Journalism In the Digital Era: It's for Chumps

Man, this is the kind of stuff that can ruin your day. Ruin your year, for that matter.

The short version is that a Washington Post reporter wrote a story, meaning he spent hours tracking down sources, traveling to talk to the sources, checking and re-checking facts, and then, ya know, writing the story. Only to have the entire thing "stolen" by a site called "Gawker," which specializes in gossip and fluff, with, in effect, no attribution to the original source.

Gawker gets a free story. The WaPo reporter gets, well, nuthin'. Journalism in the age of the internet: Chumpsville.

Although, of course, the WaPo reporter was able to mine the story of the stolen story for another story, the one I linked to above. It's worth reading, because it digs into how/why this can/will affect the future of news.

So hey, go read it. Quick, before Gawker swipes it, too.

Op-Ed Pieces Are, Ya Know, OPINION Pieces

Just a tip for those who aren't sure what's what in the newspaper (online or off): Pieces that appear in the OPINION section are not the same as pieces that appear in the NEWS section. Opinion page writers are typically not journalists, and journalists, who report on the news, typically don't write for the opinion section. Make sense?

Honest. It's NOT About the Beer.

This has officially become irritating. Near as I can tell, 99% of the people obsessed with the upcoming meet-and-greet at the White House picnic table are focusing on the beer. (We Americans are masters at stripping anything down to its most trivial aspect.)

Either they're annoyed at the beer choices (too foreign, too industrial, too whatever), or they're ruminating, in entirely too much detail, about beer as a metaphor for --- take your pick --- class, race, whatever.

Folks, it's not about the beer. This is President Obama putting campaign rhetoric into action. Remember back in the campaign? He kept saying he wanted to help Americans find common ground.

The example he used was abortion. Yes, some people are pro-choice, some people aren't. But as he pointed out, no one in their right mind wants abortion for the sake of abortion. So he said he hoped to bring both sides together to focus on what matters: why there's a need for abortion in the first place. To have the good minds on both sides of the issue talk about the core of the issue --- unwanted pregnancy --- rather than continuing to talk past each other.

That's what he's doing with the "Beer Summit": bringing together two people who, I guarantee you, are burdened with misconceptions and stereotypes of each other.

I doubt Gates has ever talked with a cop in his life. And I suspect Crowley isn't much fond of the snooty professor types in Cambridge

. They're not alone. We Americans are as divided by "class" (economics, education, upbringing) as we are by race, religion, and our attitudes toward abortion. I know this. I've spent my entire life talking to both sides. Having a conversation with dishwashers on Tuesday, and chatting with professors on Wednesday. (*1)

So Obama is bringing together two men from two entirely different worlds. He's gonna sit down with them, and they're gonna talk. The beer was just a way to do that.

Sure, he could have said, "Hey, guys, let's have a cup of coffee." But that's not as, well, informal. Not quite as conducive to laying all the cards on the table, looking each other in the face, and finding common ground.

So let's get over the beer bullshit, and focus on what matters. I hope Crowley, Gates, and Obama have a great time.

_____________

*1: I didn't plan it that way. From the time I was sixteen until my early 30s, I worked in pink and blue collar jobs. Never talked to anyone BUT dishwashers, construction workers, janitors. Then I went to college and suddenly I was talking to professors and other white collar types.

Giving "Attention" Where Attention is Due; Or Learning to Live With the Third Life

Or something like that. One of the regular readers of this blog, Susan-the-Brewess (who, like me, lives in Iowa), just sent me a link to an article about "attention" and distraction.

The piece, in New York Magazine, ran last May. I read it then, but thanks to Susan's email, I just re-read it. And it's worth reading (assuming, ahem, you're interested in things like why the HELL does life feel so different than it did ten years ago?

I mean, didn't things used to move at a less frantic pace??) An interesting companion piece of sorts, by the way, is this short article in today's New York Times about the dangers of texting while driving. The short version: It's dangerous. Don't do it. (Please. As someone who is constantly dogging distracted cellphone-using drivers who run red lights and stop signs, I'm BEGGING you to get off the fucking phone and pay attention to  driving.)

Anyway, I'm glad Susan sent me the link to the article because re-reading it inspires me to this thought: Why should I feel guilty about letting this blog slide for a bit right now?

I mean, I'm writing a book, for god's sake, and as anyone who's ever written a book will attest, it's a task that requires long periods of focus and concentration.

It's also worth noting this fact: I'm writing my fourth book. But this is the first one that will be research and written entirely in the presence of an online life. I only "discovered," if you want to call it that, email and the 'net about halfway through the process of writing my previous book (the one about beer).

Like most people, I was initially enamored of the online thing and, of course, distracted by it. That complicated the task of finishing the beer book. I'm not sure it slowed me down, but it definitely increased my stress level: I had to work longer hours to keep pace, because I was spending free time hanging out online. If that makes sense.

Anyway, when I started this book, I promised myself that I would create a better balance between "work," my regular life (laundry errands, cooking, family, etc.), and the internet --- and was shocked to realize that I'd begun thinking of internet/email/bogging as a third form of life. Not an appendage to the other "lives," but a separate entity altogether.

Like most writers, the deeper I get into a book, the more I tune out the world around me. I stop socializing. Let the housework slide, etc. I've always done that, but it's harder now because I've got this third life demanding my attention.

But right now, meaning this week and the next, well, by god, I'm at least gonna shrug off the guilt of ignoring Life Number Three. I have an inordinate number of things going on (not least of which is The Baby is coming to visit for a week) and I've hit a crucial point in the new book.

So, hey! Life Number Three, you're just gonna have to get by without me for a week or two.

Now. You wait. I'll find something fascinating or rant-inspiring and I'll end up right back here, typing away, revealing my latest brainstorm to anyone who cares to read about it. Life. Can't live with it. Can't live without it.

(Tip o' the mug to Susan for the link to the New York piece.)

Jacob Grier on "Why Blog?"

Jacob Grier looks at why he continues to blog even as the art and craft of blogging have changed. He notes, for example, that it seems that fewer bloggers link to each other, or refer to each other, etc., mostly because of the press of time. I'd have to agree.

Near as I can tell, blogging takes on a life of its own, one that becomes increasingly demanding, thus making it harder for me to follow/comment on others' blogs. A weird, but perhaps inescapable, vicious cycle. The result being, I guess, that we'll all end up talking only to ourselves?

On the other hand, as I noted here a few weeks ago, I derive enormous intellectual and creative satisfaction from blogging, far, far more than I ever dreamed I would.

Plus, as Loyal Reader Dave recently pointed out in a comment to one of my posts, not everyone out there is blogging. Some people "specialize" in being readers rather than writers.

So, I say: Onward, into whatever it is that the "blogosphere" is or will be!

When In The Course of Human Events --- Evolution Happens . . .

Sorry, couldn't resist (it being July 4th and all). But just read this fascinating report about Stephen Hawking's  perspective on human evolution. Short take: it's not all about genetics and yes, we are entering a new age of e-quarius, or at least one in which human evolution/development are more in our control then ever before.

All of which, of course, relates to my ponderings, a few months back, about whether we're living in a new age.

Tip o' the mug to Julian Edward, via Twitter.