How much video is being uploaded to YouTube?
Answer: About 13 hours of video each minute!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The plural of anecdote is not data!
The title of this post is from the website Snopes.com. I love the way in sums up a problem that infects our modern mass and interpersonal communication environment. In an age of nearly instantaneous electronic communication via SMS, email, blogs, and a 24/7 news cycle, there is no shortage of information. There is also no shortage of rumors, gossip, half-truths and fabrications masquerading as truth. How is one to tell the difference? Well to start, a healthy dose of skepticism is advised...especially for you budding journalists out there. You know the mantra, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!" No matter how much you want to believe the latest juicy bit of info, don't contribute to the rumor mill until you've had a chance to confirm the fact with other reliable sources.
Just a few days ago MSNBC admitted that it had been duped into reporting that, "Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent. (AP, Yahoo! News) The news story about the false report continued, "Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish."
We expect journalists to do their job and fact-check their sources. But what about personal communications. When you are tempted to pass along an email or other communication that does not come from a trusted source, consider checking with an online service that exist to squelch internet rumors, e.g., Snopes.com
Just today I used Snopes.com to confirm that one of my favorite stories about planning ahead is actually an urban legend. I first read the story in Wired magazine in 1995 and it made a great impression on me. According to the story, Oxford University discovered a few years ago that it needed to replace the original oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall. The new beams were cut from oak trees that were planted the same year the Hall had been built--1386. The moral of the story, of course, is that forward-thinking carpenters living in the 14th century foresaw a future need for large oak timbers, and planned (planted) accordingly. Unfortunately, it appears that the story is not entirely true. True, oak trees growing on property owned by Oxford University were harvested to provide the necessary oak beams. But there is no indication that these trees were planted specifically to meet a need that was envisioned 600 years in the future. Great story, but sadly not one that holds up under scrutiny.
How about you, have you ever been duped by a great story that turned out not to be true?
Just a few days ago MSNBC admitted that it had been duped into reporting that, "Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent. (AP, Yahoo! News) The news story about the false report continued, "Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish."
We expect journalists to do their job and fact-check their sources. But what about personal communications. When you are tempted to pass along an email or other communication that does not come from a trusted source, consider checking with an online service that exist to squelch internet rumors, e.g., Snopes.com
Just today I used Snopes.com to confirm that one of my favorite stories about planning ahead is actually an urban legend. I first read the story in Wired magazine in 1995 and it made a great impression on me. According to the story, Oxford University discovered a few years ago that it needed to replace the original oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall. The new beams were cut from oak trees that were planted the same year the Hall had been built--1386. The moral of the story, of course, is that forward-thinking carpenters living in the 14th century foresaw a future need for large oak timbers, and planned (planted) accordingly. Unfortunately, it appears that the story is not entirely true. True, oak trees growing on property owned by Oxford University were harvested to provide the necessary oak beams. But there is no indication that these trees were planted specifically to meet a need that was envisioned 600 years in the future. Great story, but sadly not one that holds up under scrutiny.
How about you, have you ever been duped by a great story that turned out not to be true?
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Social Media White House?
Advertising Age is reporting that President-Elect Obama has a database of over 3 millsion supporters who contributed to his campaign and stay routinely wired for interaction with him and his staffers. Experts are saying this is the largest database of active donors ever assembled, other than some religious organizations.
The database was created in-house, name by name...email by email...mobile number by mobile number...no list was bought here. The Obama team knew to record every single person who made a point of interacting with the campaign.
So the next questions is, what does the presidnet do with the list once he's in office? Does it just get old until he runs for president again?
Absolutely not! Barack Obama and his team have no intentions of letting the list grow cold... and no doubt plan to keep adding to the list each day.
If you were consulting the president-elect, what communication strategies would you suggest he use the list for? What uses could he get out of the list? What interactive efforts should be considered between the president and his database of loyal constitutent supporters?
