Dangers of online journalism

This article might be of interest to the online community we call the blogosphere:

CPJ’s 2008 prison census: Online and in jail

Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium.

China continued to be world’s worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world’s worst in detaining journalists.

“Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack.”

Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists.

“The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable,” said CPJ’s Simon. “All of us must stand up for their rights–from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse.”

Read the whole story here.

My husband has been googling for classes in how to bake a file into a cake…

Carleton University students redeem themselves

This is an update to yesteday’s post, which – among other things – linked to a story about how Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) had passed a resolution which warrants being quoted here in full:

Motion to Drop Shinerama Fundraising Campaign from Orientation Week
Whereas Orientation week strives to be [as] inclusive as possible;
Whereas all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve the their diverse communities;
And Whereas Cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men
Be it resolved that: CUSA discontinue its support of this campaign
Be it Further Resolved that the CUSA representatives on the incoming Orientation Supervisory Board work to select a new broad reaching charity for orientation week.
Moved: Donnie Northrup           
Seconded: Meera Chander

‘Shinerama’ is part of ‘frosh week’:  students offer to shine people’s shoes in exchange for donations to charity – the Cystic Fibrosis Association….

Before we go further, it should be noted that this ‘motion’ was kept tightly under wraps until the meeting itself – the ‘agenda’ for the meeting was not made available even to those attending, etc.  In other words, it stunk a lot…  And, one of the two reps to vote against it (and who brought it to public attention) got TONS of emails from the ‘approving’ members criticizing him for his move and – yes, calling him ‘a racist’!!!

Well, here is a reaction from Carleton University’s own student newspaper, the Charlatan:

The unprecedented negative reaction that Shinerama-gate has brought to Carleton should show CUSA that it needs to take council operations more seriously.

In the future, CUSA needs to think before it acts.

But that is not all!!!

The Carleton University students have been very vocal in their criticism of CUSA – and demands that ALL the members of the Association who voted FOR this ‘proposition’ resign immediatelly!!!  (At least, that is the gist of the polite ones…)

In other words, Carleton University is kind of like our society at large:  most of us are actually quite decent folk who DO know right from wrong….but because we don’t have a strong desire to boss other people around, we don’t go ‘into government’.  The ones who have this strong desire to engineer the behaviour of others are not usually representative of the rest of us…but, as Douglas Adams said, we vote for them anyway because otherwise, the ‘wrong lizzard might get in’…

And, just like when most Canadians learned about the racist excesses Section 13(1) has been subverted to the service of, when most of the students at Carleton discovered the insanity of their leaders, they are very unanimous in demanding their heads (in the sense of ‘resignation’ – nothing more…..this IS Canada, after all!!!). 

To quote a great thinker, Carleton Students are saying:  Fire. Them. All.

This actually gives me hope!

 

UPDATE:  CUSA has reinstated Shinerama, with CF as the supported charity.  What is more, Donnie Northrup, the author of the motion, has resigned.  As for the rest of CUSA – they may still be impeached by the student body!

Food for thought

Today, I would like to offer a few other posts which bring some food for thought:

George Jonas:  Dalton McGuinty’s Singapore of the North

National Post editorial board: Thought police are thought police, not ‘facilitators’

Jonathan Kay on cystic fibrosis, and the disgrace of Carleton University’s Students’ Association

Damaging Israeli Flag Creates Unease at Bell High School (that should have been defacing, not ‘damaging’!).

It just makes my head spin…

 

Update:  It has been determined that the Israeli flag (part of a multi-national flag exhibit) at Bell (the high school of both John Manley and John Baird) had been damaged by a student of Palestinian heritage.  No informaition is available on what, if any, disciplinary action the student will face for her actions.

UPDATE:  Carleton University students redeem themselves

Government ‘standardization’ and ‘big business’

Perhaps it is no surprise that most ‘big businesses’ could not exist (or become so ‘entrenched’) without the willing or unwitting support from governments.

I am not talking about the big bailouts of banks or car manufacturers during times of financial uncertainty.  While I think these are very ill advised (certainly in the current form), they are not the subject of this post.  To get there, we need to go quite a bit back in time, to when the Western world was enjoying quite stable economy.

