Best short article on blogging I’ve read

Nailed it. Jim Dalrymple on blogging vs 'corporate blogging' (click)

There is so much tripe written about blogging, and blogging versus journalism, and blogging as ‘weaponised’ internet, and blogging as barbarians at the gate of ‘big media’ and distorted propaganda or embarrassing ‘over-sharing’ disclosures … blah blah blah.

If you care, read Jim Dalrymple’s post Blogging is not a thing, it’s an attitude.

Yeah. The word ‘authenticity‘ doesn’t appear in his post. but, being one of the themes of this blog, I detect it.

And of course, TRUST. Which is where I was going with I’d double-check if they told me what day it was.

– P

via Adam Tinworth @adders

TV ‘ad hopper’ … um, yes please.

OK, so it’s not a one-sided argument, but still, put me down for one of these … the equivalent of AdBlock in my web browser:

20120518-070252.jpg

Now WHO would click 'No'? Anybody?

The disruptive technology at hand is an ad eraser, embedded in new digital video recorders sold by Charles W. Ergen’s Dish Network, one of the nation’s top distributors of TV programming. Turn it on, and all the ads recorded on most prime-time network shows are automatically skipped, no channel-flipping or fast-forwarding necessary.

Oops.

Ted Harbert, the chairman of NBC Broadcasting, … [called] the Dish feature an insult to the television industry. “Just because technology gives you the ability to do something, does that mean you should? Not always,” he said.

Yeah, good luck with that argument. Meanwhile look at what these ‘desperate times’ have led to …

James L. McQuivey, a vice president and analyst for Forrester Research, said that “with Dish’s aggressive move to please the end customer rather than advertisers, it’s clear that in the fight for TV revenue the gloves have finally come off.” He continued: “The fact that Dish would be willing to anger some of its most important content partners just goes to show how desperate these times we live in really are.”

Shock! Horror! Scandal!

Read Brian Stelter’s article at the NYTimes.

Or buy the box set of DVDs?

-P

PS I saw a figure of EIGHT MINUTES ads quoted in a recent “half hour” episode of prime time TV. That’s what’s driving this technology. Audience abuse.

John Key’s media whack-a-mole ‘tactical’ — Gavin Ellis

'Not moaning. Not bent out of shape.' (image: stuff.co.nz - click)

I said yesterday in Setting a narrative: ‘aggressive’ ‘hostile’ ‘antagonistic’ ‘tabloid’ media that I thought the prime minister’s comments criticizing the media (and especially the NZ Herald) were an oh-so-deliberate attempt to characterise future criticism of the Key administration as an aggressive, sensationalist news media lowering standards to desperately chase sales/readers/viewers.

Defensively denigrating the news media, in other words. That’s just how I saw the comments. Perhaps I’m wrong.

Here’s a brief two minute clip of former NZ Herald editor Gavin Ellis on Kathryn Ryan’s Nine to noon show on Radio NZ today.

I think he sees it the same way, describing Mr Key’s interview comments as ‘tactical‘ and ‘second term stuff‘…

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

mp3 file here for non-Flashies

The full Media with Gavin Ellis discussion (11 min) is available at the Radio NZ website here.

– P

See also: Playing whack-a-mole with ‘da media’

I’d double-check if they told me what day it was

More on the negative credibility of bloggers ‘seeding’ controversy in the mainstream media …

David Farrar and Cameron Slater seem unreliable sources.

Unreliable sources. Some political bloggers' claims are about as 'factual' as a Punch & Judy show. (image: Lonopan - click)

Following my brief mention of bloggers who make sh*t up (Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf?) I was interested last night to read NZ First leader Winston Peters’ speech notes for a Wintec media lunch yesterday where he pinged the very same two ‘artistes’ I mentioned in my post: David Farrar and Cameron Slater.

viz:

A mischievous blogger known as Kiwiblog [David Farrar] made up a story the Thursday before the election that New Zealand First was an incorporated society and that Winston Peters was an illegal candidate.
That story running as it did immediately before the Election Day is a corrupt practice under our election law.
By sheer coincidence, this blogger is the paid pollster of the National Party.
The foreign owned newspaper Dominion Post felt compelled to also publish this garbage and the story appeared to be taking off until some spoilsport presented the true facts.
That story could have been the difference between eight and nine MPs for New Zealand First.
With one more we could have stopped the sale of state assets – and the National Party knew it.
My point is that media outlets – whether radio, newspapers, television or the Internet – are full of opinions masquerading as facts.

Here’s how it looked at the time. Note the faux journalistic language: ‘EXCLUSIVE’, and ‘An investigation … has found’ and stated in conclusive terms:candidacy is illegal‘. What a piece of work.

