If Newspapers Claim They're Serving The Public... Why Are They Working So Hard To Limit Who Sees The Content?

from the questions-that-matter dept

One of the common refrains from folks in the newspaper industry is that, despite their inability to react to the changing market in front of them, they need to be kept alive, because of their civic duty of serving the public and preserving democracy. At least that's how the argument goes. However, Steve Yelvington points us to a good point made by Rick Edmonds, noting that if it's so important for the newspapers to serve the public, doesn't it make it much harder for them to do that behind a paywall. In other words, in their zeal to lock up the content, they're proving that they don't mean what they say when they talk about just serving the public. They really only mean that they're serving the segment of the public willing to pay -- which doesn't quite have that same noble civic duty feel to it, now does it?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Norwegian ISP Fights Back Against Pirate Bay Ban

from the democratic-principles dept

The IFPI (the international version of the RIAA) has been working around the clock lately to try to get various ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay and other file sharing sites. Some have caved in, while others have lost lawsuits. In Norway, however, leading ISP Telenor is fighting back, saying that taking orders from the entertainment industry to block sites it doesn't like goes against democratic principles:

"Instead of demanding that Internet providers censor the Internet and monitor the content that's transferred, Telenor believes that the best way to decrease illegal file sharing is to put more effort into making legally downloadable content available."

But, as we've seen over the years, there are still many in positions of power within the recording industry who believe that the best new business model is to try to stomp out anyone who challenges their old business model. Eventually, they'll realize what a failed plan that is.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Revisiting Newspapers' Role In Democracy: New Research Suggests An Impact

from the but-how-big-and-will-it-last dept

We've seen a number of stories recently claiming that the death of newspapers would somehow harm (or even do away with) democracy. The whole idea seemed silly, but some new research actually backs up some of that claim. And while I have some problems with it, it's worth presenting the evidence to the contrary as well. The research paper, Do Newspapers Matter? Evidence from the Closure of The Cincinnati Post (pdf file), looks at how the closing of the Cincinnati Post at the end of 2007 impacted local politics in Northern Kentucky in 2008. The research tried to control for other variables and found a noticeable impact: namely, more incumbents won re-election, fewer people ran for office and voter turnout decreased. Some of the impact was small, but the research does a pretty good job trying to control for many other factors.

That said... even the researchers admit that this is just one example, and only covers a short period of time. It's not surprising that immediately following the closure of a newspaper, there may not be other sources to fill the gaps (and even if there are, residents may not be as aware of them). What will be quite interesting to watch is what happens next. However, if you happen to live in the Northern Kentucky region, it certainly sounds like there's a wide-open opportunity to create a locally-focused news site.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

There Are Plenty Of Ways For Gov't Watchdogs To Do Their Jobs Without Newspapers

from the life-goes-on dept

Following a series of stories from ex-journalists insisting that the death of newspapers would lead to an age of corruption and the downfall of democracy, Yochai Benkler has written up an article explaining just how ridiculous all this sounds. He points out -- as have many others -- that just because newspapers go away, it doesn't mean that journalism goes away -- and then points out a bunch of different models of non-newspaper watchdog/anti-corruption publications that work quite well today. And, should newspapers actually go away, many additional options would likely show up, as well. The idea that people suddenly stop watching the government just because a newspaper is not around makes little sense. For a bunch of "journalists" to make such a claim, when there's ample evidence that alternative models do work, suggests that they're not doing a very good job reporting on those alternative models.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Democracy Can't Exist Without Newspapers?

from the banging-my-head dept

I really want to stop writing stories about clueless newspaper folks making braindead statements about the industry, but it just never stops. The latest is that the former editor of the Scotsman, in Edinburgh (where I'm heading next week), is claiming that democracy can't exist without newspapers. He's upset that the Scotsman has gone downhill apparently -- and that may be the case, but that has little to do with whether or not democracy can or can't exist without a newspaper. The mistake, again (and we keep hearing this) is this weird assumption that without newspapers, it means all news reporting goes away. But that's simply not true.

In fact, we're seeing new reporting startups pop up pretty much every day. The Columbia Journalism Review has a great feature piece written by a long-time foreign correspondent for a variety of newspapers who has built a brand new reporting service that is providing news both on its own site and to a number of other news sources (including some of the newspapers who used to employ him). The fact that newspapers might go away hardly means that journalism goes away -- and it certainly doesn't mean that watchdog efforts go away.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Where's That Line Between True Democracy And Mob Rule?

from the peopleocracy dept

Way back in 7th grade social studies class, I still remember one of the first assignments we had from Mr. Kemp (I think that was his name...) was to make a suggestion for a way to change or improve the way government functions. My suggestion was that in addition to the two legislative branches (the House of Representatives and the Senate), we could add a third branch for direct citizen voting on bills. I think I called it the Peoplocracy or something. Whenever it was time to vote on various bills, the information would be broadcast via TV, and individuals could call a phone number and "vote" one way or the other. I remember that I got a bad grade on the paper, as the teacher told me such an idea made no sense: our elected officials in Congress where there to represent the will of the people, and direct voting on bills by citizens was entirely redundant and unnecessary. To this day, I still feel the teacher dismissed the idea too quickly... but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea.

Since the election there have been a bunch of stories about how President-elect Obama has built up this huge direct line of communication to a huge, passionate and committed group of citizens and supporters via the internet, and there's plenty of speculation about how he intends to use that connection to help push his legislative agenda forward. In many ways, this is quite exciting, and I'm curious to see how it works -- and hoping for the best. After all, a huge problem with our elected officials in the past is that they were so far disconnected from the citizens they were supposed to represent that their policy choices were often backwards. Instead, it was often the powerful lobbyists who got through and were able to fashion laws to support their positions, rather than the overall well-being of the citizenry.

