Bob Woodward Blames Google For 'Killing' Newspapers

from the maybe-he-should-investigate-that dept

Famed investigative reporter Bob Woodward apparently doesn't spend much time "investigating" the state of the internet and online news before making statements. His latest is that he's not thrilled with this whole internet thing, saying that Eric Schmidt's tombstone should say "I killed newspapers." He followed this statement up with this bit of pure cluelessness:

"There's going to be something we're going to miss in journalism that will be very regrettable. I hope the young people who have developed Facebook and Google will say, 'We need to fix the information system and we need to get information to people that's well-researched and investigated.' "

There's something beautiful in a statement that disproves itself, and Woodward's statement above fits into that category perfectly. After all, he made the statement above, and it's pretty damn clear that he made it without investigating or researching what's actually going on. The fact is that Woodward seems to have conflated two totally separate issues: the fact that services like Google and Facebook exist... and the fact that not all reporting is well-researched or investigated. The problem is that those two things are not particularly related, and most certainly not causal. There are, for example, plenty of reports in newspapers that are neither well-researched nor investigated. At the same time, there are plenty of things found online that are both well-researched and investigated. Of course, there's plenty that isn't... but that doesn't harm the stuff that is. I never understand why people automatically think that all content online gets equal attention, and that any "bad" content somehow takes something away from good content.

But rather than researching and investigating what's really causing problems for newspapers (hint: massive debt-load and an astounding failure to adapt to the times), Woodward simply does what he claims to hate, and makes uninformed and ignorant statements, blaming "search engines" for the "screwed up information system." He also seems to think that while "people" exist offline, what happens online no longer involves people. The following paragraph, for example, makes no sense:

"Mark Felt, who was Deep Throat, didn't have a Facebook account. He wouldn't have had one. The news of Watergate came from human beings who were reluctant to talk. And the information was not on the Internet. You talk to college students and they say, 'Instead of two years before Nixon resigned, it would have happened in a week.' And I say, 'Why?' And they say, 'Because, people would have gone to the Internet and found it.' But I say, 'It wasn't there. Even if there was an Internet, the information would not be available.'"

Even if that latter exchange really happened (and I have my doubts), the whole thing seems to be based on the idea that a reporter today can't cultivate sources online. While I'm not an investigative reporter by any stretch of the imagination, I can say pretty clear that the internet has been a massive boon in building up a variety of sources of information that simply wouldn't be possible in the past. Just because it happens online doesn't mean it doesn't involve communicating with people. It's just that the process becomes more efficient. He's right that Mark Felt wouldn't have put info online... but would it have been possible for reporters to cultivate a source like Feld online? Absolutely.

Filed Under: bob woodward, internet, journalism, newspapers, sources

Study Suggests That The Internet Makes Youth 'More Engaged Citizens'

from the that's-a-good-thing,-right? dept

Following on our recent post discussing Clay Shirky's views concerning social media's role in helping to politicize people who were formerly not all that interested in politics, Shocklee points us to news of a recent study that has found, indeed, that high school students who use the internet to research key interests "were more likely to become involved in 'civic and political issues.'" And it appears that this greater involvement goes beyond just posting about it online, but really becoming more involved in certain causes. This seems to counter the claims of some that online interest in civil and political issues is more just people screaming in front of their computers. It actually does seem to have a real impact.

Filed Under: activism, engagement, internet, politics, social media, studies, youth

US Gov't Still Wants More Control Over ICANN

from the not-cool dept

It's really amazing how tone deaf the Obama administration can be on certain issues. For years, foreign countries have accused the US of having too much control over the internet via ICANN. ICANN, of course, was set up to manage a key part of the internet (and to make it a bit more formal than the old process of Jon Postel keeping things going) as a quasi-private operation that just happened to sorta, kinda be connected to the Commerce Dept. This connection to the Commerce Department concerned some, and ICANN has always striven to show itself as independent. And yet, during this time many countries have suggested that ICANN's role be moved to the UN, or some other international body. So it seems bizarre that the Obama administration is now trying to gain more control over ICANN. How can those involved not recognize the inevitable backlash from other countries? Yes, other countries claim they're concerned as well, but any move that gives the US more of a say is going to go over badly.

