In case you don’t follow Clay Shirkey on Twitter, I noticed that he sent this tweet out, interestly, without comment:

cshirky “Many of Moore’s eye-witness tweets from Ft. Hood had no value whatsoever, except as entertainment and tragi-porn.” http://bit.ly/1dqwLP

Here is the article:  NSFW: After Fort Hood, another example of how ‘citizen journalists’ can’t handle the truth by Paul Carr. He also says in it:

Two weeks ago, I wrote here about how the ‘real time web’ is turning all of us into inhuman egotists. How we’re increasingly seeing people at the scene of major accidents grabbing their cellphones to capture the dramatic events and share them with their friends, rather than calling 911.

That reminded me of a traumatic moment I had at Grand Central the day a steam pipe burst, killing one driver and injuring dozens. The ground was shaking, the noise was tremendous, some people were running past me like startled deer….and there was a group of people standing in the street, shooting the swirling tower of steam with their cell phones. They were oblivious of the danger or fear around them. Knowing it was their first response within minutes of the event, it was an odd site. (However, thanks to one of them, I’m able to link to a scene of the event and give you more context!)

The level of protest like Carr’s is rising against news organizations working with everyday people who happen to be armed with recording equipment. Perhaps it’s partly motivated by journalists feeling a desire for job protection, but there is also truth to what Carr says. This is an important conversation for journalists to have now, especially if any of us want to use crowd source reporting for real, going forward.  It’s an evolving form of journalism, so it is important for us to help define it–on air, via twitter, etc.

I’d be curious to hear other journalists’ responses to Carr’s argument. My response? The tools are out there. The “reporting” is going to happen. Here is our opportunity to talk with potential amateur reporters about the real Elements of Journalism and empower them to respond to events with the genuine instincts of a reporter as explained in Rosensteil & Kovach’s book. I say invite them to work with us. Devote the time to  proper training, both passively through broadcast and directly through meet-ups and station or newsroom talks open to the public.

If you didn’t watch the video by This American Life at the end of Carr’s post, it’s too much to explain, but one troubling scene is when the school administration decides the best way to handle all this “reporting” by the students is to destroy their homemade cameras. Trying to dampen any person’s impulse to share the story of what they witness, I think, is a terrible idea, and one we have seen many governments select as the most effective and even “moral” option. I would prefer to spend my time encouraging more people to participate in the elements of life around them and arm them to properly use the social tools we now have. We are in an exciting time of civic life, where more information is perhaps the cause of more participation. That can’t be a bad thing.

Yes, I joined the 4000 who have signed up to experiment with the Huffington Post to imitate Collin Beavan’s year of living a life on the planet with zero impact. No, not a gimmick, and yes, harder than it sounds.

I’ll be adding blog posts and comments on the Massachusetts group site. Already, this experiment has compelled me to buy produce with no packaging from a nearby farm and start a tiny pile of compost.  I’ll blog & take photos as I try to adjust–even small changes require an adjustment in expectations and planning.

Why did I join? A lot of what Collin attempted to do for one year is the same in philosophy as what I enjoy about the Mennonites’ beliefs and practices, and it reminds me of the life I didn’t even realize I had forgotten about, growing up each summer on my grandparents’ farm. I know these old ways that are better for the planet, better for my health and better for my family. I feel like I’m going home.

There is another reason for me to join: this is the kind of journalism I most want to be part of and it is instructive for me to be on the citizen end for a time. Already I understand a lot more about the level of commitment and the effort it requires for each participant to make a meaningful contribution. I also see how important it is for each of us to have a forum for connecting to each other and sharing ideas/photos/comments spontaneously.

There is a fatal flaw in David Simon’s understanding of today’s news reader that allows him to make this assertion in his call for subscription-only news:

For example, if The Baltimore Sun’s product isn’t available in any other fashion than through subscription—online or off—and if there is no profit to be had in delivering the paper product to homes at existing rates, then by all means, jack up those rates—raise hard-copy prices and drive as many readers as possible online, where you charge less, but at a distinct profit.

