Building our Own World Through Collaboration
David Weinberger was at Mesh 2012 in Toronto yesterday morning to talk about why he believes we need networked forms of knowledge and collaboration even more than in the past to understand our world.
He admits that the downside to networked knowledge is that it's easier "to be stupid" and is pretty convincing in his argument that networking, collaboration and an open exchange of ideas will eventually win the day.
There are plenty who would not be quite so optimistic.
A couple of years ago I had the privilege of being on a panel discussion at the U.S. National Association of Science Writer's Annual Meeting and Conference at Yale.
One of the plenary speakers was Michael E Mann, a well known Penn State Climate Scientist and the creator of the 'hockey stick' graph showing the future of Climate Change. He said that the communication tools we have at our disposal today to share and collaborate with has in many cases made a " world where you are entitled to your own facts". He went on to add that "My colleagues and I gave up, some time ago, that facts would carry the day".
That isn't a big change in the way people look at the world but networks available from your desktop or your smart phone make it much easier to find like minded people. I once produced an overnight radio talk show where we discussed everything from aliens on Earth to the analysis of dreams. Callers believed what they wanted to believe no matter who our guests were or what they had to say and not surprisingly found lots of support for the ideas on the Internet.
The Internet is great at creating strong communities from individuals who can say ' yay ! there are others who think like me". It is not so great at taking diverging opinions and building a consensus or smoothing over cracks that open in political views or in debates about things such as the science around climate change.
The Internet and indeed our daily lives move at such a fast pace that Thomas Keenan, Director of the Human Rights Project at Bard College in New York has suggested that the "rational consideration of information" has become diminished and instead has become a quick, often emotional response. I think that what we are left with is a let down in the promise that lies in the networked collaboration David Weinberger talks about.
We've taken complex political issues and science problems and turned them into a technology discussion where we look at things like social media as being responsible for events. Web and social media conferences seldom look deeper at the cultural or political conditions that make the conditions ripe for change and to allow new technology to eventually help those conditions along. ( one example of a company that uses online tools to genuinely pull divergent views together to build consensus is Bang the Table.)
The day before at Mesh we heard Clay Johnson say, "Who wants to hear the truth when you can hear that you are right" and that is where much networked collaboration stands today. We are just as guilty of it at events like Mesh.
It isn't as if we don't havet the tools or the desire to join hands and make the world a better place - we just want a reassurance of our own views, the chance to 'like' a worthwhile cause and then move on.
And if you don't like what you see on that journey or here on this page ... well, I'm sure you can find someone , somewhere that you will like.
The Accountable Blogger
As the shooting came to an end in Croatia in the nineties, I was there working for the U.S. based National Democratic Institute team to help introduce the concept of a free and open media to the country's political system. What I quickly learned from people living with political and ethnic mistrust, was that their definition of what constituted free and open media was quite different than my own view of how it could work.
I came from a country with libel laws, broadcasting regulations, and in my work with the CBC, a set of Journalistic Standards. Our challenges back home included shaking loose the good political stories and beating the competition to the punch. In Croatia and the other former Yugoslavian countries there was still ethnic violence, some political and cultural institutions were still not fully functional, and no one trusted what they heard through the media. For many, finding a safe, land mine free place for their kids to play was more of a priority than sculpting a democratic media landscape.
Political parties felt that one way to achieve an open media was to have their own channel. This was pre-blogging days and if a party could have its own media outlet then they could get the message out unfiltered and uninterrupted by concerns about fact checking or accountability.
After watching the last couple of Social Media Ref videos from Cision I couldn't help but think back to my time with NDI. The general feeling in the videos and across many bloggers and blogging tools is that dammit, it is our right to blog, we have the right to free speech, and that we can do it unencumbered by accountability and time consuming fact checking. The first video takes on the question of whether bloggers are journalists and the second one on the legal implications of blogging.
But the panelists, as with many bloggers here in safe and conservative Canada, don't have much of a stake in their quest to be journalistic-like in their blogs or in putting on the cloak of freedom to speak their mind. Concerns about the legal ramifications of blogging seem to be about pushing limits because, well ... just because.