Since my background is in technology, I will concentrate on this aspect – though my sources are pretty convincing that this is indicative of an overall trend within both the US and Canadian governments, in multiple fields.  And, to be honest, the ideals are very good!  So, let me get to the meat of the story…

Long time ago, when computers were just becoming the thing in innovation (yes, the buzzwords of the day were ‘automation’ and ‘co-operative’, then ‘innovation’; later along came ‘synergy’…. if you have had any contact with the language of ‘bureaucrateese’ (and much of it has been aped by the mainstream media (MSM) – albeit, with a 6-12 month delay), you know exactly what I mean.  We’ve worked our way through ‘centers of excellence’ to ‘best practices’; from ‘co-operation’ to ‘collaborative efforts’; from ‘synergy’ and ‘quality initiatives’ to ‘governance structures’ and ‘connectivity’. 

I hate buzzwords!!!   But that is besides the point.

When ‘office automation’ first became possible with the use of desktop computers and intranets, we saw an incredible spark of creativity.  People came up with creative ideas, started small companies and developed solutions to specific problems – and governments bought the solutions.  It made life better for everyone!

But, as time marched on, it became apparent that different government departments actually had to interface with each other.  Now, all these original solutions presented a bit of a problem – they were not really set up to interface with each other.

It was a natural maturation of the system that governments started to standardize their equipment across all the departments.  One central decision was made as to the system to be used, then all the departments had to do their best to try to fit their applications into it and migrate their operations onto this centrally approved platform.  It is not a perfect system, but at least the right hand knows what the left is doing, so to speak.  And, since this central solution was so big and important, it was natural that the bureaucrats making the purchasing decisions understood that only the biggest and most important players in the marketplace would be sufficiently large to provide the solution.  Obviously!

The effect of this centralization process on all the small hi-tech companies which had sprung up to develop the specialized applications for the various departments was predictable:  it dried up their marketplace completely. 

The result? 

Those ‘little guys’ who became ‘authorized re-sellers’ of the ‘big guys’ products survived – by turning into remoras… with limited horizons.

Other ‘little guys’ who managed to diversify to applications for the private sector suffered a lot of growing pains, but some of them made it.  Not enough of them survived – and their growth was much slowed down, as they did not have the steady support of the government contracts which allows some risktaking in developing new niches.

I quite understand the requirement for standardization of the government systems.  I have no complaints with this!  HOW it was achieved – that is another story! 

Not only did the government (my knowledge of the  Canadian government practices in this area is quite extensive) failed to support the development of emerging small to medium sized companies (these companies are necessary to keep the industry evolving and healthy), they actively undermined them. 

I have seen cases where the small/medium sized Canadian company bid on a government contract – and satisfied all the requirements in the RFP (request for proposal).  Now, for a large project, a company like this may invest several thousand dollars (depending on the contract, it could run high into 4 digits) in preparing the proposal with which to bid for the contract.  The costs are both in development of the solution (after all, you need to propose a solution!) and in the manpower to prepare the document itself.

And, I have also seen technically superior, more cost effective bids from small/medium sized Canadian companies rejected, on the grounds that on page 53 of the proposal, there was a misplaced comma – or the French translation was not gramatically correct.  A large multinational corporation would win the contract…

It pains me to even write about it – but I have seen this happen over and over and over.  Governments prefer working with one large company rather than supporting the growth of a healthy domestic industry in that field.  This is not a healthy attitude – for the government, for the emerging companies and the industry, but most importantly, this attitude has incredibly detrimental impact on the citizens.

Why?

By granting a ‘preferred vendor’ or ‘pre-approved vendor’ status on one or two large companies, the government can exercise incredible control over them.  Worried about loosing their profitable monopoly (or near-monopoly) status, these companies become willing to do just about anything to keep their biggest customer, the government, happy!

Let’s consider the scenario I described in this post, where the City of Ottawa government granted one large multinational company a monopoly to provide internet service to all the ‘rural Ottawa’ residents.  They kicked a number of smaller ISPs already present in parts of this marketplace out – legislating them out of business.  Really.  And the folks running the city thought this was a thing to be proud of!