That flaw is the assumption that if readers encountered an internet devoid of free “big house produced” news, they would all flock to subscribe to those few reliable news sources.  Today’s news reader isn’t simply a surfer looking for quick, free info. Today’s news reader has savvy reading habits far beyond that, to a point where they compare stories, add their own expertise and often their own media.

Up to the 4th page of Simon’s article–which I read online, for free, after the link was shared with me on Twitter–I wanted to believe in his pay-for-content model. But I can’t swallow the comparison of online news consumers with cable television consumers. Yes, many pay a subscription for more, often better tv content. But in an age of on-demand, on DVD and available-for-download programs, the act of watching cable television is becoming old-fashioned, too. If we presume the public will continue to sit and consume content on a producer’s time schedule with a limited set of tools (a remote and a screen), we miss entirely the attitude of today’s news consumer.

As I read on about Simon’s models for his subscriber plan, I puzzled at his limited notion of what a news story really is, or what purpose it should serve, other than to generate an income for the reporter.

Here is a back-of-the-envelope plan. In a metro region the size of Baltimore, where 300,000 once subscribed to a healthy newspaper, imagine an initial market penetration of a tenth of that—30,000 paid subscribers (in a metro region of more than 2.5 million), who are willing to pay $10 per month. This is less than half their previous Sun home-delivery rate for the only product in town that covers local politics, local culture, local sports, and financial news—using paid reporters and paid editors to produce a consistent, professional product.

Where has Simon been while bloggers and startup news organizations become worthy competitors with established news organizations, even gaining press cred at the White House? Does he think they’ll just go away, or decide they had better charge a subscription rate too? It’s laughable to think the Baltimore Sun is the only entity covering local politics, culture, etc., that matters. A brief Google search turns up dozens of pages of information, from reviews to aggregated stories by block, to crime mapping.

Oh, what’s this: www.afro.com ? News coverage in Baltimore specifically targeted towards a community with special interests? The third hit on Google’s list is a window into the African-American community in Baltimore, full of stories about politicians, music, food and neighbors. Why should this content have to compete to get into the Sun when it can be viewed, moderated and shared online for free? Is it less of an authority on the news in that community? Forget vetting stories for sites like this. They live and die on their reputation the same as any news source and they answer to their community. It’s time to get over these notions of “front page” and “above the fold”.  Lots of people are providing good content and sometimes they cover new or underserved areas.

Articles like Simon’s remind me of the story of the formation of the American Medical Association as a response by doctors to the shannanigans of  the numerous snake oil salesman. They saw a need to establish medical authority for the sake of the consumer and thus created an exclusive organization that led to the accrediting process MD’s have to follow now.  Perhaps that was the right thing to do for health care, but I don’t see how creating this notion of authority to separate journalists from the fray (let’s call Simon’s proposal what it really is), does any service for transparency, civic dialog or the distribution of important information.  One-way, authoritative journalism made a few people rich, but it also limited the flow of information.

Now an exponential number of people are out there reporting. It’s up to those of us who care about getting the facts out  for the public to act upon, to employ our skills and our devotion to journalism.  It’s time to teach the man to fish. He’s already in the flood.

In Brian Lehrer’s conversation with Chris Anderson, author of FREE: The Future of a Radical Price, Lehrer questions Anderson’s notion that today’s journalists will evolve to be editors/coaches of unpaid, amateur content producers. It may sound like older journalists grasping at the straws of job security, but that’s where we are headed, and their experience is sorely needed.

With the great capacity we now have to disseminate information online, anyone who gathers facts on a story and posts it can be a reporter.  NYU’s Jay Rosen calls this new reporting citizen journalism, “when the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another.”  Rosen says this combination of bloggers, readers and the internet has the potential to be strong. It also has the power to empower, if more people of varied experience, age, race and interests are able to express more diverse viewpoints.

What is needed for this immense gathering of voices is strong leadership from editors willing to hold the bar high. Reporters must continue to produce the very best stories, videos and broadcasts. With so much noise online, news consumers are developing strong filters and losing patience. Those who want to be heard will have to be reliable, ring clearer and have a brighter tone, and that takes collaborating with a good editor.