The suggestion from Saul Colt that bloggers are somehow more accountable than a journalist really doesn't wash in so many ways. Yes, the blog's readers would be upset and say so. And then what ? Probably not much. Certainly not the scorn of "10,000 people".
As for the comment that journalists don't get that kind of backlash speaks to the lack of journalistic experience on the panel. Readers, viewers, and listeners will yell just as loud, just as long, and in the case of media organizations with editors, producers, ombunsman or ethic councils, it will often move up the levels. If anyone on Cision panel gets the facts wrong, who are we going to complain to ?
Unlike Al Jazeera's English correspondent Melissa Chan who was recently kicked out of Beijing, Canadian bloggers don't face that kind of sanction for speaking their mind. There aren't many Anderson Coppers in their midst who have bluffed their way into Myanmar to interview students fighting the Burmese government. ( this was early in his career when interestingly, he was working as a fact checker for a news agency). Our home grown crop of citizen journalists are not likely to pay the price journalists Tim Heatherington and Chris Hondros did a year ago when they were killed in Libya. Bloggers here don't need (or generally have) the tech savvy to get around a state monitored web to get online.
As I'm arriving in Toronto for the annual Mesh Conference I can already guess at some of the threads that will be woven into the plenary panels, workshops, and discussions over a cold drink, and they will include strands from the Social Media Ref.
We will talk about how we have the power to publish, how we can use that power for marketing magic, and that the wisdom of crowds carries the power to change. Tough to argue with those views because when executed well, a kind of magic does happen.
But then a political party with its own TV station also has the power to publish, and can tap into the power of crowds with dramatic results.
Social Media does need a Ref at times as much as it needs the time to give some thought to the rather simplistic and self-serving efforts we put such a powerful medium to use.
George Bernard Shaw said "that the problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred".
We may well have that magic trick nailed in the blogging world.
Freedom to Blog, Responsibility to be a Journalist
It is a queston that never seems to go away and one of little interest to anyone who is not heavily invested in either blogging or journalism. The impact though cuts across a very wide swath of society and demands wider attention than from those with a vested interest.
The question posed by Cision this week was "Are bloggers journalists". The reason it came to my attention one more time, is because Martin Waxman (@martinwaxman) tweeted a link to the Cision video on the subject which includes comments from Saul Colt (@SaulColt) of Freshbooks, Valerie Stachurski from Lucreative Meida (@ValTorontoGal) Matthew Stradiotto (@MStradiotto) of Matchstick, and Julie Geller of Cision (@JulieGeller).
The video and the Social Media ref is an initative from Cision, and while Cision has a strong interest in media and media technology it does not necessarily have a strong interest in journalism and the clips are from a Cision influenced panel of marketers, not journalists.
And there we have one of the first differences between a journalist and a non-journalist. There was little in the post or in the short video to give me any context about the project. I'm still unsure on the concept to tell the truth, especially as the concept according to Julie Geller is based on the 'Marriage Ref'. Great, let's discuss journalism and blogging using an over-the-top, over-hyped big budget, big network TV show....
However the video is a good selection of clips, raises some interesting points and I'm prepared to take them on.
With a background in professional journalism that pre-dates the Internet (I scored a few awards while with the CBC ), a Social Media background that pre-dates Facebook and most other SoMe giants ( I was a SysOp with CompuServe in the nineties) and a current role as a Corporate Communications Director and speaker in the U.S. and Canada, I hope I can bring some perspective to the question and to the less than objective social media 'refs'.
I responded to the initial call to 'weigh in' by saying:
"Are bloggers journalists? No
Are some bloggers journalists ? Yes
Does it matter whether they are or aren't? Not really."
