Speed kills journalism

Image by: Tomdebiec

Everybody can agree that accuracy in journalism is crucial for the creditability of any media but the demand for fast news is putting this virtue under serious pressure. 

I agree with journalist Craig Silverman who in the interview "We stand corrected: When good journalists make stupid mistakes" states that errors erode the creditability and that journalists should be better at learning from their mistakes. 

Too little time for accuracy

But at the same time Craig Silverman takes his passion for accuracy too far with suggesting that readers could be alerted by email if a certain article is corrected. Honestly, I believe that only a very limited amount of readers would be interested in that kind of service and overall I think that he has some unrealistic expectations to how much time and effort each journalist can put in a journalistic product today. 

By that I don´t suggest that we should accept more errors than before, but the circumstances which especially online-journalists are working under makes it more difficult than ever to produce decent journalism. The public demands news around the clock but still expects the same accuracy - this is simply an impossible task. 

Media-leaders are also responsible

Therefore it´s not enough to promote a culture of less errors through training, effective technologies and good processes as Craig Silverman suggests, which in my ears sounds very vague. Instead I believe that the leaders of each media should ask themselves if they want journalism full of mistakes or whether they are willing to give their journalists better working conditions to create more accuracy which in the end will raise the creditability of their media. 

BBC is one of the medias who has reflected on the importance of accuracy in their journalism in a series called "Accuracy and Truth". I believe that sooner or later the readers, viewers and listeners will realize that they are being feed with low quality news and then the winners will be the ones who worked the hardest not to jeopardize their creditability. 

The Times they are a charging...

Photo Courtesy of Madison_Guy

Jaron Lanier wants people to start digging into their pockets before they start downloading content off the internet. But will this actually do anything to help the creators? I don't think so.

In an interview, New York Times editor Bill Keller explains this idea is good in theory, but not in practice. The financial state of newspapers is on the decline because they have yet to figure out a way to monetize the content on their websites. So Keller decided to make people pay for their archives through a subscription called TimesSelect. It was cancelled after only two years.

Keller found that the website could make more money off of advertising by allowing everyone access to their content. The more people reading your website, the more you can charge for advertising. And Keller adds that even fewer people were accessing their website because paid content does not always show up during Web searches.

The newspaper now offers the Times Reader subscription service- an online paper similar to the daily paper. I don't really understand why someone would choose to do this...but I guess its better than buying your avatar a new pair of shoes in Second Life. Anyway, some people do it and The New York Times is reportedly "making a modest amount of money" off of it. In other words, it's not exactly the ultimate solution to end all their problems, but it's helping them hang in there for now.

Lanier urges us to abandon the "old idealism" and to "grow up". But the fact of the matter is, we are trying... but not really getting anywhere. Sure people are willing to pay for the content, but the price has to be fairly cheap (The Times Reader service charges $165/year for people who aren't home subscribers). So it might be more lucrative to charge a few advertisers a high price than to charge a lot of people a small price.

Getting Paid.

image tobanblack.
Pay me what you owe me
At last! Someone who's making sense. How do creatives get cash! Its been the problem for centuries. Seems as though the creative types of technologies have an easier time. After all if you have a wheel the person who invented it can say “hey! Pay up” but Descartes may have a harder time trying to cop cash when Popeye says “i yam what I yam.”
HOW DID WE GET THIS WAY?
We were brought up in this world, we live in a system of exploitation, and continue with it. The hard part is we also live with the ideology of democracy. Which really clashes with the system we thrive in.
when the Greeks kicked off the idea of democracy, Athens was a slave state, there were more slaves than free men(and I mean MEN) the only participants in the democratic process were males, of the land owning variety. Skip forward

• Columbus shows up on the shores of the new world”free land”


• Portugeuse sailors hit on a great idea for “free labour” from Africans.

Free land free labour! Man, how friggin cool is this.
So how are we different? Well we are sophisticated. Everyone should get paid right!
Look down at those sneakers,take a sip of your coffee,the only way to get paid is, to pay! Ensure your information is paid for, maybe we should start an internet fair trade program, or labels like “the content of this site are fairly acquired, no artist, intellectuals have been exploited to have this information available. Oh , yeah creative commons.
So are you willing to not browse on sites that exploit workers

Next Time They Err... They'll Pay.

Craig Silverman's blog/book Regret the Error is any editor or journalist's worst nightmare. Actually, large amounts of individuals pointing out mistakes would probably be any writer's ultimate embarrassment. Nobody claps their hands together with glee at being proven wrong, especially when it could be detrimental to your reputation (not to mention the company's that you work for).

Generally speaking, we can assume that there is no malicious intent behind a professional journalist's mistake, but that doesn't excuse from making them. Grammatical or factual, there are reasons why a journalist gets hired for a job, isn't there? There are reasons why they call themselves professionals in contrast to any lay-person who decides to blog news (for example). Everyone makes mistakes, yes, but journalists are not everyone. Or so they try so hard to make us believe and accept.

For some news companies, embarrassment is not enough to right the wrongs of their employees (or themselves). Take the Swiss newspaper, Le Temps, for example, who way back in 2002 started giving their journalists fines for making mistakes in their articles. The fines only covered spelling and other grammatical errors, but in adding a more personal consequence directly related to the journalist, one can imagine that it might make them less likely to err.

Is this really a viable solution? Probably not. Especially considering the speed in which information can be changed/corrected/amalgamated online, which is where our newspapers are headed anyway. But it certainly makes you wonder...

Ooops.... Did I Do That?!

Courtesy of Fox Broadcasting Company


Craig Silverman's book Regret The Error reminds us of how damaging errors can be, especially when there is no accountability or effort to correct them. Somebody's got to police this stuff and clearly, there's someone neurotic enough to do it!

It's human nature: we make mistakes. We're not perfect. It doesn't mean, however, that we can't do what we can to ensure that errors don't resurface.

Hiding behind errors and not owning up to them just makes you a coward. Gossip blogs are very guilty of making mistakes without correcting them. Traditional media is as well. The consequences can potentially be disastrous for all parties involved (the target, news organizations, the reporter) if not dealt with adequately. I mean, how would you feel if a name was misspelled in the obits and you end up thinking your grandmother died? Correcting mistakes and taking responsibility for them also puts a face to the error along with who it affects.

We Stand Corrected: When Good Journalists Make Stupid Mistakes by Chip Scanlan places emphasis on prevention and solutions to hopefully avoid situations like Rathergate where you are embarrassed on national television and the only thought you can say is: D'OH!

Let's leave the "I-messed-up-real-bad" expressions to Homer Simpson, shall we!?

