Are we entering a new era of openness in government? And are journalists up to the challenge?

President Barack Obama issued a memo on Jan. 21, expressing his adminstration's support for the Freedom of Information Act.

The memo included this statement: "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve."

In light of his support for open records and the Freedom of Information Act, do you think other public, governmental bodies will follow suit and be more willing to open their records for the public? And will journalists be emboldened to make open records requests and demand government accountability?

Are we entering a new era of openness in government with the Obama presidency as a role model?

History in the making

Today we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the birth of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and in two weeks we will pause to celebrate 200 years since the birth of another former Illinois legislator--Abraham Lincoln. With less than 15 hours until the swearing-in ceremony for the first black President of the United States, it is worth noting that the 44th president is standing on the shoulders of giants. Those giants include President Lincoln and MLK Jr. Few other historical figures capture such intense devotion to the themes of freedom and justice while celebrating the strength of human character.

The Inaugural Address is expected to be yet another masterful demonstration of Obama's rhetorical skill. He will most certainly continue his themes of hope and change...while squarely acknowledging the daunting challenges that await his presidency. Previous inauguration addresses have reminded us that, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR) and challenged us to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" (JFK).

Mass media have historically allowed us to celebrate our finest moments, and witness our greatest tragedies, via the miracle of instantaneous community. Whether we're watching the Superbowl or witnessing planes flying into skyscrapers, TV, and now the internet, brings us together in ways that defy the imagination.

For those of you on campus Tues morning, you can watch the Inauguration and related festivities on big-screen TVs in BRH and the OUC. If you're near a computer you can watch the live stream at a variety of sites including Hulu and Current TV, where they will reprise their debate coverage with a live Twitter stream superimposed over the live video of the inauguration.

You owe it to your children to give your attention to this historic event. The country is awash in optimism, hope and faith in the ability of this yet untried president. Let's join together to wish him, and this nation, the best.

Factoid of the Day - Gone to the Dogs

By now you may have heard of the latest web video sensation, the Shiba Inu Puppy Cam at Ustream.tv. It has just become the most viewed video stream of all time, with more than 18 million views, for a combined 790 viewer-years. Yup, that's right, according to NBC News web surfers have spent a combined 790 years watching puppies instead of, oh I don't know, working, doing homework...hey, aren't YOU supposed to be doing homework!

Interactive Media and the Stock Market's Volatility

It's been my opinion for a while that online trading and the increase in information available to stock traders has contributed to an increasingly volatile stock market.

Think about it for a second, before the rise in online trading, selling off your stocks required a call to your broker. Theoretically, your broker was someone who you trusted to know what he/she was doing when it came to buying and selling your stocks. More importantly, your broker (other than a brokerage fee) wasn't financially involved in the sale or purchase of your stocks.

There's a good chance that if you'd called your broker to sell your stocks during a downturn in the market, he'd tell you that now was not the time to sell off the stocks and lock in your losses, now was the time to buy more for the inevitable upswing in the market that follows any sell-off.

Unfortunately, for a large number of Americans, the broker is a thing of the past. There's very little standing in your way when you log into your E-Trade or ScottTrade account to sell off that stock that's tanking... meaning there's no one there to talk some sense into you before you commit one of the biggest rookie mistakes of stock trading (selling near the bottom).

In addition, we're bombarded (especially lately) with information about how bad the economy is doing right now. The economy is really a trust-based system that thrives when consumers have confidence in it and doesn't when they don't. Sure, there are some issues with the fundamentals of our credit markets, but they pale in comparison to the mental specter of recession and how we react to it.

Just like shark attacks, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and other over-hyped crises, the mass media is doing a bang up job of making sure everyone in the U.S. is scared. After all, if people are scared they'll buy more newspapers and watch more TV to monitor the situation. In the current media environment, sensationalism sells.

Combine these two things and you have a perfect storm for market volatility. When you log into your online brokerage account, you're probably presented with the performance of the shares you own as well as news items relating to them. As you read about how badly IBM is doing, it's all too easy to click a few buttons and sell off your IBM stock. While it's a boon to usability and it makes the online trading companies money (they make money on every trade whether you do or not), is it the best thing for our stock market?