As Saul Colt pointed out the barrier to entry in blogging is low and I'll add that by extension, to be a journalist you have to put in some time and prove yourself. Assuming you are employed as a journalist by a media organization you have to have passed an interview or 2, likely have specific training in writing, recording, or camera work, have to live by certain broadcast regulations, and be part of an organization that is accountable to a reading and paying public, not to mention an owner, publisher or shareholders. You are also accountable for absolutely everything you write or say and your job may well be on the line as part of the accountability. Yes, that imposes certain constraints on what you do, but it by no means limits your power to tell important stories, break major news, or achieve any number of worthwhile goals. There are a lot of hughly influential, prize winning, ground breaking men and women in the world who have influence change while living with these constraints. In my own career I've managed newsrooms that have received RTNDA awards, produced highly rated current affairs programming, and watched the phone and the inbox light up when an important story hit the air. Guidelines and accountability have never been an issue.
Bloggers, as Lucreative Media's Valerie Stachurski noted, tend to be involved because they want to be able to say whatever they want to say, not be accountable to anyone and not get caught up in fact checking. ( I found the "not be accountable to anyone" to be the most bothersome part of her comment) While that might a good thing for the creative spirit that moves you, or for anyone in marketing or PR, that is not a good thing for journalism or for an informed view of the world.
One of the values of journalism is to aim for objectivity, verify the facts, provide some balance and put it all together in a context that will inform the user or viewer and add to their view of the world. The worldview in this case could be your local community, province, or country as seen in many global contexts.
A working journalist will go out under a variety of conditions to a range of events, collect first person stories or quotes, shoot some good pictures or video, or record some good tape. They will then assemble the piece into a coherent story, and run it by an editor or at least a colleague to get a second set of eyes on the material. The good ones represent their audience, challenge things as they think their audience might, and back it up with a skill set and resources their audience does not have. The working journalist also usually does it all to a strict deadline. A few minutes after the newscast has aired or the presses starting to roll is not close enough.
A good blogger with a committment to many of the principles and practices that go with journalism can be every bit as good a journalist as someone toiling away at a newspaper or TV outlet. The badge that comes with the degree or the sign on the office door is not all there is to journalism. It is the committment to the content that matters.
As Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian newspaper has said many times, "Journalists are not the only experts in the world". That in itself is enough to warrant some blogs getting the attention they deserve. Note that I say some blogs. There are some newspapers that barely deserve to be taken seriously, but there are far more blogs that are not worth the time it takes you to type in the url.
To really answer the question posed by the Social Media Ref you need to take another step that Alan Rusbridger and the Guardian has done and look beyond the business model of journalism today and look at the fundamentals of being a journalist and the responsibility that comes with having the freedom to write as you please.
Blogging and the mainstream outlets offer an exciting future for journalism that isn't an either / or state of mind. The Social Media Ref at least conceded the 2 can live together and play off each other, but has missed the mark in addressing the fundamentals that underlie their own question.
Please Vote to be a Fan of Liking Me
We've become a community of beggars. Or at least those who use social media tools for PR, communications, or marketing across all sort of sectors and industries.
Bright people who I would probably enjoy having a beer with have a never ending desire to also make sure I like them or their latest blog post. They need my vote to help win a Webby or some other award. They want me to become a Facebook fan. With my online support they might receive funding for a project or to travel to a conference. Get enough people to pitch in some funding and a piece of science research has a better chance of seeing the light of day http://www.petridish.org/ . Their blog page has a billboard image that screams "Follow me on Twitter". And when they they hit a magic number of tweets or followers they can't resist sharing that meaningless bit of informaton with everyone.
Maybe I wouldn't share a beer with them after all.
My first step into social media was when CompuServe was battling with AOL for supremacy and the race was on to see which service had the fastest dial-up connection. All that counted was the exchange of ideas and finding people to talk with about those ideas. As a CompuServe SysOp I managed a couple of forums that were there to help the members. There were not tens of thousands of users in any community so there was a great exchange of ideas and help was on the way when you needed it. Today, numbers can get so big that like the person who passes out on a busy metropolitan sidewalk and is ignored, users may simply step around you on their way to somewhere else. Unless of course you are conscious enough and ready to play the percentages game as you as you beg for a retweet to stay alive.
Without an in-depth plan or level of sophistication you can fire up someting like Survey Monkey, post results with no statistical significance and you develop street cred because 200 people said yes, yes, no, yes, true, N/A.