Osama, Obama...It was an Honest Mistake, Sheesh

The old saying "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" is definitely applicable in today's media. Most journalists don't set out to deliberately mislead their audience, but facts do get distorted or omitted, names are mangled and all a journalist can do is give a sheepish "oops!", or print a correction in the next day's newspaper.

Sorry About Calling you a Terrorist. We're Cool, Right?
Craig Silverman says the difference between a slip and a mistake (as defined by Donald Norman) is intent. Mistakes are a conscious wrong decision. Slips are errors made despite having the proper information. "Slips" and the offender's half-assed apologies were rampant during last year's US presidential elections, with little more than brief public outrage.

Silverman says these can be avoided or at least minimized. Sometimes the damage has already been done and bringing further attention to the mistake just make matters worse. Holding journalists responsible for their carelessness (Dan Rather, anyone?) is harsh, but sometimes necessary to reinforce the importance of good journalistic practices.

Blame the Internet
The media has several filters to limit the number of errors that are published. But editors can't catch everything. Journalists must work under deadline, so sometimes the time just isn't there to be as thorough as they would like. Throw in 24 hour news stations and the internet, rife with bloggers to whom breaking a story (and creating a name for themselves) takes precedence over ethical journalistic practice, and journalists are under a lot more pressure to produce quickly.

Bloggers criticized Time Out New York for reporting Natasha Richardson's death before an official statement had been made. Ironically, the class acts at TMZ.com opted out of the speculation game, preferring to wait and report actual facts. What is this world wide web coming to when T(we publish the identities of sex crime victims)MZ shows more restraint than real media outlets?


J-school drums the importance of accuracy into its students' heads from their very first class. Don't be a fluck-up: double check sources and name spellings and you might find and retain gainful employment as a reputable journalist.

Errors and the Media

Craig Silverman should be commended for his work in exposing media errors and the efforts of editors to correct them (or not).

Silverman’s website, Regret the Error, reports on “media corrections, retractions, apologies, clarifications and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press.”

I definately agree with Silverman that a continuous flow of errors in newspapers does erode the credibility of media organizations and journalists.

Luckily, it seems as though some Canadian newspapers have started to recognize the importance of publishing corrections to inform the public of any errors that may have been previously printed.

I can’t say I’m surprised regarding Silverman’s claim that research on the level of error in U.S. newspapers shows that while a significant percentage of newspaper news stories include some kind of error (between 40 and 60 per cent), only 2 per cent of factual errors are corrected. Even though I’m appalled with this finding, here’s why I’m not shocked:

My Horrible Experiences with Media Inaccuracies

As a former national team trampoline athlete, I’ve had my fair share of press time. It’s astonishing to consider how many mistakes newspapers, in particular, have made in published stories concerning me or the meets I competed in.

Spelling Names Incorrectly is Wrong

The most common mistake I’ve noticed is that journalists often misspell my name. I realize that “Brian” is more common than “Bryan,” but really, how do journalists, of all people, possibly manage to get someone’s name wrong? Seriously, search “Brian Milonja” in Google and you’ll be blown away at the number of articles that show up. This just isn’t right.

Journalists Should Get Their Facts Right

Another trend I’ve observed is that many journalists simply just cannot get their facts right.

An excellent example is when journalist Adam Steiss managed to include a grand total of three mistakes about my trampoline career in a short 265 word article.

Steiss reported that I began doing trampoline when I was five-years-old (I started when I was seven); he reported that I qualified for my first world age-class championships at 17-years-old (actually, I won my first “World Age Games” at age 10); and finally, he reported that the World Championships of trampoline are held every three years (they are held every two years).

What bugs me the most about this example is that I gave him all of the correct information when he interviewed me. This tells me that he is either a poor listener or is terrible at taking notes (or possibly both).

Corrections Increase Media Credibility

As a journalism student, I always make it a point to get names and facts right. Although I have to admit that with strict deadlines, it's not always easy to get everything right the first time around.

However, that's precisely why I think publishing error notifications is so important. Not only does it serve to help make the media more credible, I agree with Silverman that it helps us "forge a stronger bond with the public and with our sources."

reCAPTCHA: crowdsourcing at its most literary

If you've been anywhere near the internet in the past few years, you've almost certainly encountered your share of CAPTCHAs. They often look like this:
CAPTCHA stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart, and websites use them to ensure that spammers and the like can't automatically generate zillions of fake email addresses and whatnot. Typing in the correct letters proves you are, well, not a bot.

I was amazed to find out that two word CAPTCHAs like the one above are actually serving a higher purpose. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are, in fact, harnessing the power of internet users to digitize books!

The program, called reCAPTCHA, aims to improve the "literacy" of Optical Character Recognition software used to scan old books and turn the scans into text documents. Turns out ol' ORC isn't so good at reading old fonts. But you know who is? Humans, of course! reCAPTCHA will pair up a word the computer CAN read with one that it can't, and when it gets enough consensus from CAPTCHA-using internet citizens, it "solves the puzzle" of the unknown word. Too great.

Jeff Howe's article about crowdsourcing compares the practice with the exploitative principles of companies who outsource projects to underpaid workers in India or China. reCAPTCHA, however, does not exploit internet users so much as it allows them to unintentionally multitask, contributing to a greater cause as they make their way around the web. It is crowdsourcing at its best.

Journalists Busted for Making Errors: Guilty or Not Guilty?

Image by Cartoon Stock

Error is certainly human but what about people trusting Journalism to get accurate and truthful information? People make mistakes but what is more important is, once that mistake uncovered, it has to be corrected so journalists and newspapers editors there is no shame in admitting there has been a mistake or mistakes in an issue and releasing a correction to that.

Fact Checkers

Thanks to people who are conscientious about people getting accurate information and news, there was the rise of fact checkers, among them the freelance journalist Craig Silverman who is the creator of the blog Regret The Error. Fact checkers are like media patrols. They check the media for eventual fact errors, spelling mistakes, wrong quotes, plagiarism... and report on corrections, retractions, clarifications and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the media.

Media Errors and the Future of Journalism

Even though errors in the media tend to reduce people's trust in them, stepping up and correcting these errors might regain the crowd's appreciation thus opening new doors to Journalism while it is experiencing a seemingly poignant crisis. After all, error is human but admitting one's mistake and taking responsibility to try and make things right makes one stand out and make people appreciate the honesty.

Journalists: Admit & Correct your Mistakes

From one mistake to the next

Journalists should always acknowledge their own negligence and rectify their own mistakes. One of the pitfalls of being a journalist, states author Clare Bruce, is that your worst mistakes don't go unnoticed. Mistakes can damage, if not ruin, the credibility of a journalist. Without credibility, journalists have nothing. In "Declaring War on Errors", journalist Carl Stepp states that errors, in the journalistic field, occur in up to 61 percent of all stories, far more than the media acknowledge. Based on those numbers, it's safe to say that author and journalist Craig Silverman is right: Errors are not being prevented, and they are not being corrected.

