Not so fast: 'stoopid' web readers?

Somewhere a group of cognitive scientists and researchers are quietly patting their backs after presenting evidence that the Internet is changing the way we read and, in turn, on a genetic "gushy brain connectors" level. If change is the enemy of typical, and this is not about the Obama Presidential campaign (it was not), then this headline lured me in immediately:

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

However, as much as I wanted to click on the link to read the article, I did not. At the time I wasn't in the mood to endure someone -- anyone -- droll on about how the Internet was actually killing us on a genetic level and how we'd all better watch out.

The second time I saw this headline, it was in the middle of a magazine rack at my local Barnes & Noble. There was one noticeable difference that really made me stop. First of all the article was written in the Atlantic, I hadn't stopped to filter that on my previous encounter. In terms of attention span, the magazine's flag paled in comparison to the article's headline, which was designed as graphic art similar to the familiar Google logo and featured a misspelled word (Stoopid).

Witty? Yes...but I would have never gotten this effect at all had I veered down another isle, leaving the Web version to rot in my mind as yet another sensational claim for the sake of making one. The reason the Atlantic probably chose not to follow through with the misspelling and/or graphic could have been because it wouldn't search well. Someone was likely practicing SEO (Search Engine Optimization).

The headline, important in the viewing world to catch the attention by way of vision -- Via Internet, completely unconcerned with visuals. They also went through and provided links to any blog or Web content that was mentioned in the story. (It was done sparingly). The article was quite long so anyone intending to read it probably didn't feel compelled to navigate away for any reason.

With the understanding that I enjoyed the article in its entirety, there was one part I took issue with.

"When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration."

Perhaps this is the case, but the author presumes that this process is not good, and that somehow we cannot possibly glean the richness of the information if it isn't sitting right in front of our faces -- distraction free. He cites the sporadic nature of Internet readers to scan articles and then move on to another page. He mentions that articles are shorter, and less extensive... Well, this may be the case but those short articles are the meat of the story if done correctly. If the headline was created for use on the Internet, then so should the entire entry. Adding links to possibly unfamiliar jargon, pictures, breaking up text with subheads, adding the "strong" and "em" tags to catch scanning eyeballs - making them anchor to the screen for just a moment longer...etc. etc. etc.

This takes time. If the article is *ahem* optimized, then I don't see how they can imply that reading on the net is less informative.

-TechGOnzo

My Mahalo Moment

Mahalo, the human powered search engine, surprised me very recently with their response to the tragic news of journalism-great Tim Russert’s passing.

I had heard the news via twitter before anywhere else, but there were zero details. Whatever work ethic I had gathered to finish daily tasks was now gone – replaced with clicking link after link searching for a full report. The same AP story came up across various news sites but I was more interested in hearing Tom Brokaw’s gallant effort to relay the information about his good friend. I wasn’t in a position to turn on a television so I just kept clicking the refresh button on MSNBC.com every minute or so hoping to see a new video clip.

I switched tabs back to twitter and saw that Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis was directing anyone interested in Russert information to the Mahalo page. I’d been to the site, but I’ll admit it was casual. I was certainly not expecting to find the most comprehensive list of links to a variety of different written and video. This was just 25 minutes after the story broke.

At that moment, I became a believer in people powered search — especially when gathering information about a breaking news story.

“We call that moment when people understand what we’re doing a ‘Mahalo moment,’” said Calacanis about my experience in an e-mail. “It happens at a different time for everyone. The longer guide notes with citations have really accelerated the number of Mahalo moments we’ve noticed.”

Calacanis was kind enough to reply to the e-mail about my experience and also answer few questions about the entire process of putting breaking news together at Mahalo headquarters…

Full Jason Calacanis Q&A on my NewAssignment.net post Here.

- TechGOnzo

Tweet it old school: A newswire for everyone

Important people with interesting, relevant things to say, seem like the type that would be given a highly sophisticated newswire service that was capable of updating new information from any location, at any time of day. Yet, what is important to you may mean nothing to me and so on and so forth. So who deserves a newswire?

How about everyone - and at no extra charge beyond regular communication fees.