Want a publicity stunt to get eyes on YouTube or on your company Facebook page? No problem. Vote for it and we won't bell the cat - we'll stick a laser on a shark's tail. http://gizmo.do/KuVdMn
Online tools have produced some great success stories but also bred a culture of online self importance. An environment where shear numbers give you clout (not to mention Klout) and where popularity invokes credibility.
With apologies to Network and the late Peter Finch, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to like you or vote for you anymore.
Limiting Photo Ops at BIO
I'll be quick to admit, I know there is a conflict of interests in my appearance at the annual Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual shindig being held this year in Washington, DC.
First off as Communications Director with Genome Alberta I'm here as an exhibitor (visit us at booth 3705 if you're in the neighbourhood) which brings with it a certain advocacy role. I also wear an official blogger cap for BIO and though they have made no editorial restrictions I have a lot of my access courtest of their media relations office. Lastly I have that contract producer affiliation with CBC and that gives me some electronic media access not available under the other 2 hats.
In the new digital reality this is really not so uncommon. Many people don the blogger's cap and do really well to really poorly writing and reporting on events. It doesn't make them journalists but it doesn't have to set them apart either. With the ability to publish blogs, set up sharing sites, engage in social media and publish their own media releases, many communications and public relations staff or consultants blur the line. Then there are the journalists that easily embed themselves in an industry or a war and do their best to maintain some objectivity and their own organization's journalistics standards and practice. Meanwhile all 3 roles cozy up together to share story ideas and contacts, post blogs and write or comment on op-ed pieces all over the web.
I do my level best wherever I am to walk that line. In my Communications role it goes a long way to keeping my objectivity about our organization and to talk about our work to many people in many walks of life and see many perspectives. As a blogger it means I try to maintain some writing and journalistic standards and not see a blog as simply all about promoting me or Genome Alberta. And with a part of me still in the journalistic world it affords me some ongoing journalistic cred ( I get a tour of NPR in Washington later today ) and see the world well outside the newsroom lens.
For the next few days I'll be doing that including some BIORadio along with time at our exhibitor's booth and doing some posts.
So with that in mind I set off this morning with that mix in mind to take some pictures of the behind the scenes work that goes on at a convention and exhibition hosting 20,000 plus people from all over the world. I got some good pictures from the exhibit floor and went up a level to take some pictures of the overall setup. Out came my camera and in came 3 security guards. Go ahead and take pictures from ground level they said, no pictures from this level shooting across the floor. That was just plain odd. No one was quite sure why the rule was in place and because I didn't take no for an answer right away the discussion range got narrower. It was all about no. I did consider the fact that because there are a lot of employees at work not connected with BIO as an organization that maybe there were some privacy issues. However from where I was it was harder to pick out individuals than when I was down on the exhibit floor. Maybe there was concern people would shoot more than with a camera but that still doesn't account from the freedom to be up close. Was it an image thing of exhibitor's not wanting to be seen with their pants down. If so bad call because the transition from empty floor space to major exhibition is all a good news story. In the end though it was not a hill to die on and I put the camera away.
Not before getting a couple of shots though. Here is one of the no-no pictures. I hope you enjoy the secret we now share:
What of Bradley Manning?
One of the mesh11 sessions I managed to take in was on WikiLeaks and featured Emily Bell, Micah Sifry and Gideon Lichfield.
The theme was how WikiLeaks has changed media. If you were to take a look across new and old media over the last several months you could easily conclude that it has. The mesh11 panel wasn't convinced.
They seem to agree it had an impact and maybe inspired some aspects of the media, but not changed the course of media. New or old.
Micah suggested that WikiLeaks didn't start the ball rolling. It joined the ball that started rolling years ago with mashups, uploading, and tranparency in many areas. He said that we are living an age of transparency with higher expectations and people are generally "tired of being in the audience". Wikileaks was merely one more step in this evolution. You'll noticed I said was because the panel agreed that WikiLeaks was flawed in practice, is now broken, and there is nothing rising from the ashes yet. There is no way to upload like there was and founder Julian Assange has legal battles to keep him otherwise occupied. These days anyone who wants to pass on a secret bundle of documents may be better off doing it the old fashioned way by keeping a copy for safety and pass on the originals personally.