Now imagine that someone ‘at the City’ lets it be known to the monopoly holder that all internet traffic must be monitored ‘to prevent hate speech’….  Do you think the ISP will put his monopoly at risk, or set up filters on the network that would ‘monitor and report’??? 

Big business enables ‘big brother’ to have eyes….

Controlling who provides our internet access

Several weeks ago, a popular Ottawa openline radio talks show host was going ballistic over what had happened to his internet access.  He lives in the rural part of the city (the City of Ottawa contains both the urban and much of the surrounding rural area).  And while people in many parts of the rural region could not easily get high-speed internet connections, he happened to live in a largish village that had that service.  For years, he was very happy with his internet provider.

This changed.

One day, his ‘regular’ provider – a small, local company – simply went away and was replaced by a big company.  And his internet stopped working ‘right’.  No problem – when there is a change, things are bound to happen… he had no problem with that, as long as things got fixed.  The new provider had a 24-hour support number (so far so good) where customers could report problems and have them dealt with right away.

So, he called the number.  Automated answering system – understandable, so our host goes through the menues.  And more menus.  And more menus.  After over an hour of this, he gave up…

I cannot recall the exact details of this – but I do recall the basics.  And his lines lit up with callers eager to add their own horror-story about the terrible service they had received from this particular provider.  Many were upset that they had no choice to remain with their other providers – there were several, if I am not mistaken.  Yet, all had, simultaneously, dissappeared and were replaced by this one large company whose service was at best poor and customer support mostly non-existant.

What happened?  This is the background to the story:

The City of Ottawa had received complaints from rural residents about the fact that they could not get high-speed internet access.  (This would be referred to as ‘pressure from below’.)  Being a very responsive government (when they want to be), the city councillors decided to solve this problem.  Since the council is made up of people many of who had never held a non-political/public service job in their life – they came up with a somewhat predictable solution:  give one internet provider a monopoly right over all the rural region of the city in exchange for ‘hooking everyone up’!

They put it out to tender, then selected a large international heavyweight with a prestigious name to provide the service.  Very proudly, they announced this success in a press release!  Now, everyone is equal! 

Did you follow what just happened?

Yes, getting a high-speed internet service is a good thing – even for people who choose to live out in the countryside.  I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that the way the City of Ottawa government chose to solve this robbed the rural Ottawans of their rights!

THEY GRANTED SOMEONE A MONOPOLY!!!  And what is more – they effectively forbade companies already providing a commercial service to their customers from continuing to provide this service!

And they are proud of the evil they had committed!

In my never-humble-opinion, it is exactly governments like these that were the reason that beautiful-sounding word, ‘defenestration’, was added to our language!

But consider the mindset at work here:  ‘the government’ is, by definition, a monopoly.  People running this particular government (the majority, anyway – enough of them to outvote the ‘rest’) have no experience outside of the ‘government monopoly’.  They truly and honestly think that monopolies are the best solution to just about every problem.  And then they implement ‘solutions’ such as these…

But this goes beyond just meddling by an incompetent government.  It is a real-life, managable-scale example of how governments and monopolies (or their variations) support each other.  The bigger the government, the bigger the companies – the more tangled the strings get.  But they are there!

CRTC ruling: it’s OK to throttle your customers!

Even though this is not where I was planning to go next in my ‘Big Picture’ look at what is happening around us, the timing of the CRTC’s ruling makes it convenient to call attention to what is happening with the internet.

Today’s article in the Financial Post, titled ‘CRTC denies request to ban Internet ‘Throttling”, we learned that Canada’s top censors communications regulating body, the CRTC, have ruled it’s OK bor Bell Canada to throttle internet trafic as they please – as long as they throttle everybody’s traffic equally….  Yeah, pull the other one!

“”Based on the evidence before us, we found that the measures employed by Bell Canada to manage its network were not discriminatory. Bell Canada applied the same traffic-shaping practices to wholesale customers as it did to its own retail customers,” said CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein.”

