"Journalists Need A Point Of View" - It would be a huge improvement for them to actually be journalists; rather than spin doctors. For a given story, provide as much of the facts as can be determined and let the audience make up their own mind. If done correctly, I shouldn't even know what the journalist's thoughts, on the matter at hand, are.
When it comes to reporting on politics, the media need to recognize that there is a whole 360 degree spectrum of thought and not just left/right or blue vs. red. Libertarianism being one example that political reporters seem completely baffled by.
Seems to me that improvement in information sharing was a key feature that sold us DHS.
As a layperson looking on from the outside, I see no signs that a decade of improved intelligence gathering has improved our lot in the least. I then balance that against the clear unmistakable fact that Americans have lost essential liberties that we are not likely to get back.
Not to mention that all these "improvements" will never give use perfect security. So I for one would, far and away, prefer more liberty and freedom than having the biggest daily intel report known to man.
As I said at the top, I usually really like your stuff so I don't want to argue with you. My stuff on the other hand can seriously use an editor.
One last point, and I'll let you move on to more useful activities: we will be very lucky to get even a tiny improvement in your liberties (in our lifetime). When dealing with congress keeping things as black and white as possible is important. So "Repeal the Patriot Act, Now" is more likely to have an impact than: "but don't forget about the hazmat suits".
I got what you were saying. My point is the small amount of good you have pointed out is hardly even worth mentioning.
To frame it another way: your suggestion, that we try to surgically save the few little healthy cells from this massive flaming ball of cancer growing so large that is pushing us ever closer to the sun, is some we should all definitely get behind.
I normally like most of Dark Helmets posts but he is way off base on this one.
Just to keep this focused: how could you possible balance your three reasons for keeping this act (which boil down to the ease of moving money around for some), against the loss of liberty for everyone one in the country; including future generations?
We have gotten so use to Congress ignoring/ignorance of the constitution that we have been placated into not tar and feathering them within an inch of their lives....
They violate their oaths of office daily, if not by the hour. They have been doing this generations (but has really picked up steam starting in the 90's). So the reality is, by continuing to vote for these idiots, the conversion of the 'home of the free' into the 'home of the whiners' is completely our fault.
I haven't heard many people suggest outlawing plea bargains. I'm not an expert in this area but it is my understanding that many countries have done just that; as they understand the corrosive effects of the whole bargaining process.
While disruption by the internet is a significant force on journalism, I think the biggest negative driver is themselves. Once reporters stop offering even the pretense of reporting just the facts of a story and openly promoted only editorial spin, their days were numbered.
It’s my understanding that the wheels came off the track almost immediately; with Congress directing federal support for the city of Savannah after their great fire. They knew it was unconstitutional for congress to divert tax dollars to aid the city but they did it anyway. One more example that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Id you want to place the blame on one thing, I tend to agree with Mark Anderson that the the Board of Directors were the group in the best position to keep the market from getting out of hand:
Newspapers died when they switched from reporting the facts and trying to keep aware of their bias to pushing their spin/agenda. This is a death that has been coming for decades; well before web browsers even existed.
I think the last election cycle, with more people reading alternative viewpoints on the web, has pushed newspaper and mass media to the edge of the cliff. I'm a little surprised that they don't know just how dead they are.
Okay, it is true that your CD-ROM came out before Microsoft's. The fact is that Britannica passed on Gates' offer and had no clue how to sell a CD-ROM. So describing it as an urban myth is misleading, at best.
PDF with the details:
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/greenstein/images/htm/Research/Cases/EncyclopaediaBritannica.pdf
Tom do you have a reference you can cite for your claim. I'll do a little checking on my end. I've heard this story for so long it will take more than just your word to change my mind.
To make a slightly different point, these two sentences seem to contradict one another when place together:
"...it won't take long for all the users of the closed site to move on and find these new sites. Those new sites will be harder to find and harder to shut down..."
One side of the story, then another side of the story; then next story
"Journalists Need A Point Of View" - It would be a huge improvement for them to actually be journalists; rather than spin doctors. For a given story, provide as much of the facts as can be determined and let the audience make up their own mind. If done correctly, I shouldn't even know what the journalist's thoughts, on the matter at hand, are.
When it comes to reporting on politics, the media need to recognize that there is a whole 360 degree spectrum of thought and not just left/right or blue vs. red. Libertarianism being one example that political reporters seem completely baffled by.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me that improvement in information sharing was a key feature that sold us DHS.