He's in jail, reportedly in deplorable conditions, while Assange gets the headlines and despite charges against him, lives quite comfortably in the English countryside. Someone in the audience asked why the media had not leapt to the defence of Assange? Given the facts I'm not sure he's the one needing defending and raised my own question about Bradley Manning. Micah said "we don't pay attention to the grunts in our wars". A sad commentary that people lament the charismatic Assange and cede the troubled Bradley Manning to the category of collateral damage. Journalists can go to great lengths to protect their sources but he wasn't the direct source. If he had passed on his CD collection directly the fallout would have been very, very different. WikiLeaks was a conduit for information. For a brief flash through the Internet cloud, a valuable conduit. It wasn't and isn't a journalistic organization. It dumped a massive amount of data on the world that needed to be read, analyzed, put into context, and the story told. WikiLeaks didn't do that and took on mainstream media partners either as a marketing move or an admission it couldn't do it themselves. The headines ended up coming mostly through regular media. People in general did not download the data set, read it themselves, glean their own particular areas of concern, and then confront their elected officials. They left it to someone else.
Bloggers proclaimed victory for new media, Twitter was littered with opinions, concerned people rose up to defend Assange, hackers attacked those that dropped WikiLeaks business from theirmsrvers, and WikiLeaks was generally hailed as changing the game. The panel wasn't convinced that media empires or diplomats were about to fall because of WikiLeaks and neither am I. But I'll ask again.
What of Bradley Manning? Sent from my iPad
The Future of Media at mesh 2011
Mesh 2011 and the Future of Media
Emily Bell was the first keynote speaker at mesh 2011 this morning for one of the lets-be-unconference-like mesh onstage Q & A sessions.Her general thesis is that media has undergone a fundamental shift and she should know, with a career covering media going back to 1990 and one of her first big stories was Rupert Murdoch's launch of Sky TV.
Emily was formerly with the Guardian newpaper organization which has great journalism in its pedigree and is making great strides in fitting new media into the business mix. One of the first Twitter comments that appeared said: "Keynote speaker and new media expert Emily Bell arrives on stage holding ancient journo relics: notepad and pen. " Most of #mesh11 comments so far have been a bit of a play-by-play with lots of retweets and not a lot of value added. That comment is sadly typical of the attitude to mainstream media at web conferences but ironically Emily Bell is the recognized expert on stage that people have paid to see. One of her key points that got good play on Twitter was "You can't copy-paste traditional media tactics to the Internet". She noted that mainstream media thinks of news, launches, sites, etc in old terms and in general she is bang on in her observation. Not that anyone seems to have found the formula to get media to change but a few are coming around. Sitting at the table with me are a couple of people from Mark News and it is an example of a new media organization trying to get it right and probably following the formula that Emily raised and that also got lots of tweets.
" ... future of media is many small news organizations with lower margins." The discussion on stage soon moved around to an inevitable discussion about the NY Times paywall experiment and to Rupert Murdoch who owns the Wall Street Journal which also charges for premium content. Not surprisingly Twitter arm chair media experts felt that Rupert Murdoch simply doesn't get it.
But a little context is in order. First off Emily's old boss The Guardian is run by a Trust, so does not have quite the same demands and objectives as the for-profit Murdoch Empire. Not that the Guardian Trust can bleed money and tilt at windmills, but context counts if you're going to be a mesh op-ed. It should also be noted that Murdoch runs, operates, or manages a mix of companies. In my view Murdoch does in fact, understand digital media. His Wall Street Journal is only one part of his mix and is the one he has chosen to have a paywall. Yes, as has been noted, anyone can publish and there are some well run, well respected, and well written non-traditional news sites out there to prove there is value to the new order. It doea not automatically follow that paywall or old media equal bad. For now at least if we want deep investigative journalism, objective foreign coverage, and to have a steady steam of professional coverage available we need the Guardian, NY Times and other similar media outlets every bit as much as we need the newcomers.