Listen to Silverman

According to the Canadian Association of Journalist, reporting must be, at all times, "fair, accurate and comprehensive. More so, when journalists make mistakes they MUST correct them". Silverman's blog, Regret the Error, helps bring to surface the various "media retractions, apologies, clarification and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press". Unlike many of his journalistic counterparts, Silverman systematically exposes media mistakes and innacuracies. Silverman warns that "the issue of uncorrected errors becomes even more urgent when stories are published in a paper, placed online and then loaded into various databases. The errors of today become the errors of tomorrow when they are accessed online or from database at a later date".

Prevent rather than Regret

But, don't worry, there is a silver lining in journalistic inaccuracies. According to Silverman, journalists can avoid making slips and mistakes by creating a checklist (yes, a checklist) of "the most common facts in any story (names, titles, numbers, dates, etc.) and then adding a few items that you personally have had trouble with. [Journalists] should make themselves go through a checklist before finishing every story."

(pic via oldschoolblogging)

Chirping on the Internet

photo from The National Post

I was also thinking of blogger responsibility after reading the interview with Craig Silverman. I figured that since specialist blogs who act as their own editors are popping up everywhere, wouldn't correcting mistakes be made that much more easily? Especially considering that many of the slips are being highlighted in their own comment section. After all, if modifying our entries can "help us forge a stronger bond with the public and with our sources" as Silverman explains, shouldn't taking advantage of this feedback option be at the top of every news affiliates agenda? After reading the Business Week article posted by Mark about news sites censoring their reader comments, I realized that keeping track of reader feed back can be as important to protecting your credibility and reputation as accurately writing a story or blog entry.

You don't want to be accused of censorship. One of the things I appreciate the most about internet news is the ability to interact with it and other readers. Entire online communities can grow out of a news story or topic of interest, so promoting discussion and debate should only help a sites growth. Unfortunately, many people are unable to be reasonable on the internet and can digress into flaming or abuse. This kind of behavior, though surely impossible to extinguish on the web, must be curtailed by any site that wishes to be considered valuable. The CBC has recently been accused of allowing racist content on their website due to a lack of comment editing. I'm convinced that this was only allowed because of a lack of staff or automatic review, but I think it is evidence enough of why bloggers should scan comments left by readers. Could casual readers or possible employers take you seriously if you let slander against a people go on for pages on your blog? How about ad spamming? It looks pretty unprofessional.

I believe it is a bloggers responsibility to have a reply option, as we are all entitled to the freedom of speech. It is also their responsibility to make sure that responses are not harmful, and should seriously run an approval process. Allow for opposition to voice themselves, but respectfully. After all, if it's so simple to offer a correction, it would be just as easy to offer a rebuttal.

Fox News Hits 'Em Where it Hurts

Fox News made a very public error, criticizing a Canadian Military that just so happened to be awaiting the four troops on their way home (Ontario) from Afghanistan in caskets. An entire commentary played out criticizing Lt.-Gen Andrew Leslie for declaring his military would take a year long breather from the war in Afghanistan after they wrap-up in 2011. They joked that the "Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, [and] run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."

These jokes were not taken lightly in a grave time for the Canadian people. The host and his guests were obviously ignorant of Canadian contribution to the war and clearly do not keep up with Canadian news. Canadians were livid about the discussion and demanded the news station apologize for the ignorant comments. Numerous angry Montreal residents wrote into The Gazette complaining about this Red Eye debate.

Fox, realizing their mistake, forced the host of Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld to apologize for his comments. This has agitated the relationship between the US and Canada. It has also destroyed the image of Fox News in many Canadians eyes (not saying that the station was held in high regard to Canadians before this aired). One of Gutfeld's fellow satirists even had a series of comedy gigs in Edmonton canceled by the hosts. Edmonton is the home of a military base and the people there did not take too kindly to these comments.

This demonstrates just how much effect errors in published and broadcast reports can have on a news station. Fox will not be getting very high ratings in Canada for a while.

Craig Silverman's Regret the Error website demonstrates how much news station do screw up and in his interview with Chip Scalan he talks about how errors hurt credibility of news mediums. He also discusses public forums, like the one for The Gazette, where news transparency takes hold. People there point out mistakes and can even incite someone like the Canadian Defense Minister to demand apologies for such mistakes. It is about time Canadians fight back against US criticism and teaches the ungrateful bully that they do know how to stand up for themselves!

For the Record: Character, Clarity and Credibility

"If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down." - Mary Pickford



Photo by: juan_taco

Accuracy in journalism is essential for keeping the public confidence strong, loyal and coming back for more. This is what all good journalists should be striving for. I'm tired of people making excuses for their mistakes. Myself included. Let's just confess our mistakes , correct them, own them and move on.

When I do come across a newspaper's correction or apology for a wrongdoing it doesn't make me think less of the establishment, it actually strengthens my confidence in them. Admitting when you have made a mistake no matter what your job title is a good thing."Mistakes happen."

In the article by Christopher Scanlan, We Stand Corrected: When Good Journalists Make Stupid Mistakes freelance journalist and author of Regret the Error Craig Silverman says, "Get rid of the stigma of error that causes people to want to hide their mistakes and not learn from them."


If this attitude was embraced by society, it would be so much easier to admit when we are wrong. It would encourage us to keep on trying and not to give up. However, failure is a part of life and we learn from our mistakes .

"Men succeed when they realize that their failures are the preparation for their victories." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Perseverance and striving for the best reporting involves being creative and realistic within the time budget given. Sometimes there is no time frame to work with at all. This is when the slip ups happen. When we are in a hurry to get it done. Silverman suggests using a checklist for the most "common facts." I think that's a wonderful idea.

Smart tips to help ease the stress of a deadline

Set Goals - be specific - eg: "I will write for an hour."
Measurable - have an action plan or checklist ready for each story.
Attainable - make sure your goal(s) are within reach.
Realistic - keep it real, don't set yourself up for disappointment.
Time - be generous with the time you give yourself.
Evaluate - monitor your progress, verify facts - don't procrastinate.
Reajust - prepare for obstacles, life happens.

"From error to error one discovers the entire truth." - Sigmund Freud

Blogger Responsibility, Blogging Code of Ethics

Source: kaushik.net

First and foremost, I thought the article "We Stand Corrected: When Good Journalists Make Stupid Mistakes" was the most boring thing I've ever read. Secondly, I think that anyone who has time to sit down and read a book on errors has way too much time on their hands.