For Sale: Rocky Mountain News

Denver may soon lose its distinction as one of the few remaining cities with two operating daily newspapers. The Rocky Mountain News was officially placed on sale Thursday. Do you think anyone is going to come forward to purchase this nearly 150-year-old Colorado institution or is Denver's fate as a single daily newspaper town now sealed?

Is the older-than-50 TV news anchor a relic?

Back when I was a youngster, some of the most respected TV news anchors were the seasoned veterans -- trustworthy types like Walter Cronkite and John Chancellor. But is the era of the older-than-50 TV news anchor over now? And if it is, do you think it's going to have any kind of impact on the audience's perception of the reliability of TV news anchors?

Factoid of the Day - Filling up YouTube's Servers

How much video is being uploaded to YouTube?

Answer: About 13 hours of video each minute!

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?

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?

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!

LittleBigPlanet

Playstation fanatics have been patiently awaiting the arrival of “LittleBigPlanet,” a platformer action game that has been described as “beautiful,” “dazzling,” and “very special.” I have to admit, I considered asking Santa for a PS3 just to play this game.

Well… there’s been a recall. The game apparently featured a song with lyrics from the Quran, Muslim gamers told Sony that the song could offend some members of the religion (we can’t forget Sony’s run in with the Church of England last year over the game “Resistance: Fall of Man”). Sony had originally planned to have the game on shelves Monday of this week, now… LBP will likely see the light of day on the 27th or possibly the first week of November.

One Muslim group is speaking out against Sony’s decision to initiate a world wide recall of the original version of the game.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said:

"…Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted. The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive. But to demand that it be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based…”

"...We (the AIFD) do not endorse any restriction whatsoever on the release of this videogame but would only ask those with concerns to simply choose not to buy it. We would hope that the producer’s decision not be made in any way out of fear but rather simply based upon freedom of expression and the free market…”

Is this a case of political correctness overblown, or has Sony handled the situation appropriately? Videogames already come with parental advisory labels, should we consider adding a portion to the existing label that details a game’s political correctness? Your thoughts…

Feds are all aTwitter

Just came across this interesting piece by Eric Krangel of Silicon Alley Insider showing how federal agencies are using Twitter. Does this signal a new era in federal accessibility to the masses? Incidentally, how many of you Twitter out there? And how many of you are going to start after seeing all the federal information now available in easily digestible tidbits?

Get Your Facts Straight

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY once said, "You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts." Here we are just four weeks away from one of the most hotly contested presidential elections in history, and a lot of us aren't sure which facts are facts and which are not. It can be hard to tell who is actually going to raise taxes and who is really going to move us towards energy independence. Trust is at an all time low and if we're not careful we'll slip from skepticism to cynicism. Thankfully, there are a few places to turn and most of them are just a few clicks away. Check out Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly’s PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog. At these non-partisan websites you can find out which claims are legitimate, and which are playing fast and loose with the facts.

If you're serious about getting the straight story, I suggest you pick up a copy of the book, UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Jackson runs the FactCheck.org website and Jamieson is a well respected author and political communication scholar. This fascinating and easy read will help you learn how to find information while avoiding being duped by the people who would like to sell you a bridge to nowhere.

But perhaps the greatest danger is for those who really don't want the facts...they only want others to confirm what they already believe and hold dear. They value being "affirmed" over being "informed." For such individuals, truth will always be elusive.

Teenagers: Virtual or Real Relationships?

Recent research from the Intelligence Group studying teen online behavior concludes that although teens love their online communication, they prefer real friends over virtual friends. Here are some of the results of the study:
-91% prefer real friends, 9% prefer online friends
-87% prefer to date someone from school, 13% prefer to date someone from the Internet
-54% prefer to instant message a friend, 46% prefer to call on the phone
-The average teen has signed up for four social networking sites and currently belongs to two.

It would appear that although the Internet is a wonderful invention of electronic relationship building, this segment of human beings still likes to build relationships the old-fashioned way, through face-to-face, interpersonal communication.

Where is this going? Is the Internet going to create preferred virtual relationships for people rather than real ones? Are we going to sit in our house and relate to strangers all over the world, but not go next door and meet our neighbors?

What are the benefits one gets, or society gets, by virtual relationship building?
What are the drawbacks you see in the future?