Sent from my iPad
I Want to be a Journalist
The 2011 version of the annual mesh conference in Toronto gets underway tomorrow at the Allstream Centre. A new location for mesh but for me I'm expecting the usual mix that has brought me back again this year. In fact I haven't missed a mesh as a journalist with the CBC, a freelancer, or as part of jobs closely linked to the web, social media, and new media.
The usual mix is going to leave me envious at the level of innovation found in some of the ideas, and leave me ready and willing to ramp up my own technical sophistication. There will equally be those presentations that still seem to be a bit wide-eyed about a technology that is well established and solid. Each year there is less emphasis on a show of hands for who is on Facebook or Twitter and more discussions about what can really be done with digital platforms which is what makes the conference worth attending.
Inevitably though there will be talk of citizen journalism and how we are all publishers or content producers.
Inevitably I will want to cringe, cry, or have myself committed after the discussion is over. The comments will come from the presenters, questions from the floor, and over coffee or a beer.
Not too long ago I received an e-mail from a former colleague striking out on her own. Though a bit more naive than some comments that come out of mesh, the thoughts weren't unusual and illustrates a growing disconnect between journalists and many in the online community. I comes up regularly in posts about how blogging is becoming journalism. At its worst some communications professionals flash it like a clenched fist salute as they proclaim that journalism is dead and they can control the distribution.
My friend said that as she wanted to write more, expand her job activities, and put her communications degree to better use, perhaps she could turn her hand to investigative journalism. Did I have any tips?
Like some of the talk I hear at mesh every year it left me wondering whether to give up or scream.
Instead I managed to piece together a coherent reply that didn't discourage her from pursuing her journalistic ambitions but that made it clear you don't just decide to become an investigative journalist. You don't do journalism from the comfort of your office or kitchen, and freelancing as a journalist is a tough job. Freelancing as an investigative journalist is more like a lifestyle committment because it seldom makes you rich and it may take a lifetime to be recognized by your peers for your work.
I pointed her to a good piece in the Globe and Mail at the time, that illustrated what journalism is about, but more importantly was about the investigative journalist Tim Hetherington killed in Libya. ( The best piece is a Globe plus subscription article but the meat of it is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/sebastian-junger-he-was-trying-to-see-beyond-the-drama-of-guys-shooting-guns/article2010263/ )
I gave her a link to a bio of former CBC Radio colleaugue Suzanne Reber now leading an investigative journalism team at National Public Radio in Washington, DC.
Journalism isn't just about opinion. It involves looking for the facts from primary sources and double checking the facts. It may involve on-the-scene reporting, but that generally means sifting through events to tell a story that best describes the scene.
When the Ottawa area was hit by a minor earthquake last year a prolific user on Twitter tweeted or re-tweeted every moment of the experience as he was seemingly pretty close to centre. Afterwards he noted "now I know what it feels like to be a breaking news journalist".
His stream pf conciousness is not journalism.
A breaking news journalist would have collected several eye witness quotes (perhaps including this particular Twitter user), contacted a seismologist or emergency official, probably gone to air already if it was radio, posted a story for the web for print, and been part of an editorial team making sure all the bases were well covered. And the journalist would have been working to deadline.
I also left her with a brief story often attributed to Margaret Atwood.
"I was at a reception one evening when a doctor said that when he retired he was thinking of writing a book. I told him that now that I am reaching retirement age, I was considering taking up surgery."
Mesh will inevitably include a lot of views on citizen journalism and like my friend who feels it is time to become an investigative journalist or like the Twitter user, all will rejoice that they are now journalists, ready to rake in the readers.
Few of them will dodge a bullet for the job, stand out in the pouring rain or freezing cold to collect original material,or ask the husband of a woman killed in a homicide what is next for him or his family. They won't take time to haul around a good digital camera but think that the cell phone camera is all they need. They won't record interview for future reference and seldom will they have a set of journalistic standards to fall back on.
They may be writers and many apply the rigour and discipline needed to produce journalistic pieces. Those one may indeed call themselves journalists whether or not they get paid as one.
