« DCP ANNUAL MEETING - JULY 21-23, 2006 - ST. PAUL, MN | Main | The Happy Hookers »
Anonymity and Transparency in Blogland
For as long as I can remember reading about the glories of online communications, people have been celebrating the anonymity that the net can bestow. My favorite New Yorker cartoon for many years featured a dog in a chair sitting at a keyboard, telling a feline friend, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!"
But as we've learned this year, our friends over at the NSA and other Pentagon-based outfits not only know whether you're a dog, they know what kind of dog food you like, how many a times a day you go for walks, and what happened the last time you went to the vet's.
So when someone at the Pentagon sits down to read blogs, he or she can very quickly determine the identity of the writers of everything they're reading, and apply the appropriate filters and discounts.
But what about the rest of us? How much work should we have to do to determine the ideological underpinnings of a report of an organization we've never heard from before? Or how seriously do we need to take the latest rumor about the indictment of yet another Bush associate or member of Congress?
The time it takes to check out the backgrounds of the sources of rumors is not free: it's a cost, even if we're not billing anyone for it, and no one's paying us either. It's true that trust becomes a critical factor here, but trust takes times to build and nurture, and by its very nature, the net allows rumors to propagate much faster than the time it takes to establish whether a rumor is coming from a trusted source or not.
Without the multi-billion dollar resources of the NSA, the rest of us have had to develop our own systems for evaluating news from sources about which we knew little or nothing. I sometimes feel like every message should have a little box attached to the beginning or the ending where the sender could reveal as much, or as little, as he or she wanted about the background of the sender.
There would still be times when someone would legitimately want to keep such information murky or hidden, like corporate or government whistleblowers; but these people are far too few and far between.
So what do you do when you hit a comment or a claim that you wished were true, but don't know the author? Let's talk.
Google
oncall,
I agree-google is a great tool and I use it regularly too. There is a lot that is avaiable on the internet. Like all tools however, there are more and less effective ways to use it.
Maybe we could share the more effective ways here.
I find that it is important for me to know who an organization links to, for example. That tells me more, someimes, than the Who We Are and What We Do pages. Dick has a rule, btw--no reputable source would leave OUT a Who We Are page. It is important for sources to provide at least a modicum of background and qualifications.
What about everybody here? What do you look for?
I used to wait for confirmation from "the paper of record" before believing such rumors.
Then I discovered that Bill Keller is in the habit of holding stories that might change the fate of elections if officials of an Administration that has already lied about everything else claim that printing said story would endanger national security.
So, nowadays, when confronted by these kind of rumors, I'm relegated to doing the same drugs that George Bush used when he was a degenerate party animal in the hope of getting in contact with his God, and having Him confirm the story.
Personality, Ideology and Bush's Terror Wars
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: June 20, 2006
The title of Ron Suskind's riveting new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," refers to an operating principle that he says Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." He quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it's not about "our analysis," it's about "our response," and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html
I like to look for source documents, when possible. They may be alot to go through, but in some cases it's worth it. Or they're good to keep as references.
Google is invaluable, for tracking people and background and also for finding that article you know you read a couple years ago, such as when Colin Powell refused to read something, throwing the papers in the air & shouting "That's BS" - amazing to find it quickly just remembering that much.
It may be a little harder to develop a system for judging likelihood of accuracy with the internet but overtime, we can probably have our own hierarchy. In research, we knew which journals were peer-reviewed, which things were commentary & so on. The internet (presently) seems more democratic.
It's a challenge in cases of those with more independent positions, such as investigative reporters (Jason Leopold is a recent example). Their credibility is attacked whenever they are not 100% right, yet they take a less safe course. At Yearly Kos I met MSM reporters who covered it because of the "buzz" (even Fox quickly flew someone out, acc/one newspaper report). I asked if they were covering anything besides the "superstars" like Reid and Dean. They said "We have deadines." That confirmed my impression that at least some of them are lazy and don't really care about anything but their paycheck and staying "safe."
We know these sorts of thing but there are people at every level on the intelligent media consumption scale on the internet. There are those seeking truth and those seeking religion or porn or comedy, those seeking news and facts, those seeking social stim or confirmation. I would compare it to food consumption on the scale of good nutrition. Some are hungry and will desperately eat anything, some are gourmets, and everything in-between. Some question the sources of their food, others eat blindly and don't care.
It is a responsibility to consume on the internet (or anywhere). Another thing I like to do is get an overview first (such as read every headline on Google News World, the National, then Business before reading anything else - to read breaking news - to read multiple sources - to read as much outside American press as any (given it's pathetic corporate/government-linkages). As I have said many times, I watch as little television as humanly possible. That's because it's a "cool" medium, whereas radio is "hot" (high involvement, a la Marshall McLuhan).