CAIP outlined how Bell Canada’s throttling has slowed down usage of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol calls, encrypted traffic, peer-to-peer file sharing and virtual-private networks to 30 kilobytes per second (roughly half the speed of a dial-up modem) from 4:30 p.m. to 2 a.m. Normal speeds are about five megabytes per second, about 166 times faster.”

Uncle Stalin always used to say that controlling the means of communication is the best way to gain power.  It is ‘good’ to see that his message has hopped class barriers and that the mandarins at the CRTC have taken his lesson to heart.  Or something like that…

Whatever the reason, it is a message we must not ignore – especially when the CRTC is – reportedly – also considering serously altering the way internet is accessed in Canada.  I addressed this in an earlier post, but the upshot was that instead of just ‘surfing’ the net as a user would like, the ‘sites’ would be ‘bundled’ just like channels are bundled from a cable provider.  Then, the user could buy a ‘package’ that would include access to some 100 pre-approved ‘bundled’ sites.  Any website (or blog) outside of these ‘big ones’ would cost a buck or two (to be set) per click…IF they would be available at all… 

Yeah, a slow death of ‘throttling’ to anyone not in the ‘bundle’….  So, perhaps we ought not be surprised that this same set of people thinks it OK for Bell to slow internet trafic to the internet providers themselves to half the dial-up speed…during the hours that people are home and ‘surfing’. 

I guess the only question remaining here is:  what is their motivation in maintaining this consistent stand?

Perhaps the answer is simpler and more crass than most of us would imagine…

‘The Big Picture’ page is up

To make it easier to follow the ‘chain’ of posts about ‘The Big Picture’, I have created a key-page.  It is called ‘The Big Picture’ and is at the top-right of my page header.

As I make more posts, I will update it with links and breif descriptions of the posts.  At the end, I’ll try to sum things up, untangle all the threads of the ‘big knot’ and demonstrate how they weave together to show us at least a part of the fabric of the history that surrounds us.  Ambitious, I know – but I can dream!

Mainstream Media – Dan Rather speaks out

As our society evolves, so do the means we keep ourselves informed.

A thousand years ago, traveling merchants, storytellers and ‘going to the fair’ would be the main ways non-elites (as in, us regular citizens) got information about what was happening in the world.  A hundred years ago, we would likely read the newspapers – or have someone who read them tell us about all the interesting things that were going on.  Then, the radio, TV….well, you know the rest.

The large and established newspapers, news-magazines, TV-news and to a degree, radio, make up our ‘mainstream media’ (MSM).  The majority of the people in our society get all of their news through this means – hence the term, ‘mainstream’.

During the early part of the 20th, the MSM had earned for itself a reputation of impartiality and fierce independance.  Journalists were proud to ‘hunt down’ the truth, the whole truth – and report nothing but the truth.  And not just report it – report it in as factual a way as possible.

Recently, my father-in-law was looking up some news story from the 1st half of the 20th century – so he went down to the ‘National Archives’ and started looking through the dailies.  He was struck at how very differently the ‘news’ had been reported.  No fluffy wording.  No idiotic interviews with a neighbour who had not seen anything, but happened to be ‘around’ when the reporter needed an ‘eyewitness’.  No guesses about what ‘society’ had done to ’cause’ such a tragedy.  Just, well, facts.  A bit stark, to be sure, but informative…

So, what happened?

Dan Rather has some insights that I think are very interesting:

By the way, Mr. Rather thinks that ‘bloggers’ are the next wave in news-communication – and a healthy antidote to the current malaise of the MSM.  Though he does not have a blog himself, in another interview, he said that if he were offered an opportunity to join a group of several bloggers, he just might consider making it the place from which to fight this battle!

Media – where does one start?

Growing up behind the ‘Iron Curtain’, a person had to learn to ‘read between the lines’ of what the official news-media were reporting.  The alternative was being left with patently self-contradictory messages.  One little example:  the headline in a newspaper touted the Soviet Union as the most developed country in the world, while the newsstand itself was just by a big ‘inspirational’ sign that read ‘We will catch up to, then surpass the USA!’ 

