Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Meta Discussion _ How Wikipedia Puts The Existence Of A Free Press At Risk

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

How Wikipedia Is Putting The Existence Of A Free Press At Risk

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 30 Jan 2009)

Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.

If you're thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire, then you have a DoubleThink coming.

http://knol.google.com/k/jon-awbrey/jon-awbrey/3fkwvf69kridz/1, http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/840191


Posted by: Daniel Brandt

Along the same lines, Web 2.0 in general is increasingly perceived as a threat to society, instead of Jimbo's "bringing all of the world's information to all of the world's people."

From a http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10184528-60.html that ran a couple days ago:

QUOTE
Investigative journalism: First casualty of the Net?

...

The occasion: a series of panels co-sponsored by Microsoft, Google, the Computer History Museum, and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, probing "the impact of information technology on society."

...

The day started off with a rocking presentation by Joshua Cohen, a Stanford professor of political science. Alluding to the accelerating collapse of newspapers, he cautioned that the still-to-be-determined impact on the American polity will be anything but good.

"Here's where there is a big problem," he said, arguing that a "successful democratic sphere" is impossible without the information that newspapers supply. He added that "the damage is growing, and the consequences, potentially, are severe."

"Call me old-fashioned," Cohen continued, but blogging will not offer "a viable alternative" to investigative journalism. He faulted arguments that an increasingly decentralized blogosphere can fill that vacuum, a contention that he dismissed as "cyberutopianism."

"It is not only misplaced," Cohen said. "It's dangerous."

...


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 11:04am) *

There is widespread agreement that the increased number of closings and downsizings of conventional newspapers and magazines, largely as a result of the Internet revolution, is a serious issue. I haven't seen a case made that Wikipedia is a major contributor to this particular side effect of increased Web dependency, as contrasted with many of the other negative effects, such as the ones mentioned in my post to the "Online defamation/Slashdot" thread under "General discussion." But as illustrated by the closure of one of the two Denver newspapers last Friday after 150 years, this is a real and ongoing problem, and one with no readily apparent solution.


Let me just say what I said again, so I don't have to argue about all sorts of things I didn't say.

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 30 Jan 2009)

Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.


This has nothing to do with the migration of journalism and scholarship into different physical media. It has to do with the undermining of acceptable standards for general information publications — one especially flag-rant example of which eschews the responsibilities that might be incurred by doing so much as calling itself a "publication", as opposed to, say, a "party line".

Hey, pretty good, a triple entendre …

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 11:53am) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 11:04am) *

There is widespread agreement that the increased number of closings and downsizings of conventional newspapers and magazines, largely as a result of the Internet revolution, is a serious issue. I haven't seen a case made that Wikipedia is a major contributor to this particular side effect of increased Web dependency, as contrasted with many of the other negative effects, such as the ones mentioned in my post to the "Online defamation/Slashdot" thread under "General discussion." But as illustrated by the closure of one of the two Denver newspapers last Friday after 150 years, this is a real and ongoing problem, and one with no readily apparent solution.

This assumes, of course, that it is a problem. It may be easy enough for old fogies to reminisce about the good ol' days of journalism, but most newspapers these days are not worth taking free at gunpoint. What with my budgie having died some years ago, most newspapers simply hold no value whatsoever anymore.


It is not just the change from print to internet based mediums. Newspaper, more than any other type of media, had committed resources and developed contacts needed to engage in investigative journalism. This was true of even modest mid-size city papers. Never true of local TV news, seldom for network news, even less for cable despite a "24/7 news cycle." It will be hard to tell the next time (already seriously impaired the last time) our government lies us into war with just a "news-chopper" circling around Washington. Of course all of those "Twitters" might give some new and wonderful insights.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

For decades, many universities in the U.S. have had journalism departments for undergrads who wanted to major in journalism. While this has been diluted since the 1960s by expanding these departments into "broadcast journalism" or "mass communications" areas of study, it still remains true that a professional journalist in print media (newspapers and magazines) is sometimes a person who can make a difference with an investigative story. Woodward and Bernstein were such a big hit in the 1970s that journalism departments became more popular.