However, I do agree with Craig Silverman's mission to make corrections a collaboration between the media and citizens. And, although biases in reporting may never be resolved, it is pleasant to believe that the names, titles, and typos in the articles can be altered.

One thing I pondered after reading the article is - blogger responsibility. If an evolved journalism model is going to allow bloggers, YouTubers and Twits to shape its content than shouldn't sloppy and messy blogging be eliminated? And, what are the consequences of faulty blogging?

In his article, "You Are What You Post - Blogging Responsibility," Jay Ovitter, a political blogger believes,

"As a blogger you are a publisher. You release your work to the world via the world wide web. You publish your work like Pendant and Simon and Schuster publishes books. If I write a story about how subject X does this when subject X really did that, it is a lie. If that lie defames the reputation of subject X, then I can be held responsible for libel in a court of law."

Ovitter's article encourages bloggers to go through the same copy editing process publishers face. But, regardless of the argument he and many others like him make, there are still tons of online posts that never get fixed, never get summoned to Silverman's site, and nothing gets done about it. Does that mean bloggers should be subject to libel laws? And, should bloggers be responsible for comments on their sites too? The answer is...No. There is no way of monitoring it all and pursuing every case - it is impossible.

In conclusion, although bloggers aren't monitored like prestige media, it is important to remember that your credibility and reputation is at stake! So, blog-on responsibly, and be your own Craig Silverman!

The Future of Information Is in the Crowd's Hands

Image by What's In Biz

Thanks to the Internet, I believe that every one of us gets the opportunity to contribute to the information that is made available to people all around the planet in its diverse forms: text, audio, video, photo. This is the concept of crowdsourcing. As the image posted above shows, even though people are disperse, they are all working towards the same goal that is creating valuable content for everyone to use. That is exactly what I am doing right now by writing this post.

How Crowdsourcing Works

Crowdsourcing allows people to have input in the information that is available to others regardless of their age, sex, profession and where they are. In fact, it relies essentially on the content that the crowd delivers thus allowing niche interests to develop and grow because diversity is the essence of the crowd. The rules governing crowdsourcing come down to these 5:

1.The crowd is dispersed
2.The crowd has a short attention span
3.The crowd is full of specialists
4.The crowd produces mostly crap
5.The crowd finds the best things

As you can notice, the last two point are quite controversial so let's have a closer look.

Crowdsourcing and Web 2.0

Well, it is true that at the beginning a most of the stuff that the crowd puts on the Internet is mostly crap. So, you can say that the quality of the information is debatable. However, thanks to the fact that crowdsourcing is based on web 2.0, which basically means that the more people use it, the better is gets, there is a possibility to improve content and thus create value. So, in the end you end up with a great resource of good stuff.

A Living Example of Crowdsourcing

Probably the most known example of crowdsourcing and how it works is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Basically, it is form the people to the people. A person starts an articles about any subject and then other people can add information to it, delete wrong information and rectify... thus improving it and helping in providing accurate information.

Why Crowdsourcing

Besides reducing barriers between people and bringing them around their common interests, Crowdsourcing, has a quasi null cost (all you need is a computer and Internet access which is not a big deal nowadays) and a fairly interesting pay off. In fact, the rich resources you get, the exposure, the freedom and the wide range of talents that it unfolds are hugely satisfying and rewarding.

100% ERRUR FREE

To err is human.

To admit to it, that's a lawsuit.
We are terrified to make them,but mistakes keep us humble, they let us know we have a long way to go before we can lay claim to being the pinnacle of gods work, which isn't true. but strive we will, and if we can't be perfect, hell, we will find out the reasons why, after all there has to be a reason, other than being humans, right?

Breath.

We don't have to be perfect, because we never were, we may never be. We spend billions of dollars trying for perfection; diets for the perfect weight, therapy for the perfect being, trainers for the perfect body, "The Secret" for the perfect life. Maybe the race for perfection shows clearly WE AREN'T PERFECT" maybe we should work on a new plan, forget Oprah, try"slack" yeah , that"s right. Listen to "Bob."

I think it's important to have a "regret the error," type thing, because it makes us aware these monoliths;news gatherers,experts, proffessionals, should be taken with a grain of salt. Their errors make us realize ,they are human and subject to human things (mistakes.) The question we should ask is ,how many people actually read the corrections? In this day of 24 hr news and lots and lots of television channels, print and internet outlets, how much more are you willing to read? and are these mistakes important or trivial?

• The titanic ,


• The challenger


• invading Iraq


• Sub prime morgages

It Is important that we offer apologies for mistakes, but it is also very important that we all take a pill and realize we are humans ,not gods. Doctors mess up, truck drivers make mistakes, parents, sometimes (although seldom,) may not get it right.
thats why god created lawyers. praise bob.

Kutiman Creates Quality from Chaos

I'm sure watching RiP was pretty close to mind blowing, but what happens when you throw the crowd into the mix?

If your brain wasn't electrified with Girl Talk's massively amped up creativity, then I don't think you could possibly be prepared for Kutiman. Using an orchestra of various You Tube-goers as his library of sound, Kutiman creates original music from the World Wide abyss of what some pretentious folk have lovingly termed as "amateur" trash. Whether or not the pieces of You Tube that Kutiman uses are actually trash on their own, remains to be seen, but used as the source of the Israeli musician's tunes, they are very clearly transformed.

Kutiman explains his process below:


There's no doubt that You Tube is a collective of untapped talent (and attention whores), but I haven't encountered anyone else utilizing it as more than a repository for everybody's easily accessible videos. What Kutiman's art has in common with Girl Talk's is the ever-present question of legality. Who will get payed when and how is the dominant driving force in the conflict between new media creation and big media ownership.

Kutiman's case is an interesting one though, since he doesn't use any previously copyrighted music, only pieces of others' unregistered intellectual property. Whom he credits, as he explains in the video above. So I imagine if anyone included in any of his music had a huge issue with it, he might be inclined to remix the sound without them and pull something else from his crowd of sources.

But since we're all looking for that great five minutes of shameless, self-importance, who in their right mind would be willing to do that?

Deadlines and the Death of Accuracy

Photo Courtesy of x-eyedblonde

Craig Silverman puts forth a new model for news organizations to follow that would limit errors from being published. I agree with his suggestions, but I would add one important point that I feel Silverman has overlooked. Journalists must work under a deadline. Sometimes there just isn't enough time for a thorough fact-checking.

Silverman advises journalists to "take the time to make a call or send an e-mail. Just a few extra minutes of time on the phone or e-mail can be the difference between a clean story and one with errors." Perhaps we should add the importance of prioritization to Silverman's statement. Fact-checking and follow-ups are the most important parts of writing a story. But it seems journalists are more concerned with making a story sound compelling and interesting, rather than 100% accurate and true.