The real issue here is that governments still seem to think that there's a way to treat the internet as subordinate to various country governments. I'm beginning to think that's not true at all (despite a few attempts to assert such control). For years there have certainly been plenty of jurisdictional questions raised by the internet, but at some point people are going to realize that perhaps the internet doesn't neatly qualify under the rules of a particular country, but is itself a separate space. Resisting that, and having governments trying to gain more control over the internet, is only going to backfire.

Filed Under: control, internet
Companies: icann

Is The Internet Enabling Bad Content... Or Killing Bad Content?

from the can't-hide-behind-marketing-any-more dept

One of the common refrains we hear from the modern Luddite is that one of the awful things about today's internet culture is that it's flooded with too much "crap." One of our regular critics in the comments insists that key point and our failure to realize what this means for the world is why he spends so much time attacking everything I post. He's worried about what all that crappy content means for the world. Of course, that always makes me wonder why he bothers spending time paying attention to crappy content. After all, one of the nice things about the internet is that you only have to pay attention to what you like. It's truly an elitist position to complain about the crap that's out there. The thing is, it's really not a problem.

First, what may be crap to you may be wonderful to someone else. The idea that there's some objective measure of what's great and what's crap when it comes to content for everyone is just silly. As someone who likes a few niche areas of music, the ability for me to find out about more artists from around the globe has been amazing. And, yes, even if I discover some of them aren't very good, it's easy to move on and find the next band that's really fantastic.

But the bigger issue is that even if there's a ton of crappy content out there, this is really a filter problem. And, some are realizing that the reality is that the internet actually helps stop crappy content (found via obhi and the infdist panel). The point raised in the link is that, historically, professional content creators were able to deliver bad content all the time -- and just hide it behind a massive marketing campaign. People would go see awful movies because they didn't realize how awful they were.

But today, that's no longer true. Word of mouth travels fast, and is attached to all sorts of content. Haven't heard of the movies playing at the theater? Just look them up quickly online and you'll get an immediate sense of whether or not people liked it. The fact is that the internet acts as a filter to help you avoid crappy content. It still gets created, but it's even less likely to get in the way than it did before. Back before the internet, when I used to go searching for new obscure bands in a particular genre, half the time I'd be making a total guess about the quality of an album (sometimes based on the album artwork). But, today, I no longer have to do that. I can see what others think, I can sample the music via their own websites, etc.

There may be more "crap" online, because now everyone can get their own content out there, but it's easier than ever to avoid that crap and easier than ever to find the good stuff -- and that's true both at the amateur and the professional level. The internet doesn't cause anyone to be overloaded by crap... unless you're bad at using the internet.

Filed Under: bad content, content, filters, good content, internet

Is It Possible To Block The 'Bad Stuff' Online Without Also Stopping The 'Good Stuff'?

from the challenges dept

Rick Falkvinge points out that Sweden's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, is defending internet censorship in a recent editorial responding to the concerns of some internet activists (Google translation of the original Swedish), who he says just don't "understand" the internet.

Bildt's point is that you have to ban the "bad flows" online, or else you have "anarchy." He claims that there are limits to free speech everywhere around the world, and it's perfectly acceptable to block certain forms of "bad" speech. The problem here is that it's not as easy as Bildt makes it out to be to distinguish "good flows" from "bad flows." And it's the sort of thing that is regularly abused by governments in promoting censorship. The Chinese government, for example, regularly claims that its Great Firewall is merely protecting citizens from bad or dangerous information. The problem that many people have is that governments given the power to dictate what is a "good flow" and what is a "bad flow," usually can't resist the temptation to take things that they just don't like or which weakens their own power, and designate them as "bad flows."