David Farrar posing as a reporter, November 25th, 2011 — an 'exclusive' 'story' resulting from an 'investigation'. Is it just me? This looks like an untrustworthy inadequately researched political hit job/smear campaign by a partisan virtually on the eve of the election. Is there another explanation? Note that a journalistic code of conduct would have required a right of reply be offered to Peters prior to publication. Do you think that happened? Pfft. Silly question.

In response to his misinformation being exposed as, let’s be kind, nebulous BS (the facts speak for themselves: Peters is still an MP, isn’t he?), David Farrar is now fudging the issue and playfully suggests the National Party owes him a knighthood(!) for his pre-election ‘hit’ on Peters. Continue reading →

Deliberately cryptic

What about a blogger’s?

What defines the public interest? … It’s an important principle that can be used to defend journalistic activities that go beyond what is normally considered acceptable behaviour – such as the use of subterfuge – to obtain a story, where complex moral and legal arguments are at stake. However, it is also often stretched to cover activities that many find thoroughly objectionable, not even of interest to the public.

— from The Guardian

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR
(image: 2008 Ducati 1098 S - Mirror by Basem Wasef via motorcycles.about.com))

– P

Setting a narrative: ‘aggressive’ ‘hostile’ ‘antagonistic’ ‘tabloid’ media

Fairly carefully thought-out impromptu comments? …


Lost that loving feeling? John Key interviewed by Leighton Smith on his perceptions of change in attitude by ‘the media’.

Immediately reported as:

POOR ME — that's a pretty tough headline!

POOR ME — that's a pretty tough headline!

and this:   Continue reading →

Oops. ‘Secret’ document published, then declassified.

From Secrecy News… Great title for a secret report: Maybe You Had to Be There: The SIGINT on Thirteen Soviet Shootdowns of U.S. Reconnaissance Aircraft.
Who knew cryptologists had such a sense of humor?

NSA Declassifies Secret Document After Publishing It

May 14th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood
The National Security Agency last week invoked a rarely-used authority in order to declassify a classified document that was mistakenly posted on the NSA website with all of its classified passages intact.

The article is a historical study entitled Maybe You Had to Be There: The SIGINT on Thirteen Soviet Shootdowns of U.S. Reconnaissance Aircraft. It was written by Michael L. Peterson and was originally published in the classified journal Cryptologic Quarterly in 1993.

Late in the afternoon of May 11 (not May 9 as stated on the NSA website), the NSA published a formally declassified version of the article with the annotation “Declassified and approved for release by NSA… pursuant to E.O. 13526 section 3.1(d)….”

Read on at Secrecy News (another playful title!) including this nugget of real politik/how bureaucrats work:

But [giving the NSA a four day extension to answer questions about the document] proved to be a futile gesture on our part, since the NSA Public Affairs Office in the end refused to answer any of the questions we posed. In retrospect, it appears that NSA never intended to answer any of our questions but simply wanted to preempt the reposting of the classified document by hastily declassifying it.

– P

Thanks to @trevortimm

“Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”

Mandy Ride-Davies quipped about transparent denial

Similarities

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and Rice-Davies, the latter made a famous riposte. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, former model and showgirl Mandy Rice-Davies (right) replied, “Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”Wikipedia

“Mr Slater has denied that the emails are the product of a burglary, and says he has committed no crime in obtaining or publishing the contents.” — NZ Herald

Well, he would, wouldn’t he?


Yesterday in Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf? I mentioned Cameron Slater’s evident frustration at being ‘barely acknowledged‘ and ‘ignored‘ by the very media he emotes to so despise.

Today he’s offering to pass on his tranche of dishonestly/innocently obtained emails (you decide) “… to any reputable journalist who calls. First in first served.” (This, of course, while the police are presumably investigating a complaint that the emails are stolen property. How’s that for an attractive proposition?)

Cameron’s overt pleas for validation by mainstream journalists perhaps indicate he is beginning to catch a whiff of his own stench, and realize just how his disreputable smear campaign tactics are perceived.

It’s a start I guess.

– P

PS: Mandy got ‘in the papers’ … Continue reading →

BYOB and self-direction

I don’t always agree with VC Fred Wilson, although I find him worth reading. He’s got this right:

20120514-082000.jpg

It’s one thing to build your business on the infrastructure of someone else. Publishers do that all the time (hopefully adding value). It’s quite another to be their poodle. Dependent. This is not just an ‘attitude’ thing. It’s a question of control — and, below that, to do with brute economic power.