As a layperson looking on from the outside, I see no signs that a decade of improved intelligence gathering has improved our lot in the least. I then balance that against the clear unmistakable fact that Americans have lost essential liberties that we are not likely to get back.
Not to mention that all these "improvements" will never give use perfect security. So I for one would, far and away, prefer more liberty and freedom than having the biggest daily intel report known to man.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said at the top, I usually really like your stuff so I don't want to argue with you. My stuff on the other hand can seriously use an editor.
One last point, and I'll let you move on to more useful activities: we will be very lucky to get even a tiny improvement in your liberties (in our lifetime). When dealing with congress keeping things as black and white as possible is important. So "Repeal the Patriot Act, Now" is more likely to have an impact than: "but don't forget about the hazmat suits".
Keep up the good work Dark Helmet!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I got what you were saying. My point is the small amount of good you have pointed out is hardly even worth mentioning.
To frame it another way: your suggestion, that we try to surgically save the few little healthy cells from this massive flaming ball of cancer growing so large that is pushing us ever closer to the sun, is some we should all definitely get behind.
Re: Re:
I normally like most of Dark Helmets posts but he is way off base on this one.
Just to keep this focused: how could you possible balance your three reasons for keeping this act (which boil down to the ease of moving money around for some), against the loss of liberty for everyone one in the country; including future generations?
We have gotten so use to Congress ignoring/ignorance of the constitution that we have been placated into not tar and feathering them within an inch of their lives....
They violate their oaths of office daily, if not by the hour. They have been doing this generations (but has really picked up steam starting in the 90's). So the reality is, by continuing to vote for these idiots, the conversion of the 'home of the free' into the 'home of the whiners' is completely our fault.
Seen it in the movies
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence! We have the government in our pockets....
Root Issue
I haven't heard many people suggest outlawing plea bargains. I'm not an expert in this area but it is my understanding that many countries have done just that; as they understand the corrosive effects of the whole bargaining process.
Many forces at work
While disruption by the internet is a significant force on journalism, I think the biggest negative driver is themselves. Once reporters stop offering even the pretense of reporting just the facts of a story and openly promoted only editorial spin, their days were numbered.
Fans?
Viacom's first move was to... petulantly punish not only the fans involved in the dispute, but all of their CUSTOMERS.
FTFY
Seems to me to be a big stretch, to think that many of their customers are Viacom "fans".
Re: Re:
Thanks for the tip on Ghostery. I wasn't familiar with that product but I'm trying it out now....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution
It’s my understanding that the wheels came off the track almost immediately; with Congress directing federal support for the city of Savannah after their great fire. They knew it was unconstitutional for congress to divert tax dollars to aid the city but they did it anyway. One more example that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re: NewsNow
I agree - NewsNow UK is a very handy site. Check it out if you have never used it: http://www.newsnow.co.uk/
Had enough of this years ago
This is just the latest example of why I stopped giving the NFL any of my time or attention.
Re:
real journalism has been dead for some time Fixed it for you....
Problem is a lack of honesty
Id you want to place the blame on one thing, I tend to agree with Mark Anderson that the the Board of Directors were the group in the best position to keep the market from getting out of hand:
http://www.tapsns.com/blog/index.php/2009/04/%c2%bb-an-open-letter-to-the-board-of-directors/
The Internet isn't what killed them
Newspapers died when they switched from reporting the facts and trying to keep aware of their bias to pushing their spin/agenda. This is a death that has been coming for decades; well before web browsers even existed.
I think the last election cycle, with more people reading alternative viewpoints on the web, has pushed newspaper and mass media to the edge of the cliff. I'm a little surprised that they don't know just how dead they are.
Re: Advice for Britannica
Tom thanks for the additional detail. It is helpful to hear Britannica's side of the story.
Re: Re: Advice for Britannica
Okay, it is true that your CD-ROM came out before Microsoft's. The fact is that Britannica passed on Gates' offer and had no clue how to sell a CD-ROM. So describing it as an urban myth is misleading, at best.
PDF with the details:
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/greenstein/images/htm/Research/Cases/EncyclopaediaBritannica.pdf
Re: Advice for Britannica
Tom do you have a reference you can cite for your claim. I'll do a little checking on my end. I've heard this story for so long it will take more than just your word to change my mind.
Re: Harder to find...
To make a slightly different point, these two sentences seem to contradict one another when place together:
"...it won't take long for all the users of the closed site to move on and find these new sites. Those new sites will be harder to find and harder to shut down..."