Noted in passing

Posted in 17 June 2011
No Comments »

So Rep. Anthony Weiner resigned.

As Jon Stewart soul jammed:

“Look, Congressman, if you’re sending pictures of your penis as bait to young women who follow you on Twitter, then you’ve got to go.”

Yep. Bad judgement is bad. A cover up worse.

Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis):

Twitter didn’t do in Weiner. Sex didn’t. The coverup did. Ever thus.

Lying to Nancy Peolosi etc … also bad.

The medium is the message?

It’s hard to look past this from Jacob Wiesberg, perhaps responding to the meme that Anthony Weiner’s typo was responsible for his unfortunate exposure …

Another view of Pelosi’s involvement …
The Weiner Shot That Pushed Pelosi Over the Edge – The Atlanticwire’s John Hudson.

Media issues - Politics

An ‘abiding distrust’ for anonymous speech

Posted in 16 June 2011
1 Comment »

Here’s a really good article from Dan Gillmor defending the use of pseudonyms and anonymity on the web — even in the light of Tom MacMaster’s Amina ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ hoax…

Sounding real is not the same as being real. The fake Amina’s blog was especially well done, with details that sounded authentic even to native Syrians. Its unmasked author said he was telling larger truths, but we have a name for this technique: fiction.

We also have a name for the technique of identity in this case: pseudonym. This is a much-used method online – not revealing one’s own name but having a consistent identifier. It’s one step away from outright anonymity, where there is no accountability whatever. As I wrote last week, the lack of accountability in such cases puts more responsibility on the audience. It is up to us to cultivate an abiding distrust for speech when the speaker refuses to stand behind his or her own words – that is, by using one’s own name.

We should temper that scepticism, however, with the recognition that in places like Syria, where vicious dictators are ordering wholesale killings of dissidents and rebels, standing directly behind one’s own words can be literally life-threatening.

My own view is just as conflicted as Gillmor’s. I see a need for protection from reprisal and retribution for whistle blowers and ‘inconvenient truth-tellers’. Especially — and most of us have NO IDEA what it’s really like — if they live under a repressive, totalitarian regime that doesn’t brook dissidence …

But Tom MacMaster’s hoax, pretending to be a lesbian blogger (the irony that the editor of the lesbian discussion forum he frequented turned out to be another man pretending to be lesbian) shows up the effectiveness of deceit.

Despite the self-congratulatory glow that some of my Twitter pals seem to be feeling, a lot of good people were taken in, and the road just got harder for the real McCoy bloggers etc… credibility and safety are tied together.

So, we need to engage what Gillmor called ‘an abiding distrust’ for speech when the speaker refuses to stand behind his or her own words, in their own name.

That’s how I see it.

But it depends what they are saying, of course. Depends on their claims. Hyperbole is another warning sign, in my view.

– P

Big Questions - Media issues
,

Assange … a right to scrutinise the state.

Posted in 14 June 2011
No Comments »

We support a cause that is no more radical a proposition than that the citizenry has a right to scrutinise the state. The state has asserted its authority by surveilling, monitoring and regimenting all of us, all the while hiding behind cloaks of security and opaqueness.

— Julian Assange

Pretty hard to argue with that.

(via Cassie Findlay)

Big Questions - Encouragement
,

Let me not into temptation

Posted in 14 June 2011
19 Comments »

20110614-033746.jpg

This book on LBJ’s succession to John F Kennedy after the assassination was an eye-opener. I’m reading Nixonland by Rick Perlstein at the same time, and I can perceive the seeds of LBJ’s and the Democrats’ destruction in the character traits and deep suspicion and disunity Steven Gillon highlights in his book.

Certainly, the book conveys the panic and confusion and the horror of the event in Dallas.

One can almost, but only almost, forgive Johnson’s lies, ego, insecurity and manipulations (people management) in the extreme of trying circumstances. He sought to give the country a sense of immediate continuity in the aftermath, but that meant trampling on a few people’s feelings. Kennedy’s wife and his loyal aides had gut-wrenching adjustments to make — things we can only imagine.

As the reports about the assassin reached Johnson he asked about possible Soviet involvement. Was it a communist plot?

