog that identifies and articulates this inconsistency. I don't know that such a dialog is immediately necessary or that community-wide consistency is possible or necessary, but I feel like I encounter this question all of the time.
NCMR08 5: "Media Reform" Targets Conservatives
We interrupt this wonkiness (which I love) to inform you that some conservative blogger is onto us! We're caught RED handed. They know the score; we've all gathered here to use "the power of the federal government to hand over more media properties to liberals."
Damn, the gig is up.
Damn, the gig is up.
NCMR08 4: FACT, continuation
Krishna Jayakar, "I'm a member of the Penn State mafia." Universal service!
Four programs:
Marvin Ammori, Free Press/University of Nebraska on broadband adoption. "We need to move forward with the idea the competition does work."
Four programs:
- Lifeline and Linkup
- Schools and Libraries (E-rate)
- High Cost Areas
- Rural Health Care
- Make the USF funding sustainable
- control costs: capping High Cost Areas Program (I'm going to have to look this up later)
- expand contribution pool. Ouch - he's talking about adding fees to VoIP calls and all broadband traffic. That's not going to be popular.
- Improve effectiveness
- Cross-promoting Lifeline and Linkup (again, to look up later)
- Consumer protection against unpredictable phone bills
- Emphasize value creation over affordability. I don't understand what this does for universal service.
- Move from uniform service to consumer choice
- Foster innovation in service
- Ensure continuance of support for the disenfranchised
Marvin Ammori, Free Press/University of Nebraska on broadband adoption. "We need to move forward with the idea the competition does work."
- Need info on our markets
- Need to understand other regimes abroad
- Need a broad commitment to competition
- Possibly include some structural separation to create more competitive markets
- Net Neutrality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