Despite the ease of obtaining such a newswire, many people scoff at the idea-- mostly because they fail to believe a group of people would exist that would want to hear constant updates from their daily lives. Though, if asked, these same people would tell you they aren't uninteresting or boring (I'd presume). Some of these people will cite the excessive time it would take to maintain a constantly updating newswire-like service as reason enough not to bother with it. Whatever the excuse may be, these services are out there and giving those that use it a definitive advantage by knowing things before anyone else.

I'm speaking of a crop of social networking services that emphasis the concept of “micro communication” that is less active than a phone or instant messaging conversation but not as passive as e-mail and the traditional hand-written letter. Pownce, Plurk and Twitter are among those services transforming the way people communicate during a busy work day without sacrificing time or energy.

Twittering and why it's necessary

I've not written about twitter for this site but I really and truly should have by now. Ultimately I haven't had the time and/or mental capacity due to frequent use of the social service that is not restricted to just the web.

Twitter works like this:
Cram an entire message or communication into 140-characters (note: not words) and send out to the world for consumption by friends, colleagues, associates and other like-minded individuals that have the option to “follow” your messages through out the day. The format is perfect for text messaging and by adding a cell phone to an account, you can actually update from anywhere--making it a virtual newswire.

The 140-character limit may seem annoying, however, this journalist and many others view it as a challenge. (Essentially, you are writing all ledes or all memorable quotes for a collected edition of witty remarks, etc.)

As for the content of the messages, almost anything goes. Want to give updates on the PGA tour to friends stuck in business meetings all day? You can now do that. How about the writer in an empty office who enjoys the comfort of a staff to bounce ideas off of as they work? You've got a group of people all paying attention. Plain silliness? That's doable too.

Truthfully, the service is extremely versatile because of its imposed limitations. The only thing that is never acceptable is shameless self promotion through trickery and spam. bloggers who frequent the twitter service usually send links to their articles immediately after they post them. They usually post just once, perhaps twice. Often times Twitter can even be described as a human powered RSS feed, so spam gets dealt with immediately.

What you are left with is a group of people you find useful/interesting/relevant who update you through out the day. In my case it's sparked new relationships and opportunities as well.

So I'm not really sure why anyone would prefer not to bother themselves with using twitter or a similar service. If you're a writer (especially the non-fiction variety) check out twitter for a week and see if it hasn't proven invaluable on at least one occasion.

-TechGOnzo

CNET can now focus on content, right?

News of the Columbia Broadcasting Station (CBS) buying out CNET did come as a bit of a surprise to me. However, the more I reflect on it the more I think it will probably be remember as one of the smarter business moves of the era. Here's why:

Why it's good for CBS:
Once the pillar of quality information, CBS is now known more for their hour-long Crime dramas and high way billboard advertising. It's news gathering abilities have been resting on its laurels since Dan Rather left in YEAR amid controversy over false sources. But, his departure was just the culmination of several years in decline, which I attribute mostly to two main things: 1) an increased distance between its audience and the Internet generation and 2) its failure to reach out to these Internet media consumers. The acquisition of CNET should provide a healthy dose of life in CBS' news division. (lets hope.)

Why it's good for CNET:
CNET never quite got a handle on the separation between their advertising department and the Editorial content. In the past, the online media company reportedly sold favorable placement of articles on their various sites, according to Valleywag. This of course caused an ethical dilemma on several occasions, most recently involving Gamespot reviewer Jeff Gerstman's termination. But, I can't fault the editorial staff on these matters -- the management on the other hand you can blame. Lets hope CBS has a better interpretation of the basic separation between editorial and their money making division.

Opportunity Calling...
Now that CBS is whispering about what to do with its evening news program after Katie Coric departs, the media relic has a real opportunity here to revise their top names in news to identify with a whole new generation of Americans -- most notably, Loaded host Natali Del Conte, who has an impressive background in both new and traditional media.

(Note to CBS: DO NOT SCREW THIS ONE UP!!)

-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.

News media, meet your pioneer

Imagine you're a young journalist who gets called in over the weekend to do a story on education and the state budget because half the staff is out with a nasty flu bug. Also, your regular beat is covering high school sports.