Smart editor/coaches are already emerging. The former political organizer-turned-Propublica editor Amanda Michel is taking a serious bite out of the stimulus bill with her thousand-plus citizen recruits.  She tries to make it clear what the editor-writer relationship will be right from the start. Michel told Poynter.com in a recent interview:

There is no ‘litmus test’ for who can be a citizen journalist. I don’t operate with a Platonic ideal in mind. However, the Web enables self-selection. Many get involved because they want to improve media and they’re particularly interested in, say, the environment. When I promote projects I try to clearly communicate what skills people should have and how much time is required of them. This is a self-selecting process, and I can recruit a better network by acknowledging this.

The internet has changed the one-way flow of information forever, allowing reporters and sources to become collaborators. They are more powerful together, shining bright lights in more dark corners. Journalism by its very nature compels the older, more seasoned practitioners, who say they are passionate about speaking truth to power, to give up their position as the only sources of verifiable news, a specialty they use to be able to charge for, and move over. Journalists who resist the new, two-way flow, rather than define their role and lend their skills, will eventually be overwhelmed by a new era of journalism where the storytellers and their audiences search for the Truth together.

Finally I get it. I understand now what it is I believed in on voting day in 2008. Hearing Obama speak to the country and hearing him challenge us on such a personal level–to care for ourselves, protect our children from debt, improve ourselves and hold our legislators accountable to bringing better policies in to law–that is what inspired me before the election and what I look forward to for the next 8 years.

I’m so glad a twitter alert from a friend responding to tonight’s speech to a joint session on O’s budget reminded me to turn on my radio. It was heartening to hear the lively hooting & hollering from congress…and made me so curious to see, I finally went to the television.  It was a bonus to see the eager smiles of some lawmakers when their priorities were discussed.

*****

What a fantastic idea–asking every American to get some education. “No more quitting on yourself or your country.” Volunteerism in exchange for college credits?! National service? New Hatch & Kennedy bill?Awesome.

****

This idea of shining a light on all the unbudgeted items gave me pause. No kidding–we don’t know the price of war? We never budgeted for natural disasters? Again, his agenda is to keep reminding congress that a new era of governing is here: one where the needs of the public are foremost in each lawmaker’s minds.

****

Extra long pause for the military support comment. Making sure everybody stands? About time we put money where vets need it most–in recovering from certain trauma from serving in the ME.  YEAH! CLOSING GITMO! Joint chiefs clapping for the “we don’t torture” comment.

*****

“In our hands lies the ability to shape”….calling out examples of ordinary citizens doing the obvious & right thing….this is how Obama is teaching the rest of us to redefine ourselves and make simple choices to take small actions for each other and improve our communities.

****

“tells us about the people who sent us here”….O is always reminding congress–an audience used to power and privilege–that they are public servants. All of us watching are also reminded that those men & women work for us and our country. That implies our involvement, our need to talk with those public servants in order to shape this world together.

11:57 p.m.  I have no words to put here, but saw an image that reflected perfectly my feelings: streaming tears on Jesse Jackson’s face. Way back in ‘88 he planted the seeds in believing voters like me–that a black man could rise to the primary seat of power in our country.

“Anything is possible”–this is the message the whole world has wanted to hear for a long, long time. it’s as if we’re terribly thirsty for a leader who knows how to take us back to the mountain top.

12:02: while it’s totally appropriate to thank Biden as his partner, it seems in some way like Hillary Clinton has been the one who walked along the hard campaign trail with him the most.

12:06: Let’s hear it for those millenials!

12:04: NEW PUPPY?! Oh the names speculation that is about to hit the news. Oy!

12:07: Yes we can get there! Obama is always the pragmatist, but what better time to sober up exhilarated crowds than at your victory speech? He’s helping us cope with the election hangover we’re about to have come Wednesday.

12:09 “Let us summon a new spirit…” Obama must realize by now that he’s been doing that with every minute of his campaign, with every speech, every endorsement, every Youtube song. Neighbors have been reaching out to each other, voters have called and visited each other. Americans have remembered to hold their own campaign conversation.