In other words, keeping one’s brain from exploding from ‘doublespeak’ required that one began to construct filters through which to pass all ‘official news’.  And, it was all ‘official news’.  Of course, we had ‘freedom of the press’ – there were several independent sources besides the official government newspapers!  There was the Communist Party newspaper and there was the official ‘Union of Trade Unions’ newspaper, too!  Plus, we were told  we had freedom of the press!

When we came to Canada in the 1980s, we experienced something that we had then written off as just a bit of a quirk – but, looking back, I suspect it may have been a symptom of a malaise that is now causing the part of the illness of our ‘Western’ mainstream media sources.

I say ‘part’ because in my never-humble-opinion, there are several underlying causes….  It is not a simple situation.

So, what was this ‘quirk’?

When we came here, many Canadians were very welcoming of us.  Most were very nice – even if somewhat naive of the world situation, at least, it seemed so to us.  They would ask us a lot of questions about what our life had been like and offerered very empathetic replies.  We we would describe to them the type of censorship of the press that existed there – how difficult it was to actually find information on what was happening in world events.  They smiled indulgently and told us:  ‘It is the same here – just from the other direction!’

This seemed a singularly strange response to us.  We concluded it was just a poor attempt at trying to make us feel welcome.  But, because several different people offered me the same sentiments, it is something I have never forgotten – it did continue to bother me over the decades.

It bothered me because it showed an inability to differentiate between the freedom of the press and censorship.  It bothered me because it diminished the importance of protecting freedom of the press by a smile and a wave of the hand…. 

But it also told me that there was a danger that these people would perceive ‘right-wing bias’ where none existed.  That they would suspect it is there – simply because they are told that in Communist countries (which is their ‘opposite’) there is a ‘left wing bias’ – so here there ‘must’ be the opposite, ‘right wing’ bias…  This seemed to me to be both a twisted form of reasoning, lack of an ability to assess veracity, as well as an indication of undeserved self-deprecation.  Perhaps it was a kind of self-put-down:  considering one-self unworthy of actually asessing the situation using their own reasoning an therefore refusing to even try.  And I thought this was potentially dangerous….

It seems to me that this, or similar, faulty reasoning has permeated a lot of the learning institutions in ‘the West’ – that this ‘attitude’ is actively being taught in schools to our kids, teens and young adults.  And, it has been taught since at least the 1980s!

This started me thinking about how this attitude may have become come to be in the first place – why was this type of mis-reasoning never debunked by the intelligent people who were being taught it?  And then it occurred to me:  people will NOT question something IF they do not realize there is something to question!!!

Perhaps I am confusing things a little….  Let me explain this by going over a conversation I had with one of my high-school English teachers.  He was a 60’s hippy – all grown up and teaching American Literature now.  As we went over interpretations of differen novels, it became clear he was fiercly pro-peace (all war is evil, nothing is worth going to war over) and that he regarded the Soviet Union and the United States as pretty much ‘equivalent’ – economically as well as morally.  But, his in-born sense of fairness demanded that since he is part of ‘the West’, it is his duty to be critical of ‘the West’ – just as we, emigrants from ‘the East’ are critical of ‘the East’.

He and I had many interesting discussions – inside the class, as well as outside of it.  I’m afraid my inability to properly perceive ‘social boundaries’ meant that I asked some pretty direct questions of him – but he was genuinely a very nice guy and would discuss them with me in the spirit in which I asked them.

If this teacher is indicative of how the attitudes formed in other people of his generation, I don’t know.  However, it is interesting to entertain the possibility that he might… 

Part of the ‘culture’ of ‘the West’ in the decade plus following WWII was a significant amount of propaganda against Communism.  This went along with some pretty serious abuses of human rights – McCarthy and all that.  But that culture was also imbued with very positive things, like ‘patriotism’ and the knowledge that as horrible as war is, it is necessary to fight it sometimes…

It is one of those things we, people, tend to do:  we tend to bundle ideas together.  In this case, the ‘counter-revolution’ which happened – the ‘hippy movement’ – bundled the ideas of ‘freedom=good’  ‘McCarthyism is against freedom’ along with ‘patriotism’ and ‘necessary self-scacrifice in war’, ‘McCarthyism=right wing’, ‘facism=right wing’, ‘facism caused war’….  you see where I’m going with this. 