I am anxious to see what will be done with some of the new developing media forms and whether net neutrality will be maintained. I'm also very interested in alternate channels, such as email lists, personal group email distribution, use of podcasts (I know people who receive news that way via email 2x/day), alternative radio (Pacifica, Air America etc), public radio, small press publishing, comics (Bush Junta, Tom Tomorrow etc.), comedy (look what Jon Stewart has done), documentary (astounding growth), nonfiction (political books continue to surge), and potential for enhanced streaming video (internet-linked). Also waiting for more options re broadcast television but not holding my breath. Did find a couple of upcoming new networks/ideas at Yearly Kos (will have to find the references).
Must also mention print (t-shirts, posters, bumper stickers, fliers, downloadable things), also appearing to continue at a nice pace (antiwar, political, philosophical). There are also new eCommerce options, with more money going to progressive organizations (http://www.goodstorm.com is exciting, and started by someone who was imprisoned and tortured in a repressive society where media was quite controlled).
Re blogs and commenters, I watch carefully what their sources are - what they refer to and read. One thing I like to do is ask my political representatives what they read. It's refreshing when they take the time to delve deeper, given their schedules, and don't depend so much on their aides or on rehashings and slantings of MSM reporters. If they have access to briefings and are on special committees, they are supposed to know what's going on, but they also have a responsibility (this voter thinks) to seek balance and breadth as well as depth.
Going Left
by Eric Clapton
(Well) I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
There's a train people say
I could ride to get my whole life straight
But the bridge on the way
Has a toll too much for me to pay
Yes I know it must be
What I chose could mean my destiny
Lights are green, all is go
But my heart keeps telling my mind no
(Well) I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
There's a land over there
Where all are given equal share
What you get is so small
It's like never having nothing at all
Take my hand as a friend
I will stick with you until the end
But I'm in doubt I must decline
'Cause even friends can change their lines
(Well) I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
I'm goin' left
'Til you lead me to the right
Lead me to what is right
MBK has reminded me - there are two stories which aren't getting much media coverage. One is the back-story on the Rove matter (what happened?!!), the other is the saga with the vote in Ohio in 2004 etc. (what happened?!!) - it's like these stories are so .. over.
TruthOut has been in the middle of the Rove matter, and at 5 PM tomorrow, they are supposed to publish a thoughtful response to criticism from the Washington Post. Some who have followed the whole matter are keeping an open mind, as this is a story where a cover-up, in this country at this present time, would not seem far-fetched.
I just realized the above thread is referring mostly to "blogland" - I was kind of addressing attack on the news barrage in general (I like to attack it rather than have it attack me). Blogs are great & a place to find things out, but I personally would never go to blogs before taking a gander at print news on-line. They would be too specific. By getting the overview first, it gives an idea where else to focus, time permitting. (That's for me, anyway).
I am reposting this. I was glad to see it.
(written by Monkey)
The REAL addiction this country needs to wean itself from is television. Capitalism at it's finest, resulting in base human nature at it's worst.
Let's get remedial, shall we? You have mind control (i.e. those being controlled don't even know it, hence the term) and you have those who pay (lets call them sponsors to sound positive) for the information being sent to your mind as effortlessly as selling you a hot, fluffy blueberry muffin (which was baked in a factory, freeze dried, then nuked by some 17 yr old headbanger).
Now, those who "sponsor" the information would NEVER have a political agenda, right???
It's when I stopped watching the idiot box cold turkey that mine eyes have seen the gory.
U.S.A. INC.
"In The Red"
Posted by: monkey at June 20, 2006 07:06 AM
Expert Sees Dwindling of US Coalition
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/06/262E1945-27F0-4916-8E4A-25489CAD03E9.html
I went to Google News - of all the World stories, the one about Japanese troops pulling out of Iraq caught my eye. From among the sources, I then chose this one from Radio Free Europe, which I seldom see references anymore. (It's usually Voice of America). After reading it, I went back to the top to see who the "expert" is and he edits a European armed forces journal.
I concluded that I very likely do have some confidence that the "coalition" is dwindling down to 3 Anglo members - US, UK and Australia. It will be billed as a gradual pullout, but in fact I think the danger has been too great and it's too unpopular with the people - in Italy, Japan, etc. The war is a loss and failure, and a bad place to invest life and money.
The war is a loss and failure, and a bad place to invest life and money.
Posted by: DiAnne at June 20, 2006 09:43 AM
Not for the ones who started it.
Daddy Warbucks
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at June 20, 2006 07:19 AM
Interesting diary RE: Richard Clarke debunking Suskind's allegation that Al Qaeda was within weeks of striking the NYC subway system with cyanide bombs...
"There's reason to be skeptical," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, who is the former chief of White House counterterrorism. "Just because something is labeled in an intelligence report does not mean every word it is true."
He says the information describing the plot would have been just one of the hundreds of threats that would have been collected in 2003.