Time management is another important element to writing an accurate story. Often times, journalists won't have "just a few extra minutes." Time is very valuable for reporters, so they must know exactly how much time they will devote to every step of the writing process. If reporters run out of time before they have done a proper fact-checking, then maybe they aren't cut out for the job.

Assignment editors can help reporters work under these time constraints by extending deadlines. In my opinion, it's better to present an accurate story a day later, rather than present a story full of mistakes that night. However, editors run the risk of losing the audience's attention because the story may no longer be considered current or timely.

If you want to learn more about how deadlines are effecting the credibility of today's journalists, check out the book No Time to Think. That is...if you have the time.

It's not about the Benjamins baby

I see crowdsourcing as a call to service for those who view the value of their efforts in something other than dollar signs. The cool thing about crowdsourcing is that it uses technology to mobilize an infinite number of people all over the world. It's almost like a giant online volunteer project or global party line.

Crowdsourcing allows anyone to offer their knowledge/time/effort to make the world and/or the web a better place. As a kid, were you ever told that hard work is its own reward? And you'd think to yourself, "$5 would be a better reward for my hard work"? Best Buy's Geek Squad is that kid, the pro charging $130+ to solve your computer problems. Then you have lovely online communities like this who freely share their expertise to help out their tech challenged brethren.

A few reasons why the amateur has the advantage over the professional:
1. Quantity - online communities provide seemingly limitless amount of brainpower
2. Cost - knowledgeable amateur = free. professionals = not.
3. Motivation - the desire to help, to share ideas, to be part of larger community, encourages industry innovation whereas desire for a big paycheck stifles it.

WE ALL WIN!!

Crowd sourcing is a great idea, Its understandable that some of us may find the idea scarey. Imagine, a level playing field, a true meritocracy. Getting paid for results! I know it may sound counter productive, compared to the old method of group think and assembly line piece work. hourly wage slaves grinding away trying get overtime to make a living. or working several part time gigs to make ends meet. or paper pushing dilberts creating more paper to justify their salaries. With crowd sourcing everybody benefits.

-Employers don't have to have a fulltime staff

-Employees can work on their own schedule

-No need to have big cubicle farms to house bored workers

-No need for make work projects to justify workers salaries

-Fresh ideas which stimulate the corporate culture.


Utilizing Ideas rather than Experts

In the case of the innocentive the most amazing thing is the idea that of all the problems solved by crowd sourcing, the majority are solved by people not in the field. this is truely amazing ,and goes against everything I have been taught. just think about the ramifications of this. Nasa turning problems over to a cab driver in Des Moines, or Ottawa. Airline scheduling problems. conflict resolution issues solved by average Joans. or could you envision one day social issues such as homelessness, mental health issues could possibly have solutions prsented mot by M.d's but highschool drop outs who have a keen interest in social welfare.
the down side

- All those professionals will be out of a job.
- The authority of the deplomas, degrees decline.
- Professionals,experts ,will have to get up on their game.

Lets face it, Its a win win situation. regardless of how crowd sourcing works, there will always be the need for the experts to filter out all the really bad ideas, the non -working solutions suggested by the unwashed,( Just think of the great ideas your uncle harry came up with to stop world hunger.) nuff said. besides, why can't we get a chance at wrecking the world economy in same the way the experts at the world bank, the WTO and the folks that brought us the sub prime morgage deal have.
-

Crowdsourcing and Solving Human Security Issues

Declining biodiversity, changing weather patterns and global warming are just three of numerous threats to human security; through them we may find unity. Crowdsourcing can help the international community collaborate to combat the issues that threaten our society.

National Research Defense Council's (NRDC's) "Beat the Heat: Fight Global Warming One Person at a Time" and "Its Your Nature" programs are interactive ways for everyone to share their stories, read others' or offer solutions to these sorts of human security issues. Beat the Heat hosts an interactive map where US residents can confer about global warming issues they encounter and pose answers to them. The website has titled the US the "leading global warming polluter" and the organization has accomplished such things as suing the US Navy to prevent the unnecessary murder of marine mammals by means of hi-frequency sonar.

Other Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the International Agency For Research on Cancer (IARC) exemplify how the global community unites to find scientific cures for threats to human health. There are forums for people with stories about AIDS and Cancer but, beyond that, these NGO's provide a forum for collective knowledge and Research. They collaborate with the WHO to maximize capabilities. Not everyone can help cure cancer, but we can support the cause and spread the word!

The first reading from Wired entitled "The Rise of Crowdsourcig" discussed the science forum for people to compete to solve company's problems. InnoCentive is great because companies pay much less for the information and people can make a big bonus if they have the knowledge. Retired scientists and chemistry whizzes who never finished their degree can make money off their seemingly fruitless talents through this symbiotic relationship. This relates back to the IARC as it practiceses this same tactic except on a higher level. NGOs make money off donations as well, so they can pay scientists even more. InnoCentive is for scientists with a little less education than those hired to cure AIDS and Cancer.

LibriVOX also helps form this "Great Ball of Knowledge". It is not only a way for people to share great literature; it is also a symbol and model for recording and distributing history. This way we can only build further on those generations past and collectively gain knowledge as a global society. With Citizen Journalism, we are writing an Oral History of our era; one by the people and which is not written by the elite. This history is written and/or recorded by you and me.

In Australia it's called crowdSURFING!

photo by Jon Metcalfe

I had completely forgotten about a REAL LIFE example of crowdsourcing that takes place away from our computer screens, one that I took part in while traveling in Australia in March 2007. My Aussie friend's facebook status recently reminded me as they just celebrated Clean Up Australia Day! Even though Clean Up Australia is an organization created before the internet, I wanted to write this entry because more and more I think the internet will make people come together away from their computers as it reawakens the power of the people!

So what is Clean Up Australia Day? Well, their website has lots of extra information, but I can imagine the name is pretty self-explanatory. On the first weekend of March since 1989, millions of Australians have gotten together to help clean up their communities, their water fronts, their entire country.

But those are volunteers! Crowdsourcing offers $$$

Not necessarily, librivox certainly doesn't offer a salary to their contributors yet they still demonstrate an amazing work ethic. Nor are the creators of many open source software programs rolling in bank notes when their program hits number one on CNET.com

Consider Earth Hour, another example of volunteers working together for change. Earth Hour started in 2007, also in Australia, but blew up all over the world in 2008 because of the internet. Many of us have seen videos of No Pants Subway Rides or mp3 raves in downtown New York, all organized by individuals on the internet. Not exactly socially responsible, but still fun. Or how about Critical Mass which has spread to over 300 cities with the help of the internet? The point is, we shouldn't just see crowdsourcing as an opportunity to make some money, but as an opportunity to make a difference.