If you were this particular reporter, the appropriate expression would normally be “oh shit.” (See also, "this ought to be interesting")

However, if you are David Cohn, then you'd imagine a fix for this particular predicament and proceed to blog about it on 1 of 5 different social community sites.

I spoke with him briefly, and then proceeded to check out his blog digidave.org, which contains his commentary journalism. He covers all aspects of the profession in relation to technology. It's extremely refreshing and accurate.

After reading several posts on various sites, I find myself wishing someone would give David a million dollars then proceed to lock him into a computer lab with a team of the best coders and a sleek innovative designer. Stir rigorously for one week, and then let them out. I'm pretty sure the result of such an experiment would remake the news media entirely the way Google did for the Internet.

If you've ever wondered why news media hasn't figured out how to make the web work for them in a big way, then I'd highly recommend checking out his daily thoughts.

Here's a quick description for two of his sites:

Digidave.org - Cohn's personal blog
Sample post, Quote:
“Am I a journalist or a blogger? My answer: Both - they aren't mutually exclusive. Every time people ask me what I do - if I'm tired and don't want to go into it, I sigh and say I'm a “blogger.“ But I know that isn't the truth...Give Bob Woodward a blog - and he is still a journalist. Give my mother her own print product - she is still not a journalist (sorry mom).”

Beatblogging.org - Experiment in beat reporting with social networks
Sample post, Quote:
“...Figure out social networks. How do the work, whats the ebb and flow, how do you gently lead one, how do you deal with trolls, etc. This is the skill set that isn't taught on the job right now but will become increasingly important.”

-TechGOnzo

The apocalypse or world peace? I report, YOU decide

A little over a year from now, citizens in the United States will begin the long, arduous process of choosing a new President.

I offer this bit of advice to my fellow men and women: Choose and Choose wisely -- for the wrong candidate in office could proof disastrous on an apocalyptic scale. But there are some perks to enjoy until the nuclear-filled end of days comes to pass. For instance, it's an exciting time for anyone with a busy schedule, a fast Internet connection and a desire to follow 43-minute long American produced melodramas.

Prime-time television shows are now available online at no cost to the viewer.

Last year I remember ABC having by far the best of the best when it came to video players, which surprised me. I didn't think it was possible for a corporation to cut through all the red tape and become so successful in pushing content into a new medium. It all seemed vaguely familiar...

Convergence-Smonsmergence...(or something)
ABC has actually had quite a bit more experience at converging programming into a new medium. After all, the major TV networks got their start in radio. Although, critics once scorned by online video programing will probably claim that the path from radio to television was much, much easier than from television to Internet.

The truth is we don't know that yet, however, we do know ABC has figured out how to make online programming work. But, what's really important here is the fact that free prime time TV via Internet is a sign that we can have everything we've ever dreamed of, which I'll explain in a moment.

A viable business model for online video programing is just recently becoming a reality. Do you think the major networks realized the full and utter potential television had to offer when the medium was just an infant? Very doubtful. The daily news hour wasn't created until long after the big three (ABC, NBC, CBS--now called the big five) converged programming.

So ABC, CBS, and NBC are doing pretty well if you compare their services to the CW and FOX, which are pure wastes of time. Fox and the CW, therefore will not deliver us our wildest dreams and only serve to bring us closer to the apocalypses.

But getting back to what surprised me about ABC: they're doing this all without commercials for now. How can you have a successful business model without selling ads?

Then it dawned on me where I had seen this crazy put the customer first tactic before.

Someone over at Disney/ABC -- I don't know who -- but someone figured out that television missed the beginning of a consumer revolution where people decided to use a new medium (the Internet). Since television initially ignored the revolution, people started illegally downloading shows and streaming them from ghost servers around the world.

Bottom line? People were doing it anyways.

ABC is making the right move because they understand one thing. To sell advertising on a product, it first has to be in great demand...not forced down our throats.

Steve Jobs = Free TV online
Now, I may have lamented on the death of Business 2.0 magazine in a previous post, and then followed up with analysis of television corporate business models, but I assure you I don't find money very interesting at all.