Anything that gives the actual people a bigger voice and a better ability to communicate and connect with the President or other elected officials seems like a great idea -- and we're already seeing some of that in action with the Obama's impressive Change.gov operation, which, among other things allows people to submit policy ideas and allows others to vote on them, in a Digg-like fashion. The possibilities for such a program are potentially limitless and incredibly powerful.

And yet... I'm still left wondering if there isn't a huge risk as well. As we've seen time and time again, powerful technologies don't discriminate. They can be used for very good purposes and they can be used for very bad purposes as well. I'm very excited about the good possibilities, but I'm wondering how much thought is being given to limiting the downside possibilities. There is, of course, the risk of "mob rule"-type decision making at times. While majority rules is the foundation of democracy, there are times when a simple majority can end up taking away the rights of a minority or put in place a dreadful and dangerous policy. This can happen especially after emotionally-charged incidents, where "mob rule" and thoughts of revenge or punishment overrule the rational parts of many people. Also, with any such system, there is the risk of gaming. As we've unfortunately seen with Digg over the past year or so, a small group of individuals have figured out how to effectively control the system, almost entirely stomping out the voices of others.

I don't think this is where things are headed, and I'm not saying that the technology or embracing a direct connection to people is a bad thing. I think just the opposite is true. I'm really excited to see where all of this leads, and the fact that there's at least some indication that we're not dealing with politics as usual is great. But... in seeing everyone talk up how wonderful this is, I worry about what's being done to at least guard against the worst abuses that occur when a direct connection to the people turns from rational into irrational mob rule out for blood.

79 Comments | Leave a Comment..

'YouTube Moments' Hold Politicians Accountable

from the power-to-the-people dept

Virginia Postrel points out a great story on the way YouTube is changing the dynamics of political debate. It points out that when Bill Clinton was first running for president in 1992, the media landscape had relatively few mechanisms for holding politicians accountable for misstatements. There was only room for so many stories on the nightly news, and so when politicians told white lies, reporters tended to move on before anybody could check the claims for accuracy. But now that anyone can create a blog post or a YouTube video, politicians' fibs and gaffes can take on a life of their own, whether it's Hillary Clinton's sniper fire, Barack Obama's "bitter" Pennsylvanians, or John McCain's "100 years in Iraq." The nightly news doesn't always cover these kinds of comments when they happen, but someone in the blogosphere almost always catches them and they then get endlessly reported, debunked, and hashed out online. And once a clip has generated a lot of heat among bloggers, it can often become a big enough story that mainstream media outlets pick it up again. While some of these attacks can be nit-picky or taken out of context, on the whole it's a definite improvement in the quality of democratic debate. With video cameras everywhere and bloggers ready to pounce on any misstatement, politicians have a stronger incentive to tell the truth, and not to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports that the presidential candidates are raising eye-popping sums of money in small increments via the Internet. In the first quarter of 2008, Barack Obama led the pack with $129 million in small donations, followed by Hillary Clinton at $65 million and John McCain at $37 million. Even John McCain's fundraising would have been considered a major accomplishment four years ago -- Howard Dean made headlines with $15 million in online donations in the third quarter of 2003, much of it from small donors. If the trend lasts -- and there are good reasons to think it will -- it will also have a democratizing effect on the political process. Presidential candidates will be more inclined to pay attention to the priorities of grassroots activists, and comparatively less worried about pleasing insiders capable of raising money in $2300 increments.

And of course, these developments are connected. The rise of blogs, YouTube, and other participatory media has gotten more people engaged and invested in the political debate, which in turn makes them more likely to open their wallets. Conversely, the fact that blog readers are often campaign contributors gives bloggers real leverage over candidates -- bloggers can punish candidates perceived as not playing fair by directing contributions to their opponents. All of which is producing a more engaged and accountable political process. Of course, things are far from perfect, but there are good reasons to think that 21st century politics will be better than politics was in the 20th century.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chinese Professor Suing Google And Yahoo For Making Him Disappear From Chinese Search

from the dissident-seo dept

We've seen plenty of lawsuits over the years from people who were upset over how Google ranked them in search results, but here's an interesting twist on that idea. Guo Quan, a professor in China who lost his job after founding a democracy group and pushing for a more democratic China, is going to sue Google and Yahoo for removing all results with his name in China. Google and Yahoo, of course, have agreed to play by local rules in China, upsetting many. Legally, it would seem like this suit has little chance of success -- but I doubt that he cares about the legal result. What this actually does is to call attention to his plight -- and on that front, it's clearly a successful strategy.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Democratic Parties: An Interview With UCLA Computer Scientist Kevin Eustice

from the the-lowest-common-denominator-dj dept

If the ecstatic attention techblogs showered on the nascent Smart Party system last week is any indication, there are thousands of geeks out there who, like me, got their first peek at an iPhone and immediately began fantasizing about a spontaneous, democratic, distributed jukebox that would emerge anywhere friends with shiny gadgets gathered. Smart Party polls all WiFi-enabled music players in the vicinity to figure out what's on user playlists, and then plays music off a central system (even pulling tunes directly from each user's device) tailored to the taste of the group. It's like a DJ who automatically knows what will most please the crowd. But as far as UCLA computer science grad student and Smart Party co-creator Kevin Eustice is concerned, plebiscitary soundtrack software is just a tiny part of a broader project, aimed at crafting an open architecture that will enable a whole range of mobile, location-sensitive social networking applications. Below the fold, my interview with Eustice on music, math, and the future of ubiquitous computing. If you're reading via RSS or from the front page, click on "Read More" to get the full interview.

Julian Sanchez is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Julian Sanchez and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Read More | 5 Comments | Leave a Comment..