Kevin Rose, The People's Publisher - An Open Letter

Kevin Rose does not want the title of editor. In fact, he's quoted in articles as saying his distaste for the position is partially what fueled his desire to start a site like digg. Allow me to quote from this month's Inc. Magazine cover story about him:

On December 13, 2004, Rose got in front of the camera and offered a pointed critique of Slashdot, a tech news site that would become Digg's chief competitor. "The only problem [with Slashdot] is you're relying on whatever the editor thinks is really cool," he intoned, pronouncing editor in the most disparaging way possible. "So what we've got is a couple of websites that give the power back to the people."

It's a noble quote that speaks volumes about the direction news needs to go in the future, but I fear it could also hold back Kevin's ideal vision. I also don't think he realizes it and so I've decided to write the man an open letter...

Dear Kevin,

The news I'm about to share with you cannot be found in any one place. It's not shared by any one person or from a single article, blog post or entire site for that matter. It's everywhere and no where. I've heard it from a thousand different professors and witnessed it a few hundred thousand time more than that. It's a concept you're probably familiar with but haven't given proper consideration for day-to-day decision-making. It's important, it's powerful and it's simple enough to say in one sentence. So here goes...

At any given time, a person's circumstance prevents true unbiased actions, absolutely.

What that means in your current circumstance is that your ideal of giving power back to the people must evolve or it will shrivel and die. Despite valiant attempts to keep your social news sharing site governed by the community, you find yourself banning the most enthusiastic users and criticized for things you said jokingly under the influence of amusement while in the company of friends.

The comment about female nipple teats you made during an episode of diggnation? You were crucified for it compared with how people would have treated the comment about a year ago. And which of us actually believes you were serious about cutting teats if kicked in the balls? Seriously, most of us can tell the difference and a few of us cannot. Those few, however, are who you've offended to the point of having to apologize for something that was essentially bullshit. And where is your die-hard army of supporters who borderline activism for touting your innocence? Banned, or severely skeptical about speaking on your behalf because of it.

These things are not your fault...at least not yet.

What we have here is a line drawn in the proverbial sand -- and pretty soon you'll have to make a choice that I don't believe you've fully thought through. You are not the Editor of digg.com but something similar given the scope of information gathering. What's happening is you're become something you swore you'd never be: the world's next mega-huge media publisher in the vein of Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. You're becoming this figure and you don't want it, have never wanted it and we gave it to you for precisely that reason. However, it's time to face the reality and embrace this role or continue to deny it and risk being criticized to the point of embarassment by the very power users who helped digg rise to the top.

I'm not implying that you simply let the most active people dictate the actions and inactions of your community, that's insane. If you banned people I trust you had good reason but you've got to start handling it differently. I'm talking about the inconsistencies with the mass bans during the last few months. Scripts are banned, therefore if you used a script to artificially vote a submission up or down then your terminated -- except this regulation was not immediately stated in the terms of service yet, it was the justification for terminating several accounts. What it appears like, since I don't really know, is the digg team cherry picking the users they deem valuable and tossing the ones that hurt the site's credibility. It's just one instance, but there are more.

That control you hated about mainstream media? It's manifesting itself as poorly stated justification for user banning and unseen site admins making ethical decisions with no explanation. You're also being manipulated into self censorship because of your status as top guy at digg HQ. Rash decisions and loose words will bite you in the ass as if you were a politician running for office.

If you continue fighting the label of publisher because you're a technology guy, then you can expect the situation to worsen and eventually warp digg.com into something you don't want. I'm telling you this because your a tech guy with his finger on the pulse of the next giant media company and I'm a journalist that spends more time explaining tech than reporting. You've opened up entirely new worlds for myself and others. I thought it was only fair to shed some light on the ethics of news publishing.

Sincerely,

User: "TSCheredar"

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg | yahoo! | netvouz

Post July 4th thought: Ben Franklin the digger

Given that Benjamin Franklin had a background in diplomacy, science, publishing and traveling, is it really so hard to think that one of the only founding fathers never to seek office would be a digger if he were alive today?

I don't mean to say that he'd be an avid technology broadcast journalist turned internet entrepreneur, regardless of the image I chose for this entry. I'm talking about Ben Franklin wanting to advance his knowledge and improve the quality of life for all by bettering himself.

I urge everyone to go watch a Ben Franklin documentary and then tell me if it's not the same sense you get when you think of the most active digg users.

Just a thought.

-TechGOnzo

Dueling Identities: Ethics of web names

It started at the ripe old age of five. I wanted a secret identity that would allow me to basically do whatever it is people did while wearing a cowl and colorful cape. I got the same urge to adopt a secret ID years later in the post-Google search index era --- when suddenly anything you've ever done is now networked and somewhat easily searched.