As we recently noted in discussing how infrastructure for freedom often looks exactly like infrastructure for piracy, distinguishing between these two things is not so easy, and almost any attempt to stop "bad flows" runs a serious risk of massively stifling important "good" flows as well. Separately, Falkvinge highlights that Bildt and others may be confusing freedom of expression and freedom of information:

As Niklas Dougherty writes, the key problem with Mr. Bildt's reasoning is that he is unable (or unwilling) to distinguish freedom of expression from freedom of information. Freedom of expression can indeed have some limits, though always post facto. The most famous example is that you can't shout Fire! in a crowded theater, but there are plenty of other examples: you can't distribute military secrets, people's medical records, et cetera.

However, the freedom of information is a different beast. This is the freedom to seek, fetch and research information and the expressions of other human beings unfettered, and has nothing to do with sending a message to any other human being. The freedom of information must be absolutely unhindered, with no exceptions. None. Not one. If you are cracking down on this, you are interfering with private correspondence and the right to partake of the ideas of others. Such behavior would also in sharp violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (article 8).

This is an important distinction, that I don't think that many people think about or consider when discussing these ideas. So, even if you are going to segment "good" information from "bad" information, you also need to distinguish expression from information itself.

Filed Under: carl bildt, censorship, internet, regulations, speech

Libya Disconnects From The Internet... Because That Worked So Well In Egypt

from the the-best-laid-plans dept

Late Friday, Libya followed Egypt's trailblazing in shutting off the internet for the entire country. Of course, after Egypt did this, it quickly discovered that it didn't work and only served to increase the resolve of protesters. On top of that, it was a serious economic blow to the Egyptian economy for the week it was offline. Given those lessons, you would think that other countries would know better than to do the same, but apparently that's now how various authoritarian leaders think these days.

Filed Under: disconnection, internet, libya

Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet

from the read-'em-and-weep dept

Paul Keating points us to an amusing (if somewhat disturbing) juxtaposition of three headlines -- one after the other -- on the CircleID website: In case you can't see the image, these are the three headlines:

• US Government Domain Seizure Results in Unintended Shutdown of Thousands of Websites
  
  
• Homeland Security Department Seeks Boost in Cybersecurity Funding, $936 Million for Fiscal 2012
  
  
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Vows $25 Million for Internet Freedom Agenda

So, yes, Homeland Security wants nearly a billion dollars for its internet activities, which involve "accidentally" removing tens of thousands of perfectly legitimate websites... while the State Department pledges a grand total of $25 million for "internet freedom." Priorities?

Filed Under: freedom, government, headlines, internet

Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?

from the seems-like-a-better-question dept

Last year, when author Scott Turow (whose books I actually liked very much) took over as head of the Authors Guild, we noted that his obsession with "piracy" was misplaced, and probably not in the best interests of the authors he represented. We also posted a compelling response to Turow. Rather than take the time to understand the arguments and the data on this subject, it appears that Turow and the Authors Guild are doubling down on the "but... but... piracy!" argument, along with a good heaping of "the government must do something!"

Turow, along with Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken and Authors Guild board member (and apparent Shakespeare expert) James Shapiro, have an op-ed piece in the NY Times that a whole bunch of you have been sending in, in which they assert that Shakespeare might not have been able to survive the web era, because of all of this "piracy." The argument is quite a bit stretched, but see if you can follow me: because playwrights had physical scarcity, in that they could keep people out of the playhouses unless people paid to enter, it allowed playwrighting to flourish. They call this a "cultural paywall." Then there's some sort of bizarre leap about how copyright is really the same thing. It's not. And, then it leaps to something about how stricter copyright laws are, ipso facto, better. The evidence for this? Shhhh, don't bother the Authors Guild bosses with logic! And, of course, the inevitable punchline is the idea that Shakespeare wouldn't have survived in this online era with all this piracy and stuff.