The Hippies (and, really, many pre-Hippies…Hippies were sort of the ‘trailing edge’ of this trend, but I don’t know the proper term to apply) rebelled against ‘the zeitgeist’ of their parent’s society – the good along with the bad!  And they were so busy rebelling against ‘the bad bits’ that they never noticed they did not reason things out…and that there even were any ‘good bits’ in their parent’s culture.

In other words, many of these people ‘bundled together’ all their partents’ era stood for.  They saw ‘rebelling against government control’ and ‘fighting for freedom’ to be the same thing as ‘rebelling against right wing ideas and people who espouse them’.  It never even occurred to them to question whether this reasoning is sound.  And since it did not occurr to them to question this, they never did.

These people then became the teachers of the next generation!

Thanks to the demographic ‘waves’, people who grew up on the leading edge (agewise) of this cultural wave have filled all the vacancies in Universtities and Colleges that were getting ready for the swelling numbers of the ‘boomers’ and they made sure to drum these ideas into the students’ heads. 

You want to question ‘government authority’?  Then question right-wing ideas!!!

Simply put, they failed to differentiate between the ’cause’ and the ‘symptom’:  since they saw ‘opression’ come from the ‘right wing’, they eqauted the two and did not reason any further.  This then became their entrenched dogma.

And they are still there, still teaching these same ideas… and they are senior enough to be in charge of approving the hiring of new professors.  Predictably, they select ones who think like they do.  After all, they must ‘guard’ the ‘institutions of learning’ against falling under the influence of ‘right wing McCarthyists’!!!

So, how did my conversations with my teacher go?  Rather well.  I walked away with a deeper understanding of ‘the West’ and its ‘internal struggle’.  But, I think I also had an impact on my teacher.  I recall that during one of our last conversations (the year was almost out) we were talking about the Soviet Union’s military backing of some of the most brutal revolutions in Africa. 

My teacher was dismissive of my criticism, saying it did not matter if the ‘new’ country accepted help from the USA or the USSR.  In his words:  ‘When you are hungry, it does not matter who offers you a steak.  You don’t ask about their politics, you eat the stake!’

To which I replied that the USA spends billions of dollars on foreign aid – a lot of it in Africa.  Sure, they do some bad things – nobody says they don’t.  But, they also bring in vaccinations, rice, beans – and books and teachers.  The Soviet Union also spends money on foreing aid in Africa.  But they never send food or books or medicine.  Instead of handing the Africans ‘a steak’, they hand them a gun and say:  ‘Your neighbour has a steak.  Go take it!’

All my teacher said was:  ‘I had not thought of that…’

The origin and nature of human rights

This is a most excellent video from StopAndLook which explores the origin and nature of our rights.

The author expresses the concepts eloquently and clearly:  human rights, at any given time, are what people agree they are.  Reaching a concensus is difficult. 

The origin of rights determines their nature.  This video explores the difference between the position that ‘rights’ originate with each individual versus the position that rights originate with the social group.

 

Though it is phrased differently, it is very simlar to the different attitudes captured in ‘Common Law’ versus ‘Civil Law’ legal codes:  very roughly, the ‘Common Law’ would be more closely aligned with the position that ‘rights’ originate with the individual whild ‘Civil Law’ is more congruent with the point of view that ‘rights’ originate from ‘the state’.

What is really important here is the difference in attitude between the citizen and the State.  A little bit of this difference in attitude is described in my post about the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’:  in a tax cut, the attitude is that the money is yours, and the government is able to accomplis the necessary ‘common goals’ using less of your money while in a tax rebate, the attitude is that the money is the government’s and that they have decided to give you a raise in your allowance.

This attitude, in my never-humble-opinion, is key in how the society evolves because it forms the expectations of the citizens towards the government, and vice versa. 

And this attitude is one of the ‘threads’ in this great big ‘knot’…