Furthermore, the specificity of the report is suspect, he said.
"Whenever you get reports that are this specific, they are usually made up," he said.
Clarke noted the report detailed a particular time period for the attack, and that Osama bin Laden's top deputy himself weighed in.
Clarke said Zawihiri and bin Laden are too isolated to have that kind of direct control over a plot inside the United States. He also thinks the terrorists would have carried out the attack if the plot was as advanced as Suskind reported.
"Frankly if there was a team in the United States that was ready to do this, they would have done it," Clarke said.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/19/10418/7989
Late night snarks (compliments of Bill of Portland Maine at Daily Kos)...
"[President Bush,] you were in Baghdad for six hours. You weren't even in the real Baghdad. You were in the Green Zone. That's like going to the Olive Garden and saying you've been to Italy."
---Jon Stewart
"Anybody here from New Zealand? They have a big, new attraction. It's a live sex show in New Zealand. They have actual bulls mounting a simulated cow. Good to see Ann Coulter getting some work."
---David Letterman
JK busy today:
We need you to stand with us -- and we need you to do it now.
In the next 24 to 48 hours, we will go to the Senate floor to press for passage of the Kerry-Feingold Amendment calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by a deadline certain. Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq so we can wage and win a more effective war on terror and give Iraqis the best chance to stand up for a stable Iraq.
Tell your Senators: support the Kerry-Feingold Amendment on Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/iraq/?sc=e.20060620
Our troops have served valiantly in Iraq. Under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, they've done their job. Now, it's time to put the future of Iraq where it belongs: in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders. And it's time to listen to General George Casey and acknowledge that the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. combat forces in Iraq will weaken chances of defeating the insurgency and weaken our ability to fight the global terrorist networks that threaten us today.
In recent days, we've seen Republican leaders in the House and Senate shamelessly reject the opportunity for a genuine, meaningful debate on Iraq. They've resorted to a Karl Rove strategy of blindly endorsing President Bush's failed "stay the course" policy in Iraq and challenging the courage and patriotism of anyone who dares to point out the disastrous consequences of their failed approach.
It's time for every Senator to reject the lack of wisdom in their Iraq policies and the lack of decency in their Iraq politics.
Tell your Senators: support the Kerry-Feingold Amendment on Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/iraq/?sc=e.20060620
We have to reject calls for an unquestioning, open-ended endorsement of George W.
Bush's endless commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq. And we have to reject the "play it
safe" conventional wisdom, inside D.C. punditry that would have Democrats stand on
the sidelines without doing everything in our power to change policies that we know
are deeply flawed and dangerous.
We urge you to tell your Senators that it's time for a new direction. Ask them to
endorse the Kerry-Feingold amendment calling for the redeployment of combat troops
out of Iraq by a hard and fast deadline. Tell them to act for one simple reason:
it's the right thing to do -- for Iraq, and for the United States.
Tell your Senators: support the Kerry-Feingold Amendment on Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/iraq/?sc=e.20060620
Act now to add your voice to tens of thousands of others from around the country who are actively supporting the Kerry-Feingold Amendment. We'll see to it that your letter gets delivered to the Senate.
This is a critical vote on the most crucial issue facing our country. It's time for every member of the Senate to send an important message that we must change course. And it's time for you to demand leadership from those you have sent to Washington to represent your views.
We urge you to act immediately -- and we thank you for standing with us on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Russ Feingold and John Kerry
I find a lot of the blogosphere very unreliable, style over substance, and with an all too important sense of itself. That said, the joining of hearts and mind is important. We just need some sense of the bigger picture of where we're needed, and not overinflate or compete to our detriment.
There are strong voices out there, including a sense of history, with substance, regardless of whether the opinion mediating or strongly advocating. They usually started off the internet, may have traditional news jobs, heard J-school's ethics arguments, and didn't stoop to constantly saying anonymous sources.
Many new ones are professors who can write, and have an analytically trained mind. I think of the indispensible Juan Cole who was denied a job at Yale by conswervatives unhappy with his blog activity.
Wish our blogosphere valued that kind of opinion, not just their own said loudly.
How old do I sound? My husband, the old newshound, often says an old newsroom truism that "Democrats always eat their seed corn." Their future. Now they can do it louder, and as disorganized as ever. With so much at stake, wouldn't some sense of limitations and higher purpose be welcome?
That said, Marc Ash sounded very reasonable in his defense today that Truthout had sources. Days after breaking I felt they were set up, and the possibility of helping Fitzgerald in his case, in silence, makes sense. Both sides being true makes sense.
Will we ever get another Woodward and Bernstein not trampled by conservative MSM, protective of the status quo. All we get is Susskind, who keeps apologzing for Bush talking to God, and justifying Cheney's with the Devil, both for a higher purpose. We just got whitewash, instead.
Kerry was great on Imus today discussing Iraq. Very busy, indeed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9877442