The reality would turn out to be less troubling, but no one knew it at the time. Oswald was a self-absorbed loner who had failed miserably at everything he had ever attempted in his life except assassinate the president of the United States. A troubled and belligerent child, Oswald underwent a psychological evaluation at age thirteen. Asked whether he preferred the company of boys or girls, Oswald told the psychiatrist, “I dislike everybody.” After dropping out of school at sixteen, he developed a fascination with Marxism, believing capitalism was the cause of his discontent …

Good book. I recommend it.
– P

* I mean to say ‘let’ in the title.

Encouragement - Politics
,

More fakery on the internet. (So what’s new?)

Posted in 13 June 2011
3 Comments »

A part of me wasn’t surprised this morning to discover the ‘lesbian’ ‘Syrian’ pro-democracy blogger supposedly ‘abducted’ by ‘security forces’ last week was actually a 40 year old American man called Tom MacMaster living in Scotland.

What a fake

My Twitter feed this morning was full of vitriol and disappointment about this imposter Tom MacMaster who provoked support from many posing online as ‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’ blog. His posting as the girl’s ‘cousin’ reporting she’d been ‘abducted’ fooled sincere journalists and gained attention. Now it’s revealed as a hoax.

His mealy-mouthed ‘apology to readers’ is worth a read and to sample the outrage check Twitter trend #Amina Tom MacMaster — why would we believe anything you say? Shades of the fantasy life of ‘Facebook predator’ Natalia Burgess )

These are sleazy moves by Tom MacMaster, in my opinion. This liar-in-denial constructed and used this Amina ‘alias’ or alter-ego for years, communicating with people and organisations, misappropriating hundreds of photos from other people to bolster and buttress Amina’s profile (sound familiar?) then when confronted, he denied it. Typical.

In telephone interviews and e-mail exchanges with The [Washington] Post over the past three days, MacMaster initially denied any connection to Amina. He insisted he had never heard of her or the blog before the news of the arrest broke.

“Look, if I was the genius who had pulled this off, I would say, ‘Yeah,’ and write a book,” he said Friday, reached in Istanbul, where he is vacationing with his wife, a graduate student working on a PhD in international relations.

News organizations around the world, including The Washington Post, reported on the blogger’s disappearance Tuesday. As the story spread, three Syrian sources contacted Andy Carvin of NPR with their doubts; he, in turn, asked the more than 48,000 people who follow him on Twitter whether anyone had met Amina or spoken to her on the phone. None said they had.

— Washington Post: ‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’ comes clean

Best wry comment I saw on Twitter was:

Will Yamato sums it up.

NPR coverage: here and here

I personally wouldn’t hire this guy Tom MacMaster or put him in any position of trust. I wouldn’t trust him to buy my lunch.
– P

Big Questions - Media issues
, , ,

Nothing to hide but NOT nothing to fear

Posted in 11 June 2011
1 Comment »

image: ebookrat.com

Here’s a good article on privacy by Daniel J Solove, who I last referred to when sharing some thoughts in my post Is it worth dishonestly defending a reputation? No.

Solove’s article is called Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’ — it’s a preview of his next book, and it’s a worthwhile read… including this distinction about what privacy is and isn’t:

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures.

A saying I use sometimes is, ‘You’re as healthy as your secrets’… but I completely agree with Solove, privacy isn’t just about protecting your ‘deep dark secrets’ — it’s the freedom to go about your life/business without intrusive observation or ‘data gathering’ by government agencies, corporates (or bloody Facebook!)

Seriously, read his article. He does a good job of unpacking and dismantling the ‘my life is an open book, if I’m doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear’ argument.

– P

PS I don’t know what it is, but people seem to want to tell me things — surprising things. It was like that when I worked as a journalist, it was like that before, and it’s still like that. I don’t pry, they just tell me. Dunno why. Something about my face? It’s a mystery.

Big Questions - Media issues

Harsh criticism? Or Fair?

Posted in 11 June 2011
No Comments »

Spotted this from Glenn Greenwald re TV personality Chris Matthews …

Fairly strident? Well, yes.

Now, as I replied, some might see such a strident comment about a fellow ‘peer in the industry’ as ill-motivated unprofessional. Not me. I think someone paying attention to the ‘industry’ (like, in this case Greenwald) is obliged to highlight what you see as failings by ‘peers’.