Crowdsourcing: For The People, By The People

Source: www.awarenessnetworks.com

Crowdsourcing is the coolest thing to happen since Napster. Everybody can gain from it. It's allows the public to regain some control over culture. We have the opportunity to contribute to this culture with significantly less barriers that's been a hinderance in the past (i.e. distribution and price, etc... ).

In a corporate perspective, this can potentially be a means to make some serious cash! They could use it as a device to find out more about what markets to venture, how to go about it and all the while, satisfying us because they now work for the public and not the other way around. It opens up doors to new ideas perhaps neglected before.

It makes for this world to be a friendlier place because information is shared; anybody can add or subtract information as they see fit. It levels the playing field among professionals and amateurs to promote their works. But more importantly, crowdsourcing shifts the focus as to what objectives information dissemination ought to be.

Should we concentrate on quality of product or just the mere idea of getting the chance to provide a product? How does it affect the product in terms of reliability and accuracy because the public is dissimenating information as opposed to "writers"? Those are two among other questions that ultimately arises from a debate worth having.

Check out Jeff Howe article "The Rise of Crowdsourcing" in Wired Magazine. It's where the talk of it all started!

Being your own curator in the face of a million choices

(photo by Mike Mergen for the New York Times)

Barry Shwartz argues that we, as consumers, are so overwhelmed with options that we become paralyzed rather than empowered. When I look at the drug store aisle in the photo above, I can't help but mourn the many wasted hours I've spent hovering in pharmacies, my brain being wrung out like an old towel with the strain of choosing a shampoo.

I would argue that the burden of choice strikes us not only at the supermarket or the drug store, but in our cultural and aesthetic choices too. The advent of online file sharing and the relatively recent "fashionising" of second-hand shopping may seem unrelated, but both contribute to the same stress: the pressure to be our own curators. When cost and timeliness are no longer a factor, the ability to sift through and find the "best" of all genres and eras becomes a valued skill.

In the June 2008 issue of Elle, Stephen Milioti wrote about how "showing that you can move fluidly between low and high — demonstrating your ability to curate the objects and culture in your life — is the latest iteration [of good taste]."

He's talking specifically about the idea of blending high and low-brow culture, of wearing a Rolex and thrift store pants, listening to Britney Spears and obscure jazz and appreciating both equally.

Last fall, I interview the mash-up artist Girl Talk for The Link. As I wrote in then, Gregg Gillis (aka Girl Talk) reasoned that he “won’t spend time sampling songs [he’s] not into” because there are “so many songs [he] could have chosen.”

Gillis' ability to mix high and low and new and old is something he actually banked on and turned into a career. But what about those of us who don't get paid to be our own curators? Who are we trying to impress?

Crowd Sourcing: Suggestion Box 2.0

Source: Newsday.com

Crowdsourcing is fun. It’s like a Suggestion Box 2.0 that helps corporations find out what their consumers want, lets hobbyists vent their stories, and citizens fulfill their humanitarian impulses.

For big corporations the information is big money, and, upon analysis it seems more like a reverse Robin Hood effect (taking from the poor, giving to the rich) than anything else. For smaller entities it is a great way to engage audiences and use the feedback to give back more, even though there sites are making little or no profit. Lets take look at who's using crowdsourcing and who's profiting from it....

Starbucks – www.mystarbucksidea.com is an perfect example of a customer-to-company crowd sourcing portal. It was hatched-up to help increase company profits and is a place where customers, employees and market researchers can meet up. Here they work on improving existing products and brainstorm for future ones. Topics can be as minor as voting for a new Starbucks muffin flavor, or as significant as working out a company plan to print less paper. Essentially, participants get nothing out of this than reaffirmation that they're a loyal customer. The company exploits the information and makes a wicked profit.

Kindertrauma– Utilizes user-participation to create content for their site, and only makes petty cash from advertising revenues. Kindertrauma is a pop culture niche blog that asks readers what scared them as a child. As a reward for the trauma confessions, participant gets to see their submissions on the blog and read other stories. The site gives back more than it takes, as it hosts a free entertainment service, making only a little bit of money from GoogleAds.

So why do some people give their information away for free? Maybe it's just the humanitarian in us. In the article "Crowdsourcing the humanitarian impulse," Cindy Gallop, marketing executive for Zooomr says, "The single largest pool of untapped resource in this world is human good intentions that never translate into action."

Montreal Packs Quite a Crowd, So Why Didn't We Source It?

Crowdsourcing is new; it's hip, happening and all the cool techie/networked folks are taking part. Thanks to the accessibility of the internet and most digital technology, the amateur and the professional can co-inhabit the marketplace and, potentially (assuming the pros can get over their reluctance to do so), learn from each other.

Most recently, Montreal was faced with a grand opportunity to participate in the wonderfully creative world of crowdsourcing. They felt that the city needed a new brand. Unfortunately, more so for us native to the island, it seems as though the municipal government neglected to clean the fog from their specs. The result was the following:


Source: The Infernal Journal

The cost? Priceless is the wrong answer. Try more along the lines of $487,000. Now, after reading Howe's piece on the positive rise of crowdsourcing, and noting that it was published in 2006, one might find it difficult to understand why the city of Montreal decided it was in its best interest to spend such a sum for such a--Well... let's just call it a "logo".

The expense is unprecedented, especially since graphic design is an insanely popular field of work/creative exploration. The idea that a professional company, put to the task with such a generous budget, could only come up with the "logo" is beyond perplexing. Crowdsourcing contests are not really that new, take the design for the Canadian millennium quarter, for example. The Royal Canadian Mint put Canadians to the task to design a coin that would represent themselves. The winner received the ultimate bragging rights, and I imagine there were some monetary earnings as well, but we can safely assume they didn't add up to half a million dollars.

The moral of this tale? Montreal is a wonderous city filled with talented people in the arts. Some might even claim that we are known for it (sometimes). The excuse--well, geez, there really isn't any. This great embarrassment and money-sink could have been easily avoided. The solution? Crowdsourcing. Point final.

Or maybe just hire these people.

Crowdsourcing: Paving the Way Towards the Future

Picture Courtesy of: abc.net

Crowdsourcing is amazing in so many ways. It's not only a great opportunity for amateurs to finally get credited for their outstanding wit and creativity but it's a great, resourceful option for companies alike. I have never been in favor of outsourcing because it lowers the prices of goods and services but at others' expense and that's not right.

