Month: February 2009

Challenges for small college journalism

Carlos from the Walla Walla Union Bulletin sent this to me over Twitter last night and I think it’s particularly apt to describing the challenges facing the Whitman Pioneer in our effort to move to a more web-based newsroom. In particular, the article lists “Old mindsets from the students” as issue #3; the article describes this as:

Another problem, one that is certainly not unique to small schools, is that a print-centric mindset often still dominates. But at a smaller school, this problem is magnified as well.

“I’m stumped about how to get students — who SHOULD be more attuned to the innovative ways they like to get information — involved in utilizing that information,” said Cameron.

This is something that I’ve found to be particularly frustrating in working for the Whitman Pioneer. There are so many tools out there (Twitter, Publish2, etc.) that would be so beneficial to a student news organization but are nearly impossible to get a significant portion of the newsroom using. I’m working on getting people using Publish2 and maybe even Twitter but am continually confronted by what seems to be a disinterest in actually producing any online content. Anyway, here’s a link to the full article.

Toward a better education

This post by Daniel Bachhuber prompted me to think more about what I see as the next step in the education system and where the problems in the current system lay. In it Daniel advocates for a move toward what he phrases as “peripheral education” He defines this as, “learning through continuous exposure to the increasing quantity of quality information. It is the hidden pearl of networked education, the process culling information you push yourself to absorb, letting it change the way you think, and then understanding the connections between the information.” Much of this I agree with; it would certainly be great if education were to come to resemble this model more than the centuries old model of information dispersal. At the same time I disagree on some major points which I’ll try to explain below.

One of the more significant points of difference that is drawn between traditional education and peripheral education is the ability for there to be real collaboration in the new model. Peripheral education would abandon the centralized, top-down method of traditional universities in favour of a more open and moving flow of information. While this is an understandable difference to draw between the two models of education I think it is still leaves something to be desired.

First, there are opportunities for real collaboration between teachers and students even in traditional systems. For example, just in this year alone I have worked with a professor on a video editing project and helped to edit a chapter of a professor’s book that will be published with Oxford University Press. I think that these types of collaborative experiences are helped, not hindered, by bringing people together in a centralized, physical location.

The open collaboration of a largely digital medium would certainly allow for a far greater quantity of collaboration, but not necessarily a greater quality. There’s something that I see as inherent to a college system that brings people together to a central campus for four years. Here at Whitman there’s the opportunity to take multiple classes from a professor and to really get to know that professor and one’s fellow students. Even in one of the larger majors on campus, Politics, I’ve taken many classes with many of the same people; because of this I really know about those other students and what they’re knowledgeable about.

Ultimately, I like many of the aspects of what Daniel talks about as peripheral education, but still believe in holding on to many of the aspects of a traditional model. I think that what education needs is a more open and inviting campus. The experience of joining together with students and professors in one place for four years does more for collaboration than leaving one to one’s own devices. I believe that this could be accomplished by creating smaller campuses (much like Whitman, or even smaller) where the students actually know a large majority of the student body, are familiar with one another, and are in classes of 12-20. In addition, I just have a hard time believing that any significant portion of students will feel motivated to push themselves intellectually without the institution of a college to help them accomplish that. It’s sad, but I really do think that the majority of students (and people for that matter) need some sort of carrot dangled in front of them to push themselves to work.

Another important change that I view as necessary is in the fundamental thinking of professors. Even in this age I think too many professors believe that their purpose is to get students to some kind of understanding of knowledge that the professor views as necessary. On this note, I think that were professors to change the motivation for students from grades toward independent learning then it would be an important step toward creating a culture in which a real peripheral education could be feasible and successful.

By fostering a small campus community where professors work with (not at) students I think much more will be done to advance education and collaboration than moving entirely away from a traditional college model.

Make the small changes in education

It’s from a while ago, but the New York Times published an article addressing how sometimes it’s the small, incremental changes in education that produce the biggest results. It cites many studies and examples of programs where small changes in mindset did more to benefit minority education than the large, whole school overhauls that are characteristic of No Child Left Behind. Essentially, in education reform more is not always better; sometimes the smallest of changes make the largest impact.

Link to the full article – “Education Is All in Your Mind”

A new internet…really?!

There’s an article from John Markoff of the New York Times that has been getting a lot of press recently. It’s titled “Do We Need a New Internet?” and in the article Markoff writes that:

What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a “gated community” where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there.

“Unless we’re willing to rethink today’s Internet,” says Nick McKeown, a Stanford engineer involved in building a new Internet, “we’re just waiting for a series of public catastrophes.”

This kind of thinking is ridiculous. While I’m sure everyone would agree that a safer and more trusted internet would be a good thing the idea that one would “give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety” is just plain scary. The same type of rationale can be used to justify all kinds of infringements upon personal liberty. This same sentence could even have been used to justify the release of library records to help fight terrorism: something I’m pretty sure Markoff would not advocate.

The other question in all of this is who would regulate such an internet? Is it left up to individual governments, ISPs, or some kind of international council? Once you start allowing someone, whoever it is, to regulate the activity of the internet (or any medium for that matter) then the information available will inevitably become censored in some sort.

Personal liberties have already been slowly infringed upon in so many other realms of society that it ought to be the top priority to keep the digital domain open and free. The reality is that once you anonymity and freedom is given up you very rarely get it back.