It's also true that many print editors are willing to give their reporters a bit of freedom to develop their own stories and pursue leads on the company's dime. When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix. For example, there are standards about "off the record," "on background," "not for attribution," with the default being that everything is "on the record" as soon as the reporter identifies himself (a real name and affiliation, not a screen name!), unless there is agreement otherwise before the interview begins. Also, the person being interviewed knows that the editor and publisher of the newspaper is legally responsible.

This professional environment, which evolved over many decades, is essential for anyone who is trying to do investigative journalism. Bloggers cannot do this, and the entire framework of Wikipedia is in stark contrast to this professional environment.

My perception is that investigative journalism has been taking a dive in the U.S. ever since the Reagan era. But it wasn't until the Internet became popular that it went downhill very rapidly. Now it's just about gone, and if a few more newspapers go under, that will be the end of it.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 4:07pm) *

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 1:34pm) *

My perception is that investigative journalism has been taking a dive in the U.S. ever since the Reagan era. But it wasn't until the Internet became popular that it went downhill very rapidly. Now it's just about gone, and if a few more newspapers go under, that will be the end of it.


I could certainly believe this. Note that essentially everyone here to thinks the loss of a lot of newspapers might be bad is at least forty. The twenties-somethings and teeners are perfectly happy to say "Well, I am sure someone else can put out a poorly spelled pack of lies in an inconvienent format without much difficulty, if that is really needed." For my money, I would rather leave the paper as trees, and hope to slightly retard global warming, in terms of "benefit to me", than print up most newspapers.

Obviously my opinions on a lot of things have changed as I have gotten older. But I do not see myself ever being anything besides contemptuous of most news sources (whether radio, TV, print) as essentially useless and wrong. Cutting the fat, bloat & crap would see (to me) to consist of axing ~95% of it. I just do not need a ten minute piece of information on the injustice of some woman who has to pay a $35 fine because her dog crapped in a park where the "pick up after your dog" sign was poorly maintained.


When I was teenager, the Networks and especially their News Organizations were still relatively independent, at least, compared to what they are today. It was a big shock to every thinking person when they got slurped up by Corpulent Giants like Disney and GE, but at least you still know who owns them, and you know that you have to Consider The Source all the more for a' that.

Kids today, who have about as much acquaintance with a Real Liberalâ„¢ as they do with a Real Libraryâ„¢, are thinking mostly of their own personal liberty, and how it might be liberated by a Right Of Pseudonymous Speech (ROPS). But they never get as far as computing what it will be like when Everybody Does That, especially the Corpulent Giants who have vastly more resources than all the rest of us put together to pull the ROPS around our necks.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 2:28pm) *
Kids today, who have about as much acquaintance with a Real Liberalâ„¢ as they do with a Real Libraryâ„¢, are thinking mostly of their own personal liberty, and how it might be liberated by a Right Of Pseudonymous Speech (ROPS). But they never get as far as computing what it will be like when Everybody Does That, especially the Corpulent Giants who have vastly more resources than all the rest of us put together to pull the ROPS around our necks.

Why, it's funny, Jon. Just today http://digg.com/comedy/The_Seven_Girls_You_ll_Date_In_College that perfectly illustrates this.
It was a blatant example of a Digg story being submitted by a PR professional, for pay.
Which was only revealed when the nerds on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/84qm7/digg_user_dude_normal_people_havent_gotten/......

That's the future of "journalism". Everything will be a blog, and every blog will be
bought and paid for by PR hacks and "special interests". There will be no truth, just
idiots spewing idiot opinions. With occasional corporate meddling.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 15th March 2009, 10:26pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 2:28pm) *

Kids today, who have about as much acquaintance with a Real Liberalâ„¢ as they do with a Real Libraryâ„¢, are thinking mostly of their own personal liberty, and how it might be liberated by a Right Of Pseudonymous Speech (ROPS). But they never get as far as computing what it will be like when Everybody Does That, especially the Corpulent Giants who have vastly more resources than all the rest of us put together to pull the ROPS around our necks.