Benefits of Crowdsourcing

What happens with crowdsourcing however, is quite the opposite. It elects those interested and competent to perform work that not only do they love and feel passionate about, but that they excel in also. Crowdsourcing encourages creative input, opportunity and a fair use of others' work through credit, recognition and acknowledgment, paid or not.

Crowdsourcing VS. Outsourcing

Crowdsourcing also allows for the price of goods and services to decrease because the cost of labour is significantly reduced but it doesn't do so by infringing upon others' rights to fair pay, good working conditions, sanitary work environment as well as safe working practices which outsourcing has been known to cause.

Crowdsourcing also avoids the problem of respecting culture. Outsourcing became a known problem in countries like India, where traditional customs and lifestyles were being jeopardized by the US business model which is not coherent with Indian values thus lowering their quality of life and creating domestic upheaval.

Another amazing aspect of crowdsourcing is that it's available to everyone! Yes, outsourcing creates job opportunity in areas where job opportunities are relatively nonexistent but on the other hand, with crowdsourcing, the same opportunities are available only to a much wider range of people.

Another benefit is that while outsourcing creates jobs it also takes jobs away but with crowdsourcing anyone from anywhere can participate and contribute, the Internet has no boundaries, no borders, it cannot discriminate.

A Step in the Right Direction

That's the great thing about the Internet and it's development, more and more people are getting opportunities to share, sell and develop platforms for their creative property all while contributing to the overall performance of the worldwide economy and thus aiding in the reduction of costs for goods and services in all business domains and industries.

It's an exciting future and crowdsourcing is just another way of utilizing all that the Internet has to offer, now it's up to us to keep making the worldwide web a more efficient, money saving tool and job creating avenue.

Even Gymnastics Canada is Videoblogging

Video by Gymnastics Canada

It's truly a sign that times have changed when a very traditional Canadian sports federation like Gymnastics Canada Gymnastique (GCG) decides to start blogging. Now, they are even videoblogging!

As a passionate follower of all things having to do with trampoline, I've relied on GCG's website for a long time to provide me with up-to-date trampoline news and results. Over the years though, their website has acquired the reputation of being strictly informative in nature and a little bland.

I'm happy to report that things are a little different now. Last year, GCG hired Ron Scammell, a journalist, to be their communications director. Scammell improved their website and created the Gymnastics Canada blog. The best part of this blog is that it gives fans, athletes, judges, coaches and parents from within the trampoline community the opportunity to learn about up-and-coming athletes and to watch competition news reports in the form of neatly edited video clips.

Clearly, GCG's blog isn't anything extraordinary. It isn't updated as much as it should be, and it isn't very interactive (there aren't any comments because it's so difficult to understand how to post them). However, I think that for a sports federation that is as conservative as GCG tends to be, having a blog is definitely a step in the right direction. I think they've finally realized that in order to attract more sponsors and to properly promote the sports of gymnastics and trampoline, they have to keep up with the times.

Videos Have the Potential to Add Value to a Blog

Without a doubt, GCG's decision to add videos to their blog has increased the overall popularity of their site. In gym's across the country, coaches and athletes are actually talking about the content GCG posts on their blog . About a year ago, this wasn't happening at all. Their visitors are now also offered the opportunity to get to know some of Canada's best gymnasts and trampolinists, which I think is truly what these athletes need (more exposure).

Now that I'm considered a competitor of GCG's due to my creation of the Trampoline Canada blog, I'm currently looking into how I can incorporate more videos to keep things interesting for my visitors.

After reading numerous articles on how to add video to a blog, I've come to realize that videos can add personality to a blog and can most certainly increase readership if done properly. Also, I tend to always find myself being more attracted to blogs that include videos in posts. I think that says a lot about how powerful and effective videos can be compared to print.

Clearly though, I still have a lot to learn about the craft of videoblogging. So far, I've only posted two original videos (the others I embedded from YouTube). As a print major, I unfortunately have no formal training in producing video news clips. To help me out, I've been referring to sites like freevlog that offer useful tutorials and tips on how to videoblog.

I think that adding more engaging videos will definitely add value to my blog, so I'll be working on ways to become a master videoblogger. My hope is that GCG will notice how hard I'm working to keep things fresh and exciting, which will hopefully result in them starting to post better material on their own blog. A little competition never hurts.

Like Sharing, but not in Preschool!

Sharing your stuff has certainly grown up since it was drilled into us by underpaid elementary school employees. While at the time we learned it was good to share (well, many of us learned anyway), we were supposed to grow up, and learn a bigger truth: we aren't supposed to share everything we have. Information isn't like toys, we aren't supposed to pass it around with one another so everyone gets a taste. Because that's wrong, and makes you a bunch of dirty pirates.

Or does it? It seems hypocritical to be told at one point that no, you can't hit little Timmy for wanting to play with your toy trucks, but you can slap him with a lawsuit over sharing a file with a friend.

It's especially daunting to consider, when one thinks about what a piece of information can become when shared with others.

Take a look at open-sourced programs. They might start off as little, just barely above useful things. But leave the code open, a programmer here can take it and add his own spin to it, it grows. It then gets passed to someone else, who takes it, edits some things, adds some things, and it grows. This continues until it is no longer the same program it was, but something much better, peer created to continue to evolve with each person who adds a new spin to it.

The new collective possible through the internet can do more then add to a creation. They can comment on it, to help make it better. Take, for example, a site like Deviantart. People post artwork, and people leave comments, good or bad. An artist can then take their criticisms, and put them to work to make their artwork better. Instead of a culture of creators having their work stolen, as terms such as "pirating" would have you believe, but work evolving through community involvement.

Crowdsourcing: The good, the bad & the ugly

The ethical, social, and economic implications of crowdsourcing are subject to wide debate and criticism. In the above video, author and journalist Jeff Howe defines crowdsourcing as "the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call [...] it's Wikipedia with everything". Conversely, journalist Bill Casselman calls crowdsourcing a "sleazy new word for a sleazy old scam".

So, is crowdsourcing a sordid scam, a passing fad or the future of information exchange?

Before you answer that question, here is a helpful list of the good, bad & ugly side of crowdsourcing-the following examples might help you decide whether or not crowdsourcing will have more of an effect on all forms of journalism than anything else that's come out of the online journalism revolution:

The Good:

Crowdsourcing is unquestionably on the rise. Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube & Twitter are just a few well known examples of the concept at work. When the US Airways flight 1549 crashed into the the Hudson River on January 15 2009,a regular Joe Blow named Janis Krums posted the first photo of the crash on Twitter. Krums story is the quintessential example of participatory journalism.