Visit Fred Wilson’s site and read some of the comments…

– P

The snort of recognition: Happy Mother’s Day

We’ve been chuckling at this all day…

A polite request from Plunderbund: ‘Please unblock our ads’

As we’ve discussed, a lot of web browsers (people not software) — including me — have installed ad-blocking software. In my case, I was driven to it by feverishly animated Air NZ ads on the NZ Herald website and whirling dervish property spruiker ads on PropertyTalk.

So, look what I spotted following a search result  to the PlunderBund website …

Clever. Their site detects I'm blocking ads and asks me not to. ('Please consider helping Plunderbund and unblocking ads for our site. Instructions.')

The ‘instructions‘ when you read them, are a very reasonably-worded request, with background…

Ad revenue is what enables us to do what we do. It’s how we fund our reporting, overhead (site expenses, supplies), etc. If you are running AdBlock, or similar advertisement blocking software, please consider helping us out and whitelisting Plunderbund in your software. Since most of our advertising revenue is sold per-impression, the more eyeballs that see the ad, the more revenue we get – and that means more resources we can bring to bear when it comes to generating content.

In AdBlock, whitelisting Plunderbund looks like this:
@@||www.plunderbund.com
Instructions for Norton can be found at Symantec’s website.
We sincerely appreciate your support.

Bravo to them for making the request. I keep one browser (Chrome) unfiiltered, so popped over to see how the page looks. Not great: Continue reading →

Negative credibility sux, eh @whaleoil? eh @dpfdpf?

Cameron Slater seems aggrieved that some in ‘the media’ don’t actually trust him. Surprise!

We’ve discussed before Dan Gilmor’s concept of ‘Negative Credibility‘ — the idea that sometimes information can have an appearance of LESS VERACITY because of its source.

Gilmor pointed to Andrew Breitbart’s exposé of the Weiner/underpants/twitter ‘scandal’ (triggered by Rep. Weiner accidentally tweeting a photo as a public reply when he meant to send a DM, we suspect) … saying because the story was coming from Breitbart (a notorious partisan political propagandist and internet storm trooper) he was inclined to believe it less. Even though it was true, as it turns out.

Reality bites Cameron Slater?

Following hard on the heels of Chris Trotter’s recent assessment that as a result of publicising personnel files unethically leaked by the Ports of Auckland company, NZ blogger (and Breitbart wannabe?) Cameron Slater “… faces the “complete loss” of any “journalistic credibility [he was] beginning to establish in the mainstream media”, I observed this:

  • Cameron Slater publicly complaining about his latest tranche of dubiously-acquired documents (and accompanying vitriolic ‘commentary’) being largely ignored by the ‘main stream media’.
  • Despite his best efforts, Cameron himself being specifically rebuffed by the producers and journalists at TVNZ’s Sunday programme, in these terms … (waaah!):

I have spoken to Sundays’ John Hudson and his producer, I offered to share the relevant & pertinent information which would allow a TRUE story to be told. Thus far Sunday & John Hudson have barely acknowledged me and chosen to ignore the information I have.

Well, I’m sure they have their reasons. At a guess, I’d say it has something to do with Chris Trotter’s analysis: Cameron’s loss of credibility.

Cameron acting as a volunteer (cough) spin doctor for the Port company, and — as he did for Simon Lusk‘s murky anti-MMP campaign (sniff) — making his partisan blog a conduit for what the NZ Herald called ‘ethical and legal breaches‘ has consequences. One of those, I suspect is a natural inclination to ask the question: Whose bitch er, ‘public relations strategist’ is Cameron Slater being now, in his latest hate war?

David Farrar — Facts may be smaller than they appear

On the other hand, in blogger David Farrar’s case, there’s no question about whose bi… um, who he’s working for: The National Party.

Continue reading →

Chris Trotter on the Urewera Four. Wow!

I’ve held off making any comment about the Crown decision, announced this week, not to retrry the ‘Urewera Four’ on charges of ‘belonging to an organised criminal group’ after their original trial jury failed to reach a verdict on those charges. This, despite my own (default?) views of police powers, disclosed here before.

But wow! I’ve just read Chris Trotter’s article about the case: In a Weakened State at his Bowalley Rd blog. If you care about such matters, as I do, it’s a MUST READ. Seriously good, and, unlike some more pedestrian analysis, it offered some surprising angles, including:

Bluntly, the accused’s’ defence team and their tireless army of propagandists ran rings around the Crown. They not only won a significant political victory in terms of the “Urewera Four” case, but their undeniable success in making the Crown look both weak and stupid will very likely deter its servants from attempting anything similar for many years to come. It will require a very brave Police Commissioner indeed to repeat Howard Broad’s gutsy call of 2007. (emphasis added)

Go and read it, and enjoy the dissonance of someone like Chris Trotter lamenting, almost, our security agencies’ lack of a team of decent spies(!) …

The other fatal flaw in Operation Eight was its (no doubt US inspired) fascination and reliance on technologically acquired intelligence. Neither the Police Security Intelligence Unit (PSIU) nor the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), appear to have anything remotely resembling an effective spy network.