Link to the full article – “Do We Need a New Internet?” – John Markoff

magic sky

 

magic sky, originally uploaded by jimba’.

One of my favourite things to shoot is sun rays bursting through a cloudy sky. Sadly, none of mine even come close to matching this.

Funding Journalism

From The America Scene comes this article concerning what needs to be done to fund journalism. The article actually takes the stance that local reporting and journalism is part of what needs to go. Peter Suderman, the post’s author, writes that:

Let’s be even more blunt about what it takes to survive in the media world: You have to have information no one else has. That information has to be information that people need or want. And you probably have to charge people for it.

Conor wants to find out what sort of losses are coming with the decline of journalism. If he can answer that (no small task), my next question is: How much is what we’re losing actually worth?

For most of the last century, at least, the newspaper business has been incredibly successful. And as a result, it’s gotten used to certain luxuries — largely in the form of interesting but inessential news coverage, and, of course, the salaries to pay for it.

Put candidly, there are a lot of journalists out there doing work that doesn’t need to be done, that isn’t worth what it costs to produce.

Seems to me that he is essentially arguing for journalism to become something that orients itself toward the needs and desires of advertisers. Frankly, I find this a scary proposition. News organizations already filter enough of their content to make it more profitable and appealing to advertisers; I would hate to believe that the solution is to have more of this.

Link via Funding Journalism | The Media | The American Scene.

The right of Web sites to link

I found this today via Josh Korr of Publish2. The general backstory is that BlockShopper an online real estate startup was sued by a law firm, Jones Day, for posting information (public information that is) concerning the law firm’s associate’s home purchases. The case was settled out of court largely because BlockShopper didn’t want to pay the large legal fees that would have been associated with such a case.

What this case brings into question is concerns over the future of web links. While BlockShopper didn’t release any information that wasn’t publicly available, they did make it accessible in such a way that upset Jones Day. The article writes that:

The Jones Day-BlockShopper settlement appears to be the first precisely of this kind. Last December, neighborhood news site Gatehouse Media sued the New York Times Co. for posting Gatehouse headlines and first sentences on Boston.com, which the Times owns. Gatehouse mainly complained that Boston.com violated the Gatehouse copyright. That case, too, settled, when the Times Co. agreed to stop publishing Gatehouse headlines and openings. Digital rights advocates weren’t happy about that. But the case was mainly about whether Boston.com’s use of the Gatehouse words was a “fair use” of copyrighted material, not the broader right to link. In fact, the agreement specifies that Boston.com can continue to link to Gatehouse.

Other cases that have addressed links and copyright dealt with the permissibility of “deep linking”—linking to a page other than the home page—which, of course, is indeed permitted. Ticketmaster famously lost a lawsuit against Tickets.com about just this. But that case was about copyright infringement; by making a trademark claim instead, Jones Day opened up another legal avenue.

If sites really needed permission to link to others, the Web would be a very different place. It’s hard to imagine there would be a Gawker, or for that matter a TMZ, a Wikipedia, or anywhere else that embarrasses the subjects of posts. In another example of an effort to stop linking, a city lawyer in Sheboygan, Wis., demanded that blogger (and political critic) Jennifer Reisinger remove from her site a link to the police department. Reisinger has sued various city officials for violating her First Amendment free speech rights. Her case is pending in federal district court in Wisconsin. Let’s hope the judge in Reisinger’s cases sees linking differently than Judge Darrah did. If cases like these come out the wrong way, the Internet could go from a Web to a series of one-way roads.

Let’s hope that judges in the future have a little more sense about how the web works and how what BlockShopper did was not illegal and did not disclose any information that was not otherwise publicly available.

Link via BlockShopper v. Jones Day: The right of Web sites to link. – By Wendy Davis – Slate Magazine .

The NY Times Article Skimmer

This has been written about in other places as well, but I thought it’d be useful to post here too. The NY Times has released an experimental new way of reading their online content. It’s called the Article Skimmer and essentially pulls the content from the different sections of their website and adds a bunch of fancy effects to it.

While I think it’s a nice step in the right direction in terms of presentation it’s utility is ultimately undercut by the fact that when you click on an article link you have to read the article in the traditional format. If they were to create a new form for reading articles as well as presenting them, then this might just work.

deserted palace

deserted palace, originally uploaded by electricnerve.

I’m a sucker for photos of cool staircases, and this concrete one from Cambodia (which was shot on a $15 camera according to the description) is just great. I love the way that the light shines into the stairway in the lower levels.

Several Banks Halt Foreclosures

Seems like measures like this should have been part of the first moves made by the administration (both the former Bush and the current Obama ones) in the process of stimulating the economy. How better to encourage confidence than to provide some assurance for those homeowners barely making it by?

More than 2.3 million homeowners faced foreclosure proceedings last year, an 81 percent increase from 2007, and industry analysts say that number could soar as high as 10 million in the coming years, depending on the severity of the recession.

JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and the Bank of America said Friday that they were halting foreclosures through March 6. And Citigroup said it would halt foreclosures until the Obama administration completed the details of the loan modification program or until March 12, whichever is earlier. Citigroup’s action expands on a similar effort that it started in November.

Link via Several Big Banks Halt Foreclosures Until March – NYTimes.com.