Of course, it's difficult to think of a worse example than Shakespeare for this argument (and sort of bizarre that Shapiro would sign off on an op-ed that so thoroughly misrepresents Shakespeare). Of course, as most of you know, an awful lot of Shakespeare's works are copies (sometimes directly) of earlier works. Sometimes they're derivative, but other times, he copied wholesale from others. So the bigger question might not be if Shakespeare could survive all the file sharing going on today, but whether or not he'd be able to produce any of his classic works, since they'd all be tied up in lawsuits over copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the reason Shakespeare was able to make money by selling tickets was because seats in a theater are a real scarcity, and selling real -- not artificial -- scarcities is still a damn good business model today. Shakespeare could still make a killing on Broadway. Or he could go into the movie business and sell tickets to seats in theaters. There are plenty of real scarcities he could focus on. Jumping from real scarcities to artificial scarcities such as copyright, suggests that Turow and the others at the Authors Guild still don't even quite understand what they're arguing for.

Separately, it's disheartening to see Turow -- who really should be seeking out actual evidence -- dismiss anyone who has that evidence by writing them off as "a handful of law professors and other experts who have made careers of fashioning counterintuitive arguments holding that copyright impedes creativity and progress." First of all, it's not just "a handful," and these folks aren't just coming up with "counterintuitive theories," they're often looking at what the actual data says -- something Turow apparently refuses to do.

Paul Friedman, who isn't just a law professor, but also has a long history practicing law, has a nice response to Turow in which he cites the always entertaining Judge Alex Kozinski in warning folks of the dangers of overly fetishizing stronger intellectual property laws as something that must be good. What makes it even more amusing is that Kozinski uses Turow's most famous book to make his point.

That said, a growing percentage of the population is realizing that this obsession with "stronger copyrights must be good" makes less and less sense. And as the Authors Guild continues to have out-of-touch, fact-challenged people lead it, it's only going to serve to drive younger authors away from the Guild. Smart authors today recognize the maxim that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy, and many have come to figure out that piracy is nothing to fear if you have a smart business model.

If Turow and the Authors Guild really wanted to help authors, they'd focus on helping them understand new business models, rather than supporting ever more draconian laws that will do nothing to help and plenty to hurt.

Filed Under: copyright, internet, james shapiro, paul aiken, paywalls, scott turow, shakespeare
Companies: authors guild

France The Latest Country To Approve Internet Censorship

from the head-in-sand dept

It appears that France is the latest country to approve plans to censor the internet. The excuse is pretty much the same as Russia's: focus on child pornography first, but leave out the fact that the same rules can be used to censor any content the government doesn't like. We've discussed this many times before: "filtering" content on the internet doesn't actually get rid of that content. It's just a tool for government control. In the case of things like child pornography, blocking those sites doesn't help anyone. It doesn't stop those involved in child pornography. If these governments were serious about taking on child pornography, they'd actually go after the child pornographers rather than trying to hide their sites. These laws are about one thing and one thing only: getting more control over the internet for the sake of censorship. They all focus on child pornography because that makes it easy.

Filed Under: censorship, france, internet

A Look At Internet Censorship Around The World

from the free-speech-isn't-free dept

Shocklee points us to some fantastic infographics about global internet censorship, including this first one highlighting levels of internet censorship around the globe. Frankly, it looks like in some of the areas where there's "no censorship," it might just be that there's not much internet usage. Also, I do wonder how accurate or up-to-date some of it is. For example, it says there's no internet censorship in Venezuela, but we were just discussing some content regulations there. Then there's a Venn diagram that tries to highlight exactly what the censorship "is about." As this critique of the infographics suggests, it's not the greatest, since the specific points are somewhat subjective. There's also this infographic explaining how the censorship generally works, which is interesting, but different countries use different methods, so I'm not quite sure how informative just this graphic is alone. Either way, in combination, it suggests that there's a fair bit of internet censorship that goes on around the world.

Filed Under: censorship, internet