I agree with him about the police and SIS fixation with toys. But this nails it as far as I’m concerned:

Assistant Police Commissioner, Jon White’s, operationally brutal and strategically idiotic raid on the sleepy Tuhoe village of Ruatoki destroyed any chance the Crown might have had of mounting a successful prosecution of the fledgling Urewera guerrilla force. The NZ Police utterly underestimated the vigour and sophistication of the Left’s propaganda capabilities and, from the very beginning, were forced to play “catch-up” in the struggle for hearts and minds.

The imagery of the police shutting down Ruatoki was so jarring, they lost public sympathy then and there. I’ll have more to say about propaganda and ‘political optics’ another time. For now, go and read Chris’s illuminating article.

– P

Hilary Barry wins again! (Confirming all my prejudices)

Congratulations to Hilary Barry on her win as best newsreader at last night’s New Zealand Radio awards. Cool.
I’m already on the record with my opinion of the TV3/RadoiLIVE newsreader: I think she’s a sublime professional. And fun.

I watched her crack up during last night’s news bulletin at Mike McRoberts’ quip to Hamish McKay following a clip about babies being ritualistically thrown off a building into a blanket as a blessing, and enjoyed the spontaneity. It made me chuckle.

But Hilary is more than a coiffured talking head. Her live work (‘anchoring’, whatever you call it) from the MV Rena shipwreck clean-up at Mt Maunganui last October was top stuff. Good, clear communication.

Good on her. Well-deserved.

– P

Line in the sand, flip-flop, litmus test, lightning rod? Same sex marriage.

I don’t know if President Obama’s announcement today that he personally supports the right of same sex couples to marry will help or hurt him electorally, but from my point of view, it is absolutely the right call. And I’m not gay.
Glenn Greenwald, who is, credits Obama’s actions, regardless of their motivation. I agree.

The phony, dodgy political convenience that politicians hide behind, playing coy with the electorate about their beliefs on an issue for ‘tactical’ reasons — or worse, the awful ‘tell me what you want me to say I believe’ inauthenticity — weakens the ‘House of Representatives’ system in my view. It weakens us all.

I remember then-Wellington Central MP Fran Wilde, my next door neighbour at the time, courageously spearheading the Homosexual Law Reform campaign where her opponents — ‘god-fearing social conservatives’ and supposedly ‘upright citizens’ — threw all sorts of despicable smears. It was awful. Displaying hateful intolerance, they acted hysterically, obnoxiously, outrageously … shoving in as many references to sodomy as they could muster in their desperate attempts to stop keep someone’s sexual orientation being, in effect, a crime.

Laws that had oppressed others and covered up hateful, truly criminal behaviour like ‘poofter-bashing’ in New Zealand for generations, were viewed as some sort of last bulwark of decency. Political dog-whislte slogans like ‘A Decent Society’ were deployed, ignoring the fact that senior people and rising stars in that very Party were, let’s say, not completely unacquainted with homosexuality themselves.

How far we’ve come from those dark days.

Not all social taboos are sensible, it seems to me. And, let’s face it, sometimes the law is an ass. e.g. The US’s ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ which I understand reserves such spousal ‘benefits’ as couples’ tax treatment for committed relationships between man-and-woman ONLY is doomed to be about as successful as Custer’s Last Stand. Wake up and smell the human rights, people.

Also, the very real potential for injustice where a spouse-in-all-but-civil-status can be not just discriminated against, but practically alienated, for instance, denied medical information/hospital visitation rights (for REAL) and the truth about their long term committed relationship obfuscated by narrow-minded bigots can’t remain unaddressed.

I don’t care what pushed Obama to make his statement. Good on him.

Coincidentally, Obama’s move today also spikes the guns of Roger Ailes’ protege Governor Chris Christie who, as recently as February was able to justify his ‘position’ on gay marriage as ‘Gov. Christie: I’m with Obama on gay marriage‘.

For all sorts of reasons, and as counter-intuitive as it may seem, politics seems to work better with clearer choices (short of the astro-turf hyper-partisanship of the Tea Party-ilk). See our discussion of Politics as the art of polarization.

From the ABC ‘exclusive’ today:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

Continue reading →