Oliver Willis, in a recent Substack post, goes into further details on Sources Go Direct, and how the Harris campaign is doing this (via Dave Winer). The last paragraph is the best:

Frankly, the relationship between Trump and the press, which follows in the footsteps of the relationship George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had with many of the same outlets, shows that you can just wait them out. Like a toddler who has a tantrum, let them complain and bellow and fume, and then they will lose interest. They are attracted to shiny, loud objects, not substance, and by generating her own heat, Harris can do what’s best for the people, not the elites who ultimately do not care about our well-being at all.

Doug Muder of The Weekly Sift makes excellent points about how the mainstream media wants access to Harris so they can tear her down. It makes total sense that she is “going direct” with her message. Trump gets a pass with the mainstream media for having two incoherent “media availability” sessions – why bother with the press?

Creating the future of journalism (post and podcast)

I just finished listening to the two podcasts by Dave Winer on what we need from Biden, and his conversation with Jeff Jarvis on how to work around the brokenness of the mainstream media in the 2024 election. This was an excellent conversation. I  have several comments on the Jeff Jarvis podcast, and will cover them in this post, and there is a separate podcast at the end of this post.

Jeff Jarvis brought up two points based on prior writing/conversations with Dave Winer. One was “the power of the link”, and the other was that people should uses their own personal spaces to respond to someone else’s post or story. I agree that if you are going to talk about someone, or something that they wrote, you should link to it. However, recently Dave Winer wrote a post critical about the people and work of the Podcasting 2.0 effort (how they reimplemented rssCloud), but he did not link to the thing he was complaining about (I had to track it down). How does this square with what was discussed in this podcast? I think it is inconsistent at a minimum, and perhaps bordering on hypocrisy.

Another topic was people commenting on social media posts, and how a lot of these comments were “spam”, in that people were not responding to what was posted, but were posting to try to take advantage of the “flow” of the original poster (in this case, I am assuming it was Dave Winer – it could also happen to Jeff Jarvis,  but it was Dave Winer who brought it up). This is a tricky topic. Both Dave Winer and Jeff Jarvis said they want to encourage conversation (well, maybe it was Jeff more than Dave). However, if you want to have conversation, you have to give people the chance to say something. If the response to comments is deleting comments, or blocking people because they disagree or are critical, this discourages people from commenting. If I write a post commenting on another post (either compliments or criticism), how should I inform the person or site I am are writing about? Both Dave Winer and Jeff Jarvis said people should be “respectful”. That sounds good, until the conversation gets blocked. I do not have any solutions to offer here, but if someone wants to have a conversation, it has to be two-way/bidirectional. In the case of social media apps, part of the design of the apps, in my opinion, is to encourage conversation. Blocking people and deleting comments in a thread do not give the impression that someone wants to have a conversation.

The next topic I would like to address is providing an alternative to the mainstream media. Dave Winer talked at some point about individuals creating stories (covering  events (like reporters, I suppose)) and creating/editing a flow of stories (again I assume this is mainstream media stories, which is a lot of what get commented about on blogs). I  will address the “flow of stories” idea first. During the 2020 George Floyd protests, I started a site to curate the mainstream media and social media coverage of the protests in Portland,  Oregon. The site was called Portland Protest News, and I updated it daily for a month and a half before I had to stop due to an illness. I set up news flows from mainstream media (primarily using RSS feeds), reviewed those feeds on a daily basis, selected stories to post, created a post with links to those stories, and also created a newsletter with the same content. At best, I was able to do this in an hour. Most of the time, it was 1.5 hours, and sometimes two hours. It was difficult to do this and work a regular 8 hour day. To me, the curated flow that Dave Winer talked about in the podcast with Jeff Jarvis would take at least this much time. Someone would have to put in that time to create a dynamic site with daily posts.

Next, I would like to discuss the topic of people covering events. I thought the idea of protesting the New York Times was interesting,  and the idea of others news organizations covering that protest might occur. However,  in a recent post of mine commenting on an essay by Anne Applebaum on protests in Poland, Applebaum stated that protests, if not carefully targeted, achieve little. I do not think there would be a clear enough goal to make protesting the New York Times effective. I think that the idea of independent writers/bloggers attending events and publishing accounts of this events is worthwhile, but I think there are several issues as well. Finding out about events takes work, attending events takes time, and writing about the events takes time and effort. Who will do these things? Who will coordinate this work? How will the posts/stories be distributed so that others can find out about them? The story “The Little Red Hen” comes to my mind, where one animal does all the work to produce a loaf of bread. Where are the “little red hens” to do this work?

There are some independent news organizations covering state legislatures (States Newsroom) and voting issues (Votebeat). There are small news startups trying to cover local news (Salem Reporter in Salem, Oregon as an example). There is even a online newspaper in Washington state (the Sammamish Independent) that is produced by volunteers. These are all current examples of independent coverage. Some of them have some funding, but many are dependent on subscriptions or donations. Doc Searls, in his work at the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University, has written a series of stories about “The News Commons“, and experiments in the Bloomington Indiana area. So, I point to these examples of “little red hens”, each with a focus, but providing inspiration and food for thought to others.

I welcomed this podcast, as it shared many ideas and food for thought. I hope my analysis has done the same, and I welcome any and all feedback. No one will be blocked or deleted,  I assure you!

I recently posted a quote from Hannah Arendt: “We are free to change the world and start something new in it” . I would like to point to a recent post by Ken Smith about how to solve the problem of Donald Trump. He organized his post as a series of problems to be addressed. I think the structure of this post could be implemented as a website in a fairly straightforward manner. I will try to create something in the next week that could serve as a model. Maybe I can even get Ken Smith or someone to collaborate with me on this project. Any assistance would be welcomed!

In early April, I posted about Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Chris Quinn, who wrote a column saying that he was going to continue to tell the truth about Donald Trump, even when it offends those who are paying for information. Dan Froomkin has an excellent interview on PressWatch with Chris Quinn, including more on how Quinn took a long time in writing the piece, and opinions on the national news media and how editors are afraid. It is a good read!

I was reading through a set of articles on CNN.com, and got the following message: “You have reached your daily article limit. Continue reading with a free CNN account or come back tomorrow.”. I have NEVER seen this before – has this happened to anyone else?

There aren’t two sides to facts

Last week, the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Chris Quinn, published a “Letter from the Editor” concerning the paper’s coverage of news concerning Donald Trump (mentioned on PressWatch). He stated that they are receiving a fair amount of mail/email on this topic criticizing the paper. I think these three paragraphs hit the main point of his response:

The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.

The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.

The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/our-trump-reporting-upsets-some-readers-but-there-arent-two-sides-to-facts-letter-from-the-editor.html

After publishing this column, the Plain Dealer received over 2700 emails, mostly positive, thanking the editor for “…reporting as fact the threat Donald Trump presents to our democracy” (see new editor column on the response). The Plain Dealer also published a sampling of the responses. Perhaps there is hope for us yet…

Buzz Machine/Jeff Jarvis: Is it time to give up on old news? “I am coming to a conclusion I have avoided for my last three decades working on the internet and news: It may finally be time to give up on old journalism and its legacy industry. ” Dave Winer offers EZ-Pass News as an alternative. Doc Searls is also writing about news alternatives.

Doc Searls: His series “The News Commons” is an exploration of the current news ecosystem and offering ideas “…toward helping local journalism thrive anew in our digital age.”