I understand how your vote was counted needs to be kept secret from everyone else: the police, your employer, political parties, your lover. Everyone.
How your vote is counted does not need to be kept secret from you, though.
A random voter number could be generated when you vote--and it is only given to you, if you want it. You could go online to check how that voter number was counted after the election. If your ballot was counted wrong, you would have the _option_ of reporting it. You can audit your ballot.
Separately, each ballot could be posted by some reasonable division (such as precinct). The HTML could be selected and entered into a spreadsheet (Excel does this well). Then other people could audit the reported results.
So, how long did it take for Murdoch's journalism values to infect the WSJ? Less than a year?
Just because bad journalism exists in "traditional" media doesn't mean the traditional media is necessarily bad. Or, that there are some bloggers that hold to good journalism doesn't mean all new media is necessarily good.
It seems that, whether old or new media, the issues are always somewhere in the editing and fact checking.
Old media better beware when they cut the traditional safeguards becausing of "costs." If you do, we may have trouble telling your old media source from a new media source. All your discussion points go away.
New media should employ the older safeguards, even if it means you will report the story second rather than first. Reputation is more important than speed, as this WSJ article demonstrates.
Vote Privacy
I understand how your vote was counted needs to be kept secret from everyone else: the police, your employer, political parties, your lover. Everyone.
How your vote is counted does not need to be kept secret from you, though.
A random voter number could be generated when you vote--and it is only given to you, if you want it. You could go online to check how that voter number was counted after the election. If your ballot was counted wrong, you would have the _option_ of reporting it. You can audit your ballot.
Separately, each ballot could be posted by some reasonable division (such as precinct). The HTML could be selected and entered into a spreadsheet (Excel does this well). Then other people could audit the reported results.
It isn't that hard anymore.
WSJ is now Murdoch
So, how long did it take for Murdoch's journalism values to infect the WSJ? Less than a year?
Just because bad journalism exists in "traditional" media doesn't mean the traditional media is necessarily bad. Or, that there are some bloggers that hold to good journalism doesn't mean all new media is necessarily good.
It seems that, whether old or new media, the issues are always somewhere in the editing and fact checking.
Old media better beware when they cut the traditional safeguards becausing of "costs." If you do, we may have trouble telling your old media source from a new media source. All your discussion points go away.
New media should employ the older safeguards, even if it means you will report the story second rather than first. Reputation is more important than speed, as this WSJ article demonstrates.
Re: Media is plural
"Media" is plural. "Medium" is singular. There is still a more important issue.
By embedding journalists with troops in Iraq, the news media took direct financial aid from the government.
Those troops took time to protect embedded journalists. Protecting your life might provide some bias to your reporting.