12:10: WE ARE NOT ENEMIES BUT FRIENDS….he’s right to acknowledge he must earn the friendship of those who didn’t vote for him.

12:15 Ann Nixon’s story is everyone’s story. She was alive through so much that’s important to our history–all the things that we’ve learned about from parents and grandparents about what makes us Americans. That she came so far, from enduring overt racism to seeing MLK’s assassination to casting her vote for a black man, finally brings me to tears.

12:17 Oprah, dry your tears! Obama put the challenge out to all of us to clean up this country, work for justice and make this world better for our children. We have work to do!

Finally, my ownly nagging feeling: I wish he had smiled while giving his speech. I know, he needed to appear stern to start whipping this country into shape. Or perhaps it was his grandmother’s death. In any case this has been a long road for the now graying Obama, and his weariness makes the victory bittersweet.

Uncle Sam

I smelled something funky right away in Larry Littlefield’s post that includes the tiresome phrase “Youth of Today” in the title (so we know right away where this is going).  He’s gracious enough to qualify his finger pointing by suggesting that while the 70% youth are apparently too slack to be military material, it may not be ALL their fault:

So there you have the youth of today. They are starting out bankrupt in a bankrupt country. That’s what I was worried about before. In addition, a majority are stupid, fat, sick, addicted or criminals. But others are more socially engaged as citizens, and as Grimm [Dr. Robert Grimm, the Director of Research and Public Policy for the Corporation for National and Community Service] pointed out, those who are socially engaged as citizens, statistically, are far more active and healthy. I had heard that all the social indicators – from teenage pregnancy to drug use to high school graduation rates – had improved compared with 30 years ago when I was in high school, so the 70% figure came as something of a shock. It sounds like the uneven distribution of income and institutional collapses are just part of the problem. We have a personal collapse as well.

Can we back up a minute? Littlefield is concerned about this figure given by Lt General Benjamin C. Freakley (I love the surname), a recruiter for the U.S. Army. I suppose this guy has it tough right now, trying to defend a poor recruiting rate. If you were him, would you blame it on today’s youth being unattracted to the situations they see our troops facing (roadside bombs, “100 more years” in Iraq, high survival and amputee rate of injured troops), or would you blame the low signing rate on kids playing too much X-Box and eating too many Doritos?

A 2003 report by the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE ) called “Additutes, Aptitudes and Aspirations of American Youth: Implications for Military Recruitment” looked at a variety of factors in order to advise the military on how they may improve recruitment. NOTE: The date is important, as it is pre-Surge and may not reflect an even greater shift in attitude away from signing up for those fat military bonuses. The report says, for example:

In light of the September 11, 2001, attacks and subsequent terrorist threats to the United States, it seems unlikely to us that force sizes will be reduced in the near term from their current levels. We also do not see clear evidence of factors that would result in a significant increase in net force size.

Just keep that in mind.

So kids these days…in light of the competitiveness of college applications, the opportunities to learn just about anything on the internet, the creeping social advances towards multicultural awarenes that can put cracks in glass ceilings…..are they really less intelligent? Hard to believe. In fact, it turns out the military want to raise the testing bar as weapons technology becomes more advanced. They’d prefer recruits with computer experience.  From the report, it sounds like the BCSSE thinks the military should do what they promise in  ads that say, “The Army strengthens you, and your future, with expert training in one of over 150 different jobs for Soldiers on Active Duty and over 120 in the Army Reserve” by following the reports advice:

There have been few major changes in the occupational distribution of first-term personnel in the past 10 years, but future military missions coupled with advances in technology are expected to require military personnel to make greater use of technology.

Recommendation: We urge that the Services resist the notion that recruit aptitude and education targets must continue to be raised, and we recommend that they continuously review their performance requirements and the related training of new recruits to ensure that beginning knowledge gaps are filled when necessary and that unnecessary training is abandoned quickly. To the extent possible, training changes should be anticipatory, especially for new systems.