The database was created in-house, name by name...email by email...mobile number by mobile number...no list was bought here. The Obama team knew to record every single person who made a point of interacting with the campaign.
So the next questions is, what does the presidnet do with the list once he's in office? Does it just get old until he runs for president again?
Absolutely not! Barack Obama and his team have no intentions of letting the list grow cold... and no doubt plan to keep adding to the list each day.
If you were consulting the president-elect, what communication strategies would you suggest he use the list for? What uses could he get out of the list? What interactive efforts should be considered between the president and his database of loyal constitutent supporters?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
We may all be guilty of criminal libel
A man was arrested in Pueblo the other day and charged with criminal libel, apparently for using imaging software to graft the face of one woman onto the bodies of other women, then publishing them in some fashion on the Internet or via e-mail, and thereby ridiculing her and impeaching her reputation, according to Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut, as reported in the Pueblo Chieftain on Nov. 3.
Regardless of the particulars of this case, it brings to light one of the worst laws on the books of any state in the nation, a law just about everyone in Colorado likely has violated at one time or another.
Colorado's Criminal Libel statute reads:
18-13-105. Criminal libel
(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.
Note that truth is not a defense (contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court case law on libel) if you blacken the memory of a dead person or expose the natural defects of the living.
Though the news stories about the Pueblo man say it is rare for anyone to be prosecuted under this law, at least three people have been arrested under it since 2004. In one case, the charges were dropped. In another, the man accused was convicted. The outcome of this latest case may take awhile.
But whatever the outcome, it raises questions about this law, which may be unconstitutional on its face because Section 2 bars truth as a defense in certain instances and because the language used in Section 1 is vague and overly broad. For example, try to draw the line with regard to "tending to blacken" -- it can't be done, and the law does not specify who is to make that judgment and according to what standard.
In addition, the law has no provision allowing for one section to be held unconstitutional without affecting the entire statute. If either Section 1 or Section 2 is unconstitutional, the whole law is.
So, what do you think?
Should people be convicted of felonies and sent to prison for knowingly publishing in some way false and defamatory material about others, or should the remedy be the traditional civil lawsuit?
How about when publishing the truth about dead people or living people with natural defects -- or should truth be the absolute defense it has always been in civil libel case law within the United States?
As you ponder your response, ask yourself if you have you ever published (by letter, e-mail, photo, etc.) something that could be considered a violation of the law?
Have a nice day!
Regardless of the particulars of this case, it brings to light one of the worst laws on the books of any state in the nation, a law just about everyone in Colorado likely has violated at one time or another.
Colorado's Criminal Libel statute reads:
18-13-105. Criminal libel
(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.
Note that truth is not a defense (contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court case law on libel) if you blacken the memory of a dead person or expose the natural defects of the living.
Though the news stories about the Pueblo man say it is rare for anyone to be prosecuted under this law, at least three people have been arrested under it since 2004. In one case, the charges were dropped. In another, the man accused was convicted. The outcome of this latest case may take awhile.
But whatever the outcome, it raises questions about this law, which may be unconstitutional on its face because Section 2 bars truth as a defense in certain instances and because the language used in Section 1 is vague and overly broad. For example, try to draw the line with regard to "tending to blacken" -- it can't be done, and the law does not specify who is to make that judgment and according to what standard.
In addition, the law has no provision allowing for one section to be held unconstitutional without affecting the entire statute. If either Section 1 or Section 2 is unconstitutional, the whole law is.
So, what do you think?
Should people be convicted of felonies and sent to prison for knowingly publishing in some way false and defamatory material about others, or should the remedy be the traditional civil lawsuit?
How about when publishing the truth about dead people or living people with natural defects -- or should truth be the absolute defense it has always been in civil libel case law within the United States?
As you ponder your response, ask yourself if you have you ever published (by letter, e-mail, photo, etc.) something that could be considered a violation of the law?
Have a nice day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