Why, it's funny, Jon. Just today http://digg.com/comedy/The_Seven_Girls_You_ll_Date_In_College that perfectly illustrates this.

It was a blatant example of a Digg story being submitted by a PR professional, for pay. Which was only revealed when the nerds on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/84qm7/digg_user_dude_normal_people_havent_gotten/ ……

That's the future of "journalism". Everything will be a blog, and every blog will be bought and paid for by PR hacks and "special interests". There will be no truth, just idiots spewing idiot opinions. With occasional corporate meddling.


Sure, it's just another variation on what Paul wrote about MP3.com in his http://akahele.org/2009/02/the-more-things-change/. The only thing "free" about it will be the ads, so why should advertisers pay for ads that are labeled as ads, when they can just "product spot" all over the Web for nothing. At least in Jimbo's case you know all the ads will be for Wikia.com — well, that and his favorite meat market of the wik.

Jon

Posted by: emesee

so, what has to change?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 12:46pm) *

Let me just say what I said again, so I don't have to argue about all sorts of things I didn't say.

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 30 Jan 2009)

Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.


This has nothing to do with the migration of journalism and scholarship into different physical media. It has to do with the undermining of acceptable standards for information and knowledge publications — one especially flag-rant example of which eschews the responsibilities that might be incurred by doing so much as calling itself a "publication", as opposed to, say, a "party line".

Hey, pretty good, a triple entendre …

Jon Awbrey


Posted by: Rhindle

I wonder what Neil Postman would say about wikipedia and web 2.0 in general.

QUOTE
Information has become a form of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Mon 16th March 2009, 10:07am) *

I wonder what Neil Postman would say about wikipedia and web 2.0 in general.

QUOTE
Information has become a form of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems


I believe he is talking about unprocessed, semi-processed, or mal-processed information. And of course it's something like semi-processed garbage. Doing anything really right takes work, and not all information-processing work can be chopped, diced, packetted, and parcelled out for people to do it for free in their spare time. Yet.

So what you get is sort of like turning sewage into graywater. It's amazing that it works at all! You can put it on your lawn! Just don't drink.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Rhindle @ Mon 16th March 2009, 1:07pm) *

I wonder what Neil Postman would say about wikipedia and web 2.0 in general.

QUOTE

Information has become a form of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems



Data In Gargage Out (DIGO) is a persistent phenomenon, perhaps irresistible in the end — intelligence in the universe has always been a Sisyphean struggle to push the cornerstones of the mind down the hill of rising entropy — but there are specific factors that have risen to prominence with the onset of Usenet and its more obstreperous spawn, Wikipedia.

For some odd reason whose cause I don't know, except perhaps their own massive ignorance of where anyone else is coming from, Wikipediots act like anyone who points out the specific defects of Wikipedia must have some kind of nostalgia for the smell of greaseprint and parchment. They talk as though pointing out flaws in Wikipedia can only be due to a horror of all IT. But this is just a projection from their own Wikipedia Is The Only Game In Town (WITOGIT) complex, and it doesn't really apply to anyone else. The truth is, Wikipediots are falling more and more behind the curve when it comes to thinking about the real future of IT, prospects and perils both, precisely because their diehard fixation on a single model has rendered them incapable of making comparative, critical, reflective surveys of alternative futures.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Selina

I think proper news organisations can capitalise from the web still - I think most people realise that bloggers can be just about anyone (competitors, marketers) masquerading, there's no oversight, so there's never going to be people getting all their news from blogs.