To which I would only add:
The case is made weaker, however, not stronger, by comments that resemble personal abuse. To be fair to @ggreenwald, and anyone else trying to express an opinion in 140 characters or less (my own comment back to him took TWO tweets, after all) it’s sometimes easier to say ‘I think So-and-so is a dirty ratfink liar’ than it is to lay out your case (as we discussed briefly in Linking to sources…) — but not as convincing.

Sometimes, as others have said, the bile rises … and instead of just shouting at the TV in the privacy of your own home (while we still have that commodity) one expresses in a social/social media context with what can (strongly) resemble ad hominem attacks.

But the alternative, keeping a ‘professional silence’ when observing shortcomings or misstatements or, in Matthews’ case, what sometimes looks like a go-with-the-flow kind of collusion,  isn’t acceptable practice.

When people who are twisting the narrative, or bending reality to within an inch of its life, or downright lying-and-getting-away-with-it — because of a lazy or gutless press — do that, it is infuriating to those observers who want more, expect more, DEMAND more.

So, go for it Glenn Greenwald. Don’t hold back.

—

“What’s your beef?” = a dumb question, sometimes

Of interest to me on another level completely is the argy-bargy between the AOL-property Huffington Post and the NY Times re comparative web traffic. Quite a bit of spin and FUD is being spread … and it surprises me how many people buy the ‘cheeky upstart topples crusty old-timer from its perch’ narrative. Continue reading →

Media issues
, , , ,

Start spamming young…

Posted in 10 June 2011
1 Comment »

Now, look, I know Twitter meant this image as a joke …

Does this remind you of anyone *cough* Shaun Stenning?

… but the line “I’m a 7 year old SEO GURU!” just soooo reminded me of the Geekversity Instant Expert Shaun Stenning so breathlessly promoted by down-on-their-luck ‘property experts‘.

I needed to visit Twitter’s how to respond to spammy mentions page after I posted a comment on Twitter (@onThePaepae) and copped a bunch of distasteful spambot ‘love’.

I find humour everywhere. It’s a good thing.
– P

Humour - Tech
, , , ,

‘Frivolous’ Palin won’t be meeting Margaret Thatcher

Posted in 10 June 2011
No Comments »

Instinct magazine (click)

Litmus test/IQ test Little Miss Polarising Sarah Palin faced a wee knock-back in her [alleged] efforts to ride The Iron Lady’s coat-tails …

Margaret Thatcher to Sarah Palin: don’t bother dropping by — The Guardian, Wintour and Watt blog:

It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:

Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.

Thatcher will show the level she punches at when she attends the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square on Independence day on 4 July. This is what her ally told me:

Margaret is focusing on Ronald Reagan and will attend the unveiling of the statue. That is her level.

The next day, apparently, Rush Limbaugh came to Sarah Palin’s defence… denouncing The Guardian while claiming(?) ‘personal knowledge’ of Margaret Thatcher’s decision-making … and, appropriately, provoking even more damaging comments about Sarah Palin’s ‘stature’ … like this from Alex Massie, who writes for the Spectator, who ‘supported the decision of the Thatcher circle’ in an article for the Daily Beast – Sarah Palin’s delusions of grandeur…: Continue reading →

Media issues - Politics
,

Negative credibility

Posted in 9 June 2011
3 Comments »

Ha! I like this concept …

Writing on The Guardian‘s Comment is free website — Andrew Breitbart and the unwilling suspension of disbelief about the right wing web maven who ‘exposed’ Rep. Weiner — Dan Gillmor referred to his model of ‘negative credibility‘ and included  this neat graphic:

Dan Gillmor's credibility scale (or 'BS meter'). Personally I'd put some of the spruikers I discuss here as somewhere left of Anonymous Comments.

Gillmor’s article is worth reading, as, like the erudite j-school prof Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis), he pipes up and admits he misjudged the newsworthiness of the Weiner/twitter/junk shot ‘scandal’.  [BTW, admissions of ‘error’ like this (‘I got it wrong‘) actually enhance credibility, in my view. Good on both of them.]

I like Gillmor’s concept: negative credibility — I see it as a state of expectation that someone’s claims are probably false … before they actually make them.

