Archive for March, 2009
manufacturing a source »
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009
It’s not surprising Fox News tweaks about something related to Barack Obama. It is slightly surprising to see them completely decompose their minuscule credibility so easily. Let me explain (sort of).
It all starts with a moron at World Net Daily (like that e-zine your dad subscribed to that told him Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA) named Aaron Klein. His article (Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility) claims Wikipedia is actively wiping references to Obama’s past.
Fox News ran with it and it’ll likely be a full-fledged controversy among the Rights before Limbaugh pops his first pill tomorrow. I’m all for after-the-fact barely-doubts coming to light. Unfortunately, they seem to miss certain issues (that Wired takes note of).
The statement that banned Jerusalem21 (casting “doubt” on Obama being born in America) is only fact if you have an affinity toward racism, haven’t found time for your GED and/or are Sean Hannity. Jerusalem21 has made contributions to exactly two pages: Obama’s and Klein’s, which s/he created (following me here?).
Probably what happened:
- Erroneous Klein goes crazy, adding his own Wikipedia page and keeping it up to date.
- He’s suspended for putting gossip onto Obama’s page.
- He writes about it on a fringe website.
- Fox News picks it up as fact and is outraged. (Much like a three-year-old that doesn’t understand why he has to leave the zoo at closing time.)
That, boys and girls, is journalism at its finest. (Seriously. This is probably the best Fox News can do.) In any case, Erroneous Klein makes Randall Stross look like Walter Cronkite.
The Telegraph has more, ignoring Jerus— err, Aaron Klein’s credibility issues.
why randall stross is an idiot »
Monday, March 9th, 2009
In a tweet last night (I caught this morning), @ConvincingIndie shared and article that has me thinking… If Randall Stross can be published in the New York Times, anyone with an eight-grade education and a MySpace account is ready for a byline. With one short article, he erodes intricate privacy concerns to caveman-speak.
…”disclosure becomes the norm and privacy becomes a quaint anachronism.”
Is he kidding? As more and more middle-agers add their boring to Facebook’s vast yawn network, we need more privacy, not less. This proves Randall can easily blather about a topic he misunderstands. (Journalism!)
[FB] offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and [FB] has 20.3 million to offer.
So, Randall, you’re saying a 5yr-old network, only open to non-college/-high school users since 2006, has more under-30s than over? Do the math, neuron-free, and you’ll realize 95% of users from before 2007 are still under your insignificant age choice. (Journalism!)
Considering FB claims it has 175mill users, you have to wonder why Randall didn’t do an arbitrary age comparison on the larger group of non-targets. (And maybe mention how FB defines this market?)
Asked how many members ever change a privacy setting, Mr. Kelly said 20 percent.
FB’s revenue (when they eventually start getting some) is based on active users and their connections. For that reason (and others), they make the settings hard to find. A tech-savvy, long-time FB using friend of mine just found friend lists. That 20 percent is miraculous.
Members can selectively restrict access to some items, such as photo albums and videos. But customizing permissions for this or that, via multiple clicks, is no one’s idea of a good time.
Seriously. This guy has a job?
Anyway… It’s not that people are too impatient to update their settings, they’re not aware they can. It’s understating to say the settings are tedious but to downplay them as useless is absurd. (Let’s see how that first inappropriate status/photo read/seen by your boss hits you and how motivated you are to create a “colleague” list.)
When the distinction blurs between one’s few close friends and the many who are not, it seems pointless to distinguish between private and public.
Psst… less than ten minutes devoted to creating a friend list with separate permissions would solve his “blur” problem. His understanding of the tool is overestimated, misguided and terribly short-sighted. (Journalism!)
FB’s a remarkably useful platform for networking, keeping up with family and sharing with friends. Take an hour today (I don’t advocate using FB during work because you already do) and make a list of friends, colleagues and family. Use the privacy settings to adjust who sees what and share freely from here on out.
Then email Randall (stross//at//nytimes//dot//com). Tell him how easy it was, why you find it useful and that I sent you. The NYT seems in need of some insight that I’m happy to provide. (At a reasonable price.)
Cross-posted at SD&IF.
open letter: tourism bureaus »
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
I know what you’re thinking: Another open letter? Really? Yes. Really. I had a couple conversations this morning along these lines.
Dear Most of You,
There you are. You’re the be-all, end-all for your destination. You’re where people turn to book their trips, learn about your locale and plan their travel. Except for one thing: you’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, your sites are pretty, filled to brimming with helpful. Some find a lot of value in that but more find value in TripAdvisor (and ilk) with hands-on visitor feedback. Many travelers are going to Travelocity, Priceline, etc. to book their trips.