Newspapers just need to become web-papers that's it really smile.gif

I think http://news.bbc.co.uk is the best example of news moving to the web though just about every paper publishes it's articles online now too; telegraph.co.uk guardian.co.uk dailymail.co.uk etcetc

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 17th March 2009, 7:57am) *

I think proper news organisations can capitalise from the web still - I think most people realise that bloggers can be just about anyone (competitors, marketers) masquerading, there's no oversight, so there's never going to be people getting all their news from blogs.

Newspapers just need to become web-papers that's it really smile.gif

I think http://news.bbc.co.uk is the best example of news moving to the web though just about every paper publishes it's articles online now too; telegraph.co.uk guardian.co.uk dailymail.co.uk etcetc


There are lots of online journals, many of them free, and there is nothing about moving to a new medium that forced any of them to start using Phony Name Authors with Multiple Personality Disorders or ArbClowns instead of Editors. Those debasements of accountability are bad habits that Wikipedia imported from Usenet and Chatville in general.

The website and newsletter of the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) are good resources for following developments in the Open Access movement.

http://www.arl.org/sparc/

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-09.htm

Jon

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Periodic Reminder —

For all the nøøbs …

And nøøbs @ ♥

Jon Image

Posted by: Peter Damian

I'm afraid you gentlemen are just showing encyclopedic anxiety.

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/lang/de/2010/03/26/joseph-reagle-encyclopedic-anxiety/

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 5:08pm) *

Newspaper, more than any other type of media, had committed resources and developed contacts needed to engage in investigative journalism. This was true of even modest mid-size city papers.

QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 6:34pm) *

When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix.
Let's not forget that the cartelization of these papers was already well underway 30 years ago, and they had become the mouthpieces of people like Katherine Graham, Sun Myung Moon, and Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 30th October 2010, 2:05pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 5:08pm) *

Newspaper, more than any other type of media, had committed resources and developed contacts needed to engage in investigative journalism. This was true of even modest mid-size city papers.


QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 3rd March 2009, 6:34pm) *

When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix.


Let's not forget that the cartelization of these papers was already well underway 30 years ago, and they had become the mouthpieces of people like Katherine Graham, Sun Myung Moon, and Rupert Murdoch.


I think we all know how bad things had already gotten.

I don't think that's an argument for letting it get worse.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: Larry Sanger

There is this thing called supply and demand, see. As long as there is a demand for credible news, and as long as there are enough people who do not find the average blog to be credible, there will be a market and hence a supply. The supply might be lower, but there's going to be a significant supply. And if somehow we can arrange for the demand for credible news to be to satisified without many people getting paid, well--great!

If there is anything to worry about, it is that not enough people will demand what I consider to be credible news.

But I'm guessing there are.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Tue 2nd November 2010, 11:21pm) *

There is this thing called supply and demand, see. As long as there is a demand for credible news, and as long as there are enough people who do not find the average blog to be credible, there will be a market and hence a supply. The supply might be lower, but there's going to be a significant supply. And if somehow we can arrange for the demand for credible news to be to satisified without many people getting paid, well--great!

If there is anything to worry about, it is that not enough people will demand what I consider to be credible news.

But I'm guessing there are.


Good timing, Larry —

Image

Comedy depends on it …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Variations on a Theme —

Michael Moore, “http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302”, Truthout, 19 Nov 2010.

MM included an Exercise for the Reader —

I added http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302#comment-233867 …

Jon Image

Posted by: MZMcBride

There's an undertone here that I think unfairly glamorizes the old media. I'm not sure there's been a very compelling case made that today's Web 2.0 spin is any worse than the spin and propaganda of a century ago.

There is a greater accessibility today, both from a creation and consumption standpoint, to be sure. However, the central argument here seems inherently flawed. When has the press ever been "free" in any sense? And how does greater accessibility in the Digital Age make it less free (or put it "at risk")? I'm still not seeing it.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 20th November 2010, 2:25pm) *

There's an undertone here that I think unfairly glamorizes the old media. I'm not sure there's been a very compelling case made that today's Web 2.0 spin is any worse than the spin and propaganda of a century ago.