I’m certainly that way — personally —  with some of the spruikers I discuss here on www.ThePaepae.com from time to time: remember Sean Wood‘s pose as his own satisfied customer MUFFIT?, or  Steve Goodey‘s claim to be ‘a NZ property investing icon‘? (Crikey!) or  Sean Stenning‘s hyperbole … don’t get me started, or Dean Letfus … again, just too many ‘Instant Expert’ examples to mention.

Like Gillmor, I feel I can be persuaded that a particular, specific claim has veracity (possibly accidentally?) even from a let’s say ‘dubious‘ source.  I try NOT to adopt a ‘no good thing can come from Nazareth’/’poison fruit from a poison tree’ model. But (and it’s a significant but) in my personal view, some people have by their demonstrated track record proven themselves to be … unreliable.

Of course, spelling that conclusion out as I do might hurt their feelings, and while I sympathise at one level, I think that’s just a case of natural consequences or feedback. How do you see it?

– P

 

Big Questions - Media issues
, , , , ,

Make no little plans

Posted in 9 June 2011
No Comments »

Inspiring.

Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big.

Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect. (1846-1912)

(via John Gruber referring to this.)

Encouragement

A cost of doing business – celebrity as meat

Posted in 8 June 2011
1 Comment »

Sienna Miller — subjected to numerous articles in 'The News of the World' containing 'intrusive and private information' That's NEWS? I think not. Why the interest? Because housewives and bimbos relished her downfall? Is that it?

Good to read that Murdoch’s The News of the World has admitted hacking Sienna Miller’s phone message system and repeatedly violating her privacy … and news today that they’ve ‘apologised’ and are paying £100,000 in damages and costs to her. Big deal. Callous so-and-sos.

It was purely business to them, the journalists, the editors, the publisher of the so-called The News of the World, no doubt. Make her life miserable with the repeated invasions, but make money from the (I suppose) salacious BS they printed about her. Call that ‘news’? I certainly don’t.

£100,000 seems small change — a petty price to pay for the ‘competitive advantage’ (vomit) the tabloid gained from invading her privacy when ‘the world’ thought Miller and Jude Law were ‘it’ …  and the vacuous so-called readers of the rag couldn’t get enough of them —  lapping it all up with ‘tut-tut’ sanctimonious faux shock.

How could those so-called journalists (phone hackers and their accomplices) sleep at night? How could they look their spouse and their kids in the eye? Had they no self-respect?

I’d rather sweep streets. Good honest work.

– P

PS Sorry for the grump. But they really do get my goat. Cold, clinical, criminals. Seeing the ‘celebrity’ as, less-than-human … as meat. Bleurgh!

Tell me if you see it differently.

Media issues - Writing/Publishing
,

There’s no denying Sarah Palin is a talking point

Posted in 7 June 2011
No Comments »

I’ve resisted referring to Sarah Palin’s latest, umm, riff on American history, wherein she inserted words, actions, motivations and personnel into Paul Revere’s midnight ride … errr, he warned the British that ‘the British are coming’?

PALIN: He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.

… with her loyal followers even trying to rewrite history amend Wikipedia to back up her hallucinations … (The Telegraph reported it thus: Sarah Palin supporters attempt to change history to help her White House bid)… but suffice to say she’s top of the pops for online chatter. Look:

Wow.

You can’t argue with the fact that she’s got attention. And name recognition is huge in elections. I guess the question is, can she parlay her high ‘lamestream media’ profile, vicarious Facebook ramblings, and motivation-unclear personal appearances into real political influence?

Dunno.

Best joke I saw about her Paul Revere train wreck was a comment on this page FACT WATCH: Sarah Palin’s Twist on Paul Revere:

Palin also said the Civil War started with the assassinat­ion of The Arch Duke of Hazzard.

Nice one.

– P

Media issues - Politics
,

Self-inflicted wounds

Posted in 7 June 2011
4 Comments »

Hey. Remember my post Lying, my dear boy, just compounds the crime …? This whole ‘Congressman tweets picture of private parts’ hullaballoo proves the truth of it, huh?

Oh boy. A journalist I follow on Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, asked the question:

What % of those pushing the view that “any online sexual activity is newsworthy” for public figures would want that applied to themselves?