It also turns out that too many kids are too smart for the military, not too stupid. The report acknowledged the military recruiters’ goal of grabbing youth right out of high school, and posed the problem that, of the 4.5 million kids now growing up in the U.S., most have moms that spend a lot of time making sure they learn at home and in school. That inspires them to go to college, not basic training!

The socioeconomic characteristics of parents, such as their levels of educational attainment, have a large effect on the aspirations and decisions of youths, especially concerning higher education. Average levels of maternal education for teenagers have increased markedly and will continue to do so over the next two decades, a result of increases over time in educational attainment in the population. This is important, given the positive relationship between maternal education and the educational aspirations of youth….Within the next two decades, the majority of youth will be raised by mothers who have completed at least some college.

The proportion of young adults who have had one or more parents with military experience has fallen dramatically and will continue to fall in the coming years….Although the annual number of births has increased in recent years, children are increasingly raised by highly educated parents and by parents who have no direct experience with the armed forces, factors that are negatively related to interest in military service.

Then there’s the problem of the military not being all it’s cracked up to be. That can hurt recruitment and discourage those that took the bonus from coming back for more. Troops don’t reenlist as much as they used to, according to the report, but the surveys are new and there isn’t much historical data to determine why. The researchers offer this:

We reviewed data on attrition rates across the services at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months and observed that attrition rates at each of these points in time have consistently increased over the past 15 years….Personnel who are dissatisfied with their Service experience return to their home towns spreading word about negative aspects of military service, which makes the job of the recruiter much more difficult….the messages the military sends to its members also find their way to potential recruits, and vice versa. Also, the messages veterans pass along to friends and family members can either encourage or discourage enlistment.

May I offer some possible POST-2003 reasons of my own: Guantanamo Bay, Walter Reed and PTSD.

Still thinking we just have a lazy, slacker population of youth who don’t deserve the privilege of serving in the military? I don’t deny for a second that we have serious social problems to address involving obesity, sweetened beverages, McDonald’s, Wii as a substitute for sports and an continued propensity for marijuana to be condoned in spite of harsh first offender drug laws. I just ask writers like Littlefield to consider for a moment why he’s so shocked when he hears a military officer say 70% of our kids don’t “qualify” for service. Perhaps it isn’t because the’re unqualified, fat little horrors. Perhaps it’s because the military recruiter’s new tactic is to make military service seem elite and exclusive in an attempt to drive up his numbers.

ITN logo

I thought I had it tough squeezing through crowds at Union Square to get a good shot of the spectacle created by protesters supporting the Free Tibet movement. Jon Ray, a reporter for ITN in the UK, had it much worse.

Ray and a cameraman were reporting on a protest near the Olympic games in the Chinese Ethnic Culture Park when police shut him down. See the video of the protesters and Ray’s arrest here.

ITN’s reaction: “We intend to protest in the strongest possible terms to the Chinese authorities and seek assurances that the treatment meted out to Mr Ray will not be repeated.”

Meanwhile, the IOC continuing to say they support open access to journalists. Does this sound like an active reaction? It’s best summed up by Steve Gosset:

So much for free media access during the games. ITN and the International Olympic Committee registered their concerns. Hopefully, the Chinese will do more than just yawn.

Last week I had the chance to attend an opening at Pomegranate Gallery in SoHo for the new show “Oil on Landscape: Art From Wartime Contemporaries of Baghdad,” curated by a former military officer who served in Iraq until 2007, Christopher J. Brownfield.

I reported on the story with my classmates from the CUNY J-School: Shuka Kalantari, who put together this great webpage for our story, and Tyler Mitter, who shot video.

As a collection from Baghdad, the art covers a wide range: from renderings of eye-witnessed violence to scenes of everyday life for Iraqis. The show evoked in me a sense of loss. The artists and many guests who know Baghdad miss a place that cultivated Middle Eastern culture. What they have in its place is a devastated home many can’t even return to until conditions improve and their lives are no longer at risk.

Naturally, the conversation around this art is political. What everyone seemed to agree on was the idea that art can help an individual transcend fear and anger and develop a better understanding through the feelings and experiences expressed. Visitors and artists seem to almost reach for each other with a desire to connect and make the war go away.