I do, however, find it interesting that ABC leads the pack by doing all the right things after Steve Jobs took over as head of Disney/ABC/ Pixar.

*Sigh* Now if only he would run for President. The equation would then be altered slightly: Steve Jobs + Presidency = Everything I really want but don't know about yet.

*Things I really want but don't know about yet could possibly include, but not limited to: Pterodactyl transportation vessels that run on cottage cheese, people actually using segways, a cure for cancer based on burping truthiness, world peace, an end to global warming, world peace again and a insanely revalued greenback....

Oh....and one more thing:
State of the Union Addresses will be given in the form of Keynotes from now on. Oddly enough each keynote speech includes at least one cheap shot on Bill Gate AND PEOPLE STILL LAUGH.

Now I understand most of you are wholly against the idea of a Steve Jobs Presidency. You may be against allowing your inner apple fanboy to dictate your political decision. I understand that. But much the way a frustrated Windows user doesn't know what he's (or she) getting into after using a mac for the first time, You really don't know what you want.

Steve Jobs can give you want you don't know you want. And anytime things start heading down the wrong path? No worries, we'll have Vice President Woz to save us.

Think different, think America.

Joost on PPC Macs? How about Never.

When I purchased my Powerbook Mac, I had no idea that apple would release Intel powered processor versions 32-days later. That's about two days too many for me to have returned my machine so that I could get the upgrade. Yet, I was extremely happy with my new notebook and I didn't feel too burned by the company, as many of us do with the iPhone.

My sentiment did not change until last week when I was surfing the Joost message boards wondering when the streaming media program's (which I wrote about previously) company Joost would be upgrading support for Pre-Intel Processor Mac users.

Apparently, Joost hates PPC Mac people. In what was far from an official statement, message board administrator "meccaibrahim" explained that PPC macs just weren't cool enough to come to the cool kids party.

The direct comment:

Posted on: Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 12:38

Re: PPC Support
We're currently working on improving the performance of the PC and Intel-based Mac versions available today. Although there has been demand for a Mac PPC version of Joost, we have to prioritize our business objectives. As a result, we do not have plans to release a Mac PPC version at this time. Sorry.

http://www.joost.com/forums/p/2007/09/re-ppc-support-16/

Never mind that early adapters of new software are niche hardcore computer users like the small pocket of long time apple Fanboys. I think its the wrong move over all. I look at how limited iTunes (and now Safari) was when it first came out, and now is considered the primary choice for music libraries. Joost killed off a huge host of free promoters by deciding not to supporting PPC.

Politicians: Welcome to the Internets...

****UPDATE BELOW****

When mediums collide the effects aren't often easily predicted. Such is the case with the recent Democratic Debate on YouTube, which featured candidates answering questions from citizens via their web cam....and an extremely disturbing image of genitalia.

During the debate the "goatse" image was flashed for a fraction of a second, which had candidates flinching. Yet, apparently no one acknowledged it during the debate. I also heard absolutely nothing about it on the morning broadcast shows.

"GOATSE" for all of you not privy to early Internet culture, is a highly disturbing picture of a man's anus and genitalia that people are tricked into looking at, All the while expecting something entirely different (e.g. a bunny). You can read the wiki here but I think I summed it up pretty well.

For obvious reasons, I'm not posting the vile pic.

Yet, it seems this blogger picked up the story and did a bit of research to see if he was the only one in witness to this heinous act (and yeah, its heinous.)He reported over 200,000 phone calls to the Democratic National Committee and currently awaits response from the broadcast media giants.

Had this been a regular broadcast debate, we'd have likely never discovered the prank. I mean it only flashed for a fraction of a second. However, since it was on the Internet it might as well been flashed for two solid minutes.

A part of me really hates that this event will further divide Internet video from its mainstream audience. It's a shame that one foolish individual screwed this up for the rest of us.

***UPDATE***

I recieved an email from a graphic designer friend who pointed out the techical improbabilities of embedding the dreaded Goatse into the question video. I understood none of it but you can view the Video here with no sign of nasty: http://youtube.com/user/jasonkoop