… and I agree with his point that even public figures are entitled to a private life. We all are.

But when exposed (no pun) to scrutiny, they can’t publicly lie. And ‘No comment, mind your own business’ just won’t hack it — that won’t put out the brushfire. So what are they to do to keep a non-story from becoming a story? (Because that’s what it is. The Congressman’s deceit made it a story.)

I’m not aware of any actual crime committed by Rep. Weiner … yet. (I don’t think private communication of photos of bits of your anatomy is a crime — that’s not ‘publishing’, IMHO.) *

But his judgement was bad, as even his supporter Jon Stewart acknowledged, in his inimitable soul jam style.
Poor judgement is, electorally, a hanging offence. Sorry.

“Look, Congressman, if you’re sending pictures of your penis as bait to young women who follow you on Twitter, then you’ve got to go.” — Jon Stewart’s soul rap.

He also appears to be addicted. And that’s truly a sad place for him to be.

Tell the truth. The phrase poked at Bill Clinton the whole of his candidacy and presidency to justify the prurient, outrageous over-interest in his private life was: ‘It goes to character …’ which strikes me as a pretty broad brush.

Really, there are some things that, as my hero Peter McWilliams said: ‘Ain’t nobody’s business if you do’… and therefore, questions that need NOT be answered, despite the clamour of the slavering crowd. But telling lies (or denying the truth = same thing) is not OK.

– P
* Update: Oops, looks like it was err, finger trouble! The Twitter Typo That Exposed Anthony Weiner Bianca Bosker at HuffPo:

In Weiner’s defense, it’s extremely easy to slip-up and turn a private Twitter message into a public posting. Weiner apparently confused a DM with an “@ mention,” a public Twitter post directed at a specific user but visible to anyone on the service.

To send a DM [Direct Message] to a Twitter follower using TweetDeck, the Twitter application Weiner was reportedlyusing when he sent the fateful photo, a user prefaces a tweet with the letter D, followed by the Twitter username of the person he or she wants to communicate with privately (e.g. “D bbosker”). To send an @ mention, a user would preface a tweet with the @ symbol followed by the Twitter username of the person he or she wants to converse with in a targeted, but public, way (e.g. “@ bbosker”).

Damn!

Media issues - Politics
,

As part of this settlement, you agree not to tell the truth …

Posted in 6 June 2011
1 Comment »

It's legal, it's 'standard', but is it morally right?

This clause, apparently an excerpt from a settlement between the borrower-victims of a mortgage issued by GE as part of the Blue Chip scandal, reminds me of something …

“The borrowers agree not to comment adversely about the mortgagee or any member of the General Electric group of companies whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, to include any social media, websites or blogs.” — GE clause, quoted by NZ Herald’s Maria Slade.

Don’t you admire (not exactly the right word) the slippery way a ‘confidentiality‘ clause becomes a non-disparagement clause? (Just like Shaun Stenning’s bush lawyer BS: … including but not limited to internet blogs …).

GE Money says it’s just normal business practice…

“GE Money can confirm that each agreement contains a confidentiality clause obliging all parties to the agreement to keep the contents of the agreement strictly confidential. This is not an unusual clause to see in an agreement of this nature.”

Yeah, uh-huh, thanks. That wasn’t the question. There is, despite what looks like a thin-to-the-point-of-transparent argument otherwise, a big difference between
(1) being bound to keep details ‘confidential’ and
(2) being prohibited from ‘comment[ing] adversely’.
A big difference.

“This is not an unusual clause to see in an agreement…” they say. No, of course not, especially if the stronger party makes it a condition of the agreement. What choice do bankrupt or near-bankrupt pensioners have? What if the GE mortgage terms are absolute rubbish? They can’t say anything?

The Golden Rule in action: He who has the gold makes the rules.

For the record, I think it’s good that GE have said they won’t turn their mortgagors out into the street. (Hello Westpac.) That approach is, comparatively, enlightened — and no doubt partly a result of the pressure of publicity. So why the non-disparagement agreement? Aren’t their customers, even the distressed ones, free to share their direct experience of GE Money’s products and service? They’re not serfs.

-P

Business/Investment - Media issues
 Page 84 of 132  First  ... « Previous 82  83  84  85  86 Next » ...  Last