Press friendly and digital beacon
If you want to be a serious professional on the web, then you've got quite a bit of slack regarding the main audience, which is solely on the Internet. If you want to be a professional in any other medium and still write on the web, readers in the community could realistically misconstrue anything you do, thus pulling a “FOX News Fair and Balanced” and/or “We report, you decide.” What I mean by that is, from that point forward you'd be know as either a conservative darling or a raunchy godless liberal.* If you'd like to do both then you'll have to do something like use a cyber-pen name, Web name, alias, or any other synonym you can think of to make it sound as normal and non-super-heroish as possible.

I would say the need for such a dual identity will become less important as people adapt to new technology and such. Some, such as David Cohn, who I wrote about previously, have taken an “open book” approach to the web. He's been very successful. I've even had the opportunity to write a few articles on his sites. So it would be completely unfair (and wrong) to say it can't be done and done well.

But, I'm a small time reporter, so most of my audience still connects to a print edition or...not at all. Ultimately, it's a decision you'll have to decide for yourself. If you do use an alternate pen name to write more freely whenever you're off the clock, I've come up with a few short rules:

1) The give and take: It is acceptable** to omit mention of your actual name as it appears in unintentionally slanted news publications when you are writing under a web pen name. I wouldn't say it's necessary to mention it anywhere on the site itself either. BUT: (this is a very big but) you should never deny that you write under this assumed name under any circumstances...

2) Promote transparency whenever possible. It's always the best policy. In fact, mention that you write on the Internet about subjects completely unrelated to your regular beat. I'd suggest even pointing people in the right direction to those other sites. Don't hide it, but at the same time you don't have an obligation to be obvious about it (as long as you follow the next rule...)

3) Don't use your secret identity to advance what you REALLY think about the story you just wrote in a completely fair and unbiased way for your regular news publication. If you are a follower of journalistic ethics and integrity, then you should have done that when you wrote it the first time --- or dismissed it all together. One story. Report it the way you believe without slanting it. If it merits a second story, write another.

4) Keep it clean (or relatively.) Passion is not always relative to the number of four lettered F-bombs in a fiery blog post or column. I tend to look at Superman as the best metaphor for this rule. Superman does not exercise his freedom of potty mouth speech, ever. Not just in front of children or city officials. He does not curse. You need to uphold the integrity of what you are talking about. Treat your second name as if it was your only name.***

Side Note:
It could also be said that The Batman would probably not follow any of these rules. I agree but would like to point out that The Batman would never blog, twitter, comment, digg, reddit, Mixx, shout or any other form of social media expression what-so-ever. I mean, come on, he's The %!^&@# Batman.

-TechGOnzo

* Terms are interchangeable between political parties and also broadcasting news stations.
** Most would prefer no omission of your actual name. "acceptable" is my own opinion
***Chuck Klosterman rarely says the "F" word more than once in a column.

An open challenge to coders, programmers

Facebook's open application integration certainly made their social networking site fresh again. I'll be the first to admit that I was teetering on the edge leaving the site all together before this wave of applications. While I don't care for the majority of them, I was tickled that someone created integration for digg.com.

But I have beef with their 2008 Presidential Election tool, which hurts more than it helps.

The tool, which is sponsored by Newsvine, allows you to in effect "endorse" a particular candidate by displaying information on the facebook profile page. The main problem I have with this app is that it only allows one person to be chosen. This is absolutely pointless considering that the election is 18 months away. Even the primaries don't choose until -- at the very least -- six months from now. So why the hell would you encourage people to start picking "just one" person this far in advance. If there are two or three candidates to choose from, I could understand the logic, but there are 21 different names on that list. Some of them don't even plan on running.

What's worse is that the Newsvine `08 Election app gives you a choice to pledge support for a party. Now I have to worry about how it'll appear if I choose a Republican candidate. I don't want to be classified as a Republican. Congruently, If I were to choose a Democratic candidate I'd have people accusing me of aligning with that party. I don't care for parties because they exist to tailor your decision making, your morality and they were invented to do nothing other than pool votes. For those who want to disagree, please read George Washington's stance on political Parties found in his farewell address. I do not want to classify myself as one side or another. Let the politicians do that. I feel like any efficient facebook election app should reflect the best man or woman for the job.

Perhaps the most blasphemous thing found in the application is the option of "I hate politics." If you hate politics then don't bother adding this application to your profile. The last thing this country needs is people rallying behind a choice not to care anymore. Hating politics is bad. Newsvine should know better. (Then again, what do you expect from a list of apps that includes an eat and drink updater.)

What I'd like to see is the ability to pick several candidates whom I like. At the same time I wouldn't mind listing the ones I don't like either. I'd like to see less emphasis of political affiliation and more on the actual candidate's stances. (Although I'd settle for the first.) There is no chosen candidate on my page because I refuse to fit into the tiny confines of this application that lacks ambition.

An Open Challenge to Coders:
So I'm calling out for a new improved 2008 election application --one that fosters tolerance of ideas and thwarts bipartisan voting bases. Sadly, I do not know the first thing about coding.

But if there's one thing I do know, it's that tech geeks are passionate about what matters the most.

So who thinks they can create a better app than the one we've got?