There is a greater accessibility today, both from a creation and consumption standpoint, to be sure. However, the central argument here seems inherently flawed. When has the press ever been "free" in any sense? And how does greater accessibility in the Digital Age make it less free (or put it "at risk")? I'm still not seeing it.


Maybe you need to read http://www.truth-out.org/keith-olbermann-false-promise-objectivity-proves-truth-superior-fact65246.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 20th November 2010, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 20th November 2010, 2:25pm) *

There's an undertone here that I think unfairly glamorizes the old media. I'm not sure there's been a very compelling case made that today's Web 2.0 spin is any worse than the spin and propaganda of a century ago.

There is a greater accessibility today, both from a creation and consumption standpoint, to be sure. However, the central argument here seems inherently flawed. When has the press ever been "free" in any sense? And how does greater accessibility in the Digital Age make it less free (or put it "at risk")? I'm still not seeing it.


Maybe you need to read http://www.truth-out.org/keith-olbermann-false-promise-objectivity-proves-truth-superior-fact65246.

Jon dry.gif


Now, any such “undertone” is of course purely the sound of your own wiki driving you crazy, since no one with any sense whatever who's been paying attention the last 20 to 40 years would be found romanticizing establishment ways of doing anything. But since we are still paying attention we can tell that kicking the last vestiges of accountability and transparency out from under the estates of public education and public information has made things far worse than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago. What you romanticize as some kind of new age is simply the latest extension of old-fashioned brainwashing, with fewer checks against the power of oligarchs to con the public and sabotage the public interest.

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 20th November 2010, 10:36pm) *
Now, any such “undertone” is of course purely the sound of your own wiki driving you crazy, since no one with any sense whatever who's been paying attention the last 20 to 40 years would be found romanticizing establishment ways of doing anything. But since we are still paying attention we can tell that kicking the last vestiges of accountability and transparency out from under the estates of public education and public information has made things far worse than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago. What you romanticize as some kind of new age is simply the latest extension of old-fashioned brainwashing, with fewer checks against the power of oligarchs to con the public and sabotage the public interest.
I'm not really romanticizing a new age, but I'm also not starting threads with titles intended to alarm such as "How Wikipedia Puts The Existence Of A Free Press At Risk." I don't think this thread establishes how Wikipedia is putting the existence of a free press at risk. I also don't think this thread establishes what a "free press" even means or how Wikipedia might even be capable of disrupting it.

A site like Wikinews or the Internet in general are more "free" than most news organizations of the past century. If there's a decent argument that Wikipedia is threatening the existence of a free press, I'd be very interested to hear about it and discuss it.

When you say "Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people," however, it comes off as complete nonsense. Wikipedia hasn't shown anyone anything of the sort. Everyone with any sense has already known that the mass medium can be manipulated by a small number of people and in fact has been for a long time. The editors of the major newspapers and the directors of the major television stations controlled what was and wasn't news for decades. Advertisers are able to manipulate reality in order to generate huge profits for their clients. The Internet Age has changed the news dynamic to an extent and Wikipedia is perhaps a small component of this change, but the central argument here—that Wikipedia is threatening the existence of a free press—still seems to me to be unsupported by the evidence presented.

Putting blame with Wikipedia for "undermining [the] acceptable standards for information and knowledge publications" seems to be rather naive and misplaced. A bit similar to a person blaming their phone for the performance of the phone network. Wikipedia is certainly contributing to a change in how people view and accept information, but again, your central argument that its threatening the "free press" seems unfounded and seems to dramatically belittle the minds of real journalists.

It would be nice if you would make fewer assumptions about my views and present your own views more clearly.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 21st November 2010, 7:05am) *

If there's a decent argument that Wikipedia is threatening the existence of a free press, I'd be very interested to hear about it and discuss it.