I'm looking forward to mesh but with one caveat. I am not in the mood to listen to the armchair quarterbacks ramble on about how anyone can be a publisher and we are all journalists.
And by the way here is a picture of a journalist just before the bombs started to fall in Baghdad. The suitcase is to pay the hotel bill and expenses because the hard bitten journalist doens't always hang around in places waiting for you AMX.
WikiLeaks Serves up Popcorn
Don't you love it when the wisdom of crowds becomes a herd of sheep?
The WikiLeaks 'cablegate' is being portrayed as everythig from showing terrorists where to strike to an assault on free speech. Thrown in for good measure is a kind of righteous thumbing of the nose at journalists who WikiLeaks supporters feel have finally been shown the door. So far though, all I can see is a case of posting documents that do not belong to either the alleged soldier who leaked them or the website that posted them.Even that must be tough to prove because no one at WikiLeaks has been charged with publishing the material though the U.S. soldier alleged to have uploaded the material is facing a peck of trouble. He did after all violate the terms of his employment and there is a consequence to that action.The rheotoric all over the world however is overshadowing anything that seems to be in the documents.For example, I heard an audio clip on the radio yesterday from one of the Julian Assange supporters in Great Britain who said the WikiLeaks founder was doing what any journalist does and simply releasing a story. Well, from where I sit, not really, because what is on the WikiLeaks site is not a story. It is a data dump. Even a good blogger crafts their postings better than that. For those who have not taken the time to really look at the material here is a place to start. http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html You'll find a lot of data but that's it.
While not exactly a story or journalistic for that matter, the material is still worth looking at and good on the WikiLeaks team for putting it out there. It isn't journalism, it isn't a story and it isn't what journalists do. I'd also note that nothing in the background of Julian Assange I can find makes him a journalist. I'm sure he cooks his own meals and drives a car but he is neither a chef or a chaffeur. He's a damn good hacker, self promoter and certainly has some nerve. A professor at the University of Kent named Frank Furedi who wrote a book called Politics of Fear: Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying the cable dump is "the journalistic equivelant of reality television". I agree it is a kind of titillating politcal voyeurism that is interesting, but I haven't found anything about to destroy the world order. Really, is revealing the antics of a buxom nurse or a diplomat who drinks too much making any difference to you or me?
Then we have the YouTube video from Operation Payback the group claiming to be behind the digital attacks on the websites for Visa, Mastercard and Amazon today. Nifty little video. Dramatic opening and electronically altered voices addressing themselves to the corrupt governments of the world. These folks have been watching WAY too much science fiction. Apparently the companies that made a business decision to cutoff WikiLeaks from servers or fundraising tools are interfering with access to the 'global conciousness'. The message underlying the entire video is that this group will undertake retaliation on behalf of us all. The end result is that a group calling themselves Anonymous, who post their threats on Twitter in ALL CAPS, undertake Operation Payback by making it difficult for the rest of us to access our credit card accounts online. So there. Take THAT all you corrupt governments who drink too much, spend too much, gossip too much and call each other names. And so THERE mainstream journalists who never even thought to bring down entire websites in the name of journalistic integrity, free speech or breaking news.Just as overblown is some of the reaction from the politicians. One of the cables included a list of strategic sites that might be targets for terrorists. It included pipelines, refineries, and nuclear reactors and some politicos have expressed concern that such a list was now out in the open. Now part of that global consciousness I guess. I'm fairly sure that most terrorists need neither WikiLeaks or sloppy diplomats to figure out that knocking a big hole in a big pipeline would disrupt the economy. Interestingly though, none of the diplomats seem to have noted that a cyberattack on Amazon, Visa and Mastercard was a possbility.I'm inclined to agree with Julian Assange when he says his site has revealed "some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption." In this case however he seems to have popped up a fresh batch of popcorn. It tastes great and we want more but there isn't a whole lot to it. Meanwhile, leading the news in Calgary was a report on an international child pornography ring that has been broken and that included 2 Alberta men in the list of arrests. Maybe Operation Payback should worry a lot less about the popcorn being served up lately by WikiLeaks and see if they can take on something that really matters. Like denying service to child pornography sites.