The Bad:

In "Crowdsourcing: Pitfalls of Citizen Journalism", author Jeff Howe provides an example of the bad side of crowdsourcing in journalism:

"A citizen journalist with supposed inside information posted a story to CNN's IReport site claiming that Steve Jobs had been rushed to the hospital with chest pains. Apple stock, unsurprisingly, dive bombed as a result, its fall only arrested once Apple spokeswoman Katie Cotton came out disputing the claim." Remember, crowdsourcing can be a very powerful communicative tool, therefore be cautious and vigilant when using it".

The Ugly:

On January 18th 2007, Clear Channel Communications fired all their news staff at KFTY-TV in Santa Rosa. Their goal was to cut costs. Now, the management is trying crowdsourcing as a fallback positions. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the "station's management asked people in the community-its independent filmmakers, its college students and professors, its civic leaders and others -- to provide programming for the station". Crowdsourcing replaced the veteran staff of reporters and news anchors at KFTY-TV. Of course, the station is considering paying contributors (considering being the operative word).

I want what I want, but I don't really know what I want....Just kill me please!!

Photo Courtesy of taxguru.net

Barry Schwartz's notion of Paradox of Choice is fitting in today's world where we demand- and can get whatever our little hearts might think they want. Choice is supposed to make life easier. For years we've lamented how companies ignored diversity, expecting us to adapt to them. Chris Anderson's long tail concept recognizes that this is not a one size fits all world and technology has enabled more people to get exactly what they want.

Reason.com calls this phenomenon consumer vertigo. Information is supposed to be liberating. It's supposed to make us better informed so that WE can choose what's best for us. An educated consumer is a satisfied consumer, non? The internet is an amazing tool that personally afforded me the opportunity to spend many, MANY hours goofing-er, analyzing the features of dozens of strollers so that baby B could roll safely in comfort. Several months later, I was finally able to decide on an item. For those who agonize over the vast array of choices, the final decision may still not bring relief, but doubt and dissatisfaction.

Perhaps it's human nature to be miserable. We're not happy when we don't have choice, but we're ineffective and unhappy when we have too many choices. The only difference is that with the latter, we're responsible for making that possibly life altering descision, while someone else is to blame for the former because we didn't do it - we had no choice. We barely have time to watch a few programs on 2 channels, much less endless programming on 200+ channels. Still, we feel we might be missing out on something worthwhile if we don't include booktelevision in our cable lineup.

Some reasonable solutions could include

1. Limiting the crazy information free for all by favoring quality over quantity

2. Let big brother filter out the scary stuff.

3. Move back home and let your mom take care of you

I would add more, but that might be too daunting.

Maximizing Choice = Happiness???

Courtesy of Balanced Weight Management

In the hustle of the economy of abundance that the world is adapting nowadays to get everybody satisfied and happy by creating a wide range of choices for all the tastes, making choices can be paralyzing, and contrary to what is thought, it can make you unhappy. How so? Well that is what I will try to explain.
For this purpose I will use an experience I had.

Abundance of Choice and Paralysis

There are so many choices on the market or in the media nowadays that it is sometimes so hard to choose. You are stuck there for a fair period of time and sometimes you just leave with empty hands. So choice can be paralyzing.

That is what I experienced when I was trying to choose a cable package and pick up the channels I want. Do I go for a fifteen-channel package or twenty? Custom or ready-made? Do I go for English or French channels? and so on... Having so many choices at hand was quite overwhelming so I just put it off for the next day. Surprise! The challenge was the same!

Non-satisfaction and Regret then Self-Blame

If ever you make up your mind and go for a particular choice, then you get to the non-satisfaction and regret stage where you only think about what you are missing out on the other choices. So even if what you have at hand is actually great you are not satisfied with it and you start regretting your choice. That eventually leads you to blaming yourself for having a multitude of choices but making the "wrong" one.

Back to my little anecdote with my cable package, once I made up my mind about the package and actually chose the channels, instead of actually enjoying TV I kept thinking about the other choices I could have made and about what I am missing out on because I didn't take this or that and I started being unsatisfied with my channels even though the programs were really great. When I wanted to change I was told that I had to keep my list for 30 days before being able to do so. That led me to regretting my choice and thinking that I am to blame for making the wrong choices from the start.

So now you see that contrary to what we think, having a multitude of choices in not necessarily a good thing. In fact, it can lead us to dissatisfaction, regret and unhappiness.

Making the Call

I think indecisiveness has become a trend amongst myself, my friends and our generation. When should I start this assignment? Should I take a part time job this semester? Which bar do you want to drink at? The expansion of multimedia networks and mass production offers us an unlimited combination of choices, from a grocery list to your university portfolio. We shouldn't feel threatened, we need to keep embracing the potential that we now have. Our inabilities to make these choices stems from an inability to organize ourselves rather than an over abundance of information.

Consider the collapse of several prominent newspapers. The majority of them failed because they have not been able to profitably transfer themselves online. With so many different sources, is journalism killing itself out? I think if anything it’s a race to the top. First, to those who will be able to syndicate journals or sites online and charge an access fee (which in turn could result in higher quality reporting, faster access..) and secondly, for journalists to take advantage of their new found independence and authority.

We must also ask ourselves if we are concerned with the right decisions, or too concerned with the wrong ones. To avoid forgetting what I need at the grocery store, we make lists. To decide which product over another, we consider price, quality and hopefully nutritional value.

We don’t need to silence this new breed of reporters, we don’t need to disregard our options. We need to develop the ability to recognize legitimacy and significance so as to eliminate the counter-productive options and ignore those who abuse their power. We must advance with our technology so that we are not overwhelmed by it. So you get a two million hits on a search engine, which to chose? Learn to use the advanced search utility and the school’s databases. Those are powerful tools, and the type of organization that the web needs to keep developing to aid navigation and to advance as an entity. Personal decisions should be made based on what betters ourselves and those around us, and which offer us the most opportunities.

The Art of Vik Muniz and the Question of Creativity

"Double Mona Lisa, After Warhol (Peanut Butter + Jelly)," 1999

I was lucky enough to catch Brazilian artist Vik Muniz's exhibit at the Musée d'art contemporain last year. It had to be one of the most fun shows I'd seen in a while - probably because Muniz's mediums have included chocolate, sugar, peanut butter and jelly (as seen above), caviar, diamonds, and even loose thread.Muniz exhibits photographs he takes of his amazing creations. He is undoubtedly amazing talented and, I would argue, extremely creative. Yet much of his art, such as the Mona Lisas above ("After Warhol") and his "Pictures of Thread" series, is copied from famous images. The Warhol images he has copied are certainly not even in the public domain.

Lawrence Lessig says of Disney's appropriation of fairy tales and cinematic themes that "the key to [the] success [of his cartoons] was the brilliance of the differences." I would make the case that the same applies to Muniz.
He's a real charmer, too - check out this video from TED.