I made an argument for that here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html . My fundamental assumption is the cynical one that people don't do anything for 'free'. There's always some sort of motive. Thus Wikipedia is a crank magnet for people with failed or absurd theories, for people who wanted to be journalists, politicians, economists, writers. Don't expect any truth in Wikipedia.

"It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error"

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 20th November 2010, 10:36pm) *
Now, any such “undertone” is of course purely the sound of your own wiki driving you crazy, since no one with any sense whatever who's been paying attention the last 20 to 40 years would be found romanticizing establishment ways of doing anything. But since we are still paying attention we can tell that kicking the last vestiges of accountability and transparency out from under the estates of public education and public information has made things far worse than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago. What you romanticize as some kind of new age is simply the latest extension of old-fashioned brainwashing, with fewer checks against the power of oligarchs to con the public and sabotage the public interest.


For once I agree with Jon. The establishment is very bad. But it's the best you are going to get.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 20th November 2010, 1:54pm) *

Variations on a Theme —

Michael Moore, “http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302”, Truthout, 19 Nov 2010.

MM included an Exercise for the Reader —

I added http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302#comment-233867 …

Jon Image


Apparently some people did not read this latest post, much less the article that I linked.

Exercise for Those Who Can Read …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Wikipedia is being steadily subverted to serve the establishment it is supposed to be undermining. That process is not complete, yet, but it will be before long. Wikipedia's aggressive insistence on anonymity has a lot to do with that.

Posted by: Avirosa

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sun 21st November 2010, 7:05am) *
A site like Wikinews or the Internet in general are more "free" than most news organizations of the past century.


Where exactly does all this 'free news' come from ? Oh that's right from the same news organisations that have been accessing news and publishing it for the last (at least) 100 years. News (i.e emerging data on human societies, individuals, the environment that they inhabit and the economies within they are active) is only as 'free' as the context of the accumulation of the data in a process at one time called 'news gathering'. Do you have an argument for how or why the contexts of news data accummulation have changed so as to make news 'more free' ?

A.virosa

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 21st November 2010, 8:15am) *
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 20th November 2010, 1:54pm) *
Variations on a Theme —

Michael Moore, “http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302”, Truthout, 19 Nov 2010.

MM included an Exercise for the Reader —

I added http://www.truth-out.org/how-corporate-america-is-pushing-us-all-off-a-cliff65302#comment-233867 …

Jon Image
Apparently some people did not read this latest post, much less the article that I linked.

Exercise for Those Who Can Read …

Jon dry.gif
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey from Truth-out)
Wikipedia, eh? Boy, are you naive!

“Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.

“If you're thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire, then you have a DoubleThink coming.”

— Jon Awbrey, Comment in The Guardian, 30 Jan 2009

Exercise in using the BBCode to quote yourself quoting yourself so people can tell wth you're talking about.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Good Grief, it's like Wikipediots can't comprehend anything anymore that doesn't come in the form of animated cartoons.

QUOTE(Michael Moore @ 19 Nov 2010)

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter — best known for its years of representing the giant tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake “grassroots” organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of a sudden, “normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris Americans” were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were outraged — outraged! — by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular, they were “furious” that regular people had the right to sue big corporations … you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000 report “http://www.centerjd.org/archives/studies/CALAFiles.pdf” (PDF) by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow.)

— Michael Moore, “http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/how-corporate-america-pushing-us-all”, 19 Nov 2010


Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Avirosa @ Sun 21st November 2010, 3:39pm) *
Do you have an argument for how or why the contexts of news data accummulation have changed so as to make news 'more free' ?
I'm not sure you're familiar with the various meanings of the word "free." When you compare, for example, the copyright status of articles posted at http://cnn.com to those posted at http://en.wikinews.org, there is an entirely different sense of the word "free" that emerges than the senses you're considering, I think.