You’re letting your expertise be siphoned off. There are thousands of sites more specifically pertinent and millions of travelers looking for more.
We’re in an age of conversation, not broadcast. If you’re not talking with us you’re talking at us. We’re ignoring you. Your audience will dwindle as more become internet-savvy.
How large is your staff? 20? 40? 200? Even a small destination’s site could have hundreds of visitors per month. Put them to use; who doesn’t like talking about their travel?
Use Twitter, Facebook, etc. to relay useful tips and articles about your destination to followers. Ask visitors where they like to shop, eat and be entertained. Allow for comments and discussions.
Soon, creating a blog, loading Flickr images and sending tweets to both won’t be enough.
There are political obstacles. Keep your booking engines and link exchanges. If you’re funded through membership, even partially, have your users to mention your name when out and about. (Deals? Incentives?)
Your voice, while important, is not what travelers want to hear. They want to hear the voices of others or to be able to share theirs. Facilitate that conversation, adding your wisdom where appropriate, and your credibility will rise.
Or, you could keep on keepin’ on. You’ll weather the downturn only to be overshadowed. With so many free or cheap options out there to increase your status as a premium source of information, it’s on you.
Good luck.
Draynd
Sidenote: How many of you knew tourism bureaus existed or that you could book travel through many of them? Yeah… exactly my point.
eye ninety-four »
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009
I was across state lines last week and will be again this week. While it’s the first time doing such things in back-to-back weekends, I’ve spent far too much time on I94 over the last eight years. (I could drive it in my sleep and have, once or twice.)
Saturday, I was handed a speeding citation. The fine was about $180. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to take the situation seriously. This could be for a few reasons…
- I was pulled over by someone younger than me. It’s the first time that’s happened. Just the gravity of it had me internal-laughing for miles. (He even had to check with the other officer to be sure they could run a MasterCard. Adorable!)
- I wasn’t necessarily going that fast. I accelerated to pass and was going just under 80mph (according to the speedometer), which is close to my usual speed in Deadzone, WI. He, apparently, clocked me at 81mph but rounded down to save me some cash.
- As we neared the patrol car before he’d pulled out after us, the elder officer pointed at us emphatically and then to the side of the road. Repeatedly. This, for some reason, was hilarious. As if to say, “we got you, yes you, no really, you, definitely,” through exaggerated gestures (in a squeaky, pre-teen voice; imagined).
- But most importantly, when averaged against the times I’ve sped along I94 since moving for school, the cost is negligible. In fact, (if I were to make up a number that sounds like an estimate) it’s probably cost me about $1.37 each time I jumped above 65mph.
I’m going to write in to maybe reduce the number of points taken but am unable to stress. This begs the question: is there an age where a speeding ticket is on par with finding another mole? Or is it just my history of traffic violations that has me seeing this as a non-issue?
Note: Considering the easy curves, relatively sporadic traffic and distance from cultured civilization, the stretch between Madison and Eau Claire (or even Minneapolis) should be set to at least 70mph during daylight.
zeitgeist: addendum »
Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009
Normally, I’d break down the film but Zeitgeist: Addendum is a “documentary” (think, Michael Moore) so instead, here’s an open letter to Peter Joseph (writer, director):
Dear Peter Joseph,
Your optimism in regard to the human animal is reassuring and unfounded. The presentation of the data is entertaining. Some of the facts were obvious, others obscure. The movie itself is fun for the whole family.
You made fine points about our money being worthless and the economic system being unsustainable. I’m all about it. Then you moved on to Utopian and lost me. To think the common folk will realize their oppressed status, have the finances to revolt and establish an advanced society is juvenile but comforting.
Your ideas on the abolition of religion are enlightening in their redundancy. Since there has been logical thought, some have opposed the regressive doctrine of intolerant faiths. Thanks for your diligence in reminding everyone.
The last sequence is laughable. Your mention of Seven World Trade Center was more a shout-out to those that spend their days taking illegible notes in worn notebooks about everything they see than a pointed statement.
You need to change your target market to spread the message beyond word of mouth and hippies. Aim for trust fund kids. They’re out of touch enough with present-day America and have the money to finance your initiatives.
Mostly, though, it’s the weak website you and your compatriots are subjecting my eyes to. I mean, the ideas of the Venus Project are interesting and all but it’s associated site is terrible. Until you find a decent designer, thanks but no thanks.
I wish you luck as one that shares your frustration with current trends and financial assumptions.
Cheers,
Draynd
Seriously though, take a look at this movie. It’s entertaining save for the suffocating hopefulness. The alternative perspective alone is worth at least a skim.