When you compare the advertising on the front page of the http://nytimes.com to the advertising on the front page of http://en.wikinews.org, another sense of the word "free" emerges that I'm not sure you're giving any credit to.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 21st November 2010, 9:41pm) *
Good Grief, it's like Wikipediots can't comprehend anything anymore that doesn't come in the form of animated cartoons.
QUOTE(Michael Moore @ 19 Nov 2010)

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter — best known for its years of representing the giant tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake “grassroots” organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of a sudden, “normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris Americans” were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were outraged — outraged! — by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular, they were “furious” that regular people had the right to sue big corporations … you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000 report “http://www.centerjd.org/archives/studies/CALAFiles.pdf” (PDF) by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow.)

— Michael Moore, “http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/how-corporate-america-pushing-us-all”, 19 Nov 2010
Call me dense, call me a φool, call me whatever you'd like, but I still don't understand what argument you're making. A "free press" has never been free. It's confined by legal constructs, it's confined by financial constructs, it's confined by social constructs. Anyone who thinks, for example, that the contents of the newspaper aren't or haven't been affected by the ads that run alongside the stories is absolutely crazy. That's the nature of the "free press," then and now (perhaps even more so now given the financial struggles that the newspaper industry is facing).

I think you make a convincing argument that Wikipedia is not an exception when it comes to the possibility for abuse or manipulation. And I don't think many people disagree with you on that point. But where you lose me (and likely others) is when you say that Wikipedia is putting the existence of a free press at risk. That argument I still don't understand or see any convincing evidence to support, but perhaps it's just One Of Those Things (OOTT) and I should simply move on.

Posted by: Avirosa

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 22nd November 2010, 7:54am) *
I'm not sure you're familiar with the various meanings of the word "free." When you compare, for example, the copyright status of articles posted at http://cnn.com to those posted at http://en.wikinews.org, there is an entirely different sense of the word "free" that emerges than the senses you're considering, I think.


I find it helpful to start with the meaning commonly understood to be relevant to the context of use:

If a country has a free press, its newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations are able to express any opinions they want, even if these criticize the government and other organisations. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/free-press)

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 22nd November 2010, 7:54am) *
When you compare the advertising on the front page of the http://nytimes.com to the advertising on the front page of http://en.wikinews.org, another sense of the word "free" emerges that I'm not sure you're giving any credit to.


Faced with this kind of jelly brained response I can see why Awbrey has retreated to the device of one liner obscurantism. Grudgingly I'll spell out for you the source of doltary in the above:

If Wikinews or anyother scraper, re-caster, demi plagiarist or shamateur scribbler uses the New York Times to source 'news' then the cost of gaining the intial data, whether it's gained by NYT journalists, NYT partner organisations or a commissioned News Agency, is underwritten by all the sources of income achieved by the NYT, including advertising on the NYT website. The regurgitation (Wikinews as the disgorging of bolus seems particularly apt) of material originating with NYT, on a site that doesn't carry advertising, does not make the achievement of the initial data cost free. And if advertising free news is what anyone wants, they can go the BBC - the citizens of Britain pay for this so it's free of both cost and advertising at the point of access - and there's unambiguous editorial responsibility.

A.virosa

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 21st November 2010, 9:41pm) *

Good Grief, it's like Wikipediots can't comprehend anything anymore that doesn't come in the form of animated cartoons.

QUOTE(Michael Moore @ 19 Nov 2010)

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter — best known for its years of representing the giant tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake “grassroots” organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of a sudden, “normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris Americans” were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were outraged — outraged! — by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular, they were “furious” that regular people had the right to sue big corporations … you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000 report “http://www.centerjd.org/archives/studies/CALAFiles.pdf” (PDF) by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow.)

— Michael Moore, “http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/how-corporate-america-pushing-us-all”, 19 Nov 2010



Followup Interview —

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-news/michael-moore-meets-wendell-potter

Can You Spell http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf ???

Jon Image