Check it out at: http://digitalcampus.tv/.

It was obvious that the rally was going to be an extension of their shows. The two have made a career of openly spoofing the media for it’s worst failures. Sure, Stewart and Colbert are liberals, but at the core their criticism has never been one of ideology. It’s been of messaging.

A lot of people don’t realize that.

Keith Olberman, for example, disliked the rally’s message to “take it down a notch.” Apparently, that would risk conceding to Fox News and the right.

Others have argued that the rally accomplished nothing. Or, that it simply mocked legitimate activism by Glenn Beck and the Tea Party.

David Carr’s piece in the New York Times was one of the few that caught the rally’s point while countering that Stewart is wrong in his analysis. TV pundits only reach a small audience. We really are in serious times.

Browsing though the blogs out there, everyone appears to have their own interpretation. That makes sense. Satire is complex. It thrives on individuals drawing their own conclusions. To crystallize things though, I’d like to highlight a few key passages from the rally’s closing.

Reflecting on these passages, Stewart’s point should be clear. The press and the media are guardians of our national discourse. And, for whatever reason they don’t always communicate properly. They mess up. This mislead us. They blow things out of proportion. They sometimes cater to the lowest common denominator, and if you need evidence?

Well, just watch the Daily Show.

Stewart is thriving because the media is seen as failing. And, if anything Saturday’s rally showed that he doesn’t necessarily want them to. Neither does this librarian.

To balance out the “feelings of euphoria and weightlessness,” here are some reasons why users should to come back to Earth:

All-in-all, I’m pleased with the changes they’ve made. Given some of the hype out there, though, these points sum up exactly what Google Instant is: a nice tweak. We aren’t seeing anything new, it’s not special, and it certainly isn’t a fundamental breakthrough.

Bricks in the Wall: 5.75/10.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 25% of Americans express “quite a lot of confidence” in newspapers. Television news, believe it or not, fares even worse with just 22% expressing confidence. Too bad they didn’t survey alternative sources or check for source bias. I guarantee you that conservatives trust Fox News more than broadcast news as a whole.

Also, all of this begs the question. Where’s the literacy education going on out there? And, do Americans know how information sources like this are produced?

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

You would think, then, that the leadership would tread more carefully when posting news to the internet on the topic but this hasn’t been the case. An already oft-quoted blurb from the SLA website reads, “voting in record numbers, SLA members failed to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals.” Note the word failed. While I will admit that I did vote for the name change I’m a little relieved that it didn’t go through. Most importantly, it’s also worth pointing out that the real failure here wasn’t on the part of SLA’s membership. It was on the part of name change proponents to find an adequate replacement.

I am sure of two things though:

1) I am Librarian. This doesn’t change the fact that I can fill into multiple roles either. That’s the nature of the profession. It’s changing along with technology and as a traditionally older group retires. We are vast. We contain multitudes.

2) This issue/debate won’t be resolved until I’m much older. Anything and everything that has to do with the transmittal of information is in flux. It’s going to take people a long time to adapt to any switch from analog to digital technology. We don’t even know how far the shift will go.

I don’t know much about his voting record and I don’t care about his politics. I just don’t think I could vote for someone who has repeatedly helped to kill proposals that would allow laptops on the floor of the Missouri State Senate. While I respect his “love of tradition” and his concern that technology can distract people from important business… he has disregarded a few important things:

• Instant access to information could improve debate and discussion.
• The only reason a laptops  haven’t been on the floor of the Senate floor… is because they are relatively new.
• Senators are not in High School. A computer might distract them from time to time but they’re adults. They can focus just fine.
• Opposing the use of laptops or similar equipment makes him come across as a Luddite.

I know that technology has it’s share of problems but barring it from an important institution is not realistic.

As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama’s administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. A primary goal is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. The openness derived from Data.gov will strengthen our Nation’s democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

While I’m not sure about how open datasets will increase government transparency – the general public don’t know jack about analytics – it certainly seems to be a useful tool for researchers, web-developers, and anyone who needs raw data. What is going to be really interesting is how the internet community takes advantage of this it. The Federal Government is the largest statistics keeper in the country, and this certainly creates plenty of opportunities for the library world.

So get out there folks!

World Digital Library: http://www.wdl.org/en/

I promise! I won’t arrest anyone for keeping inspirational books about a teacher’s quest to inspire students to write. Suddenly e-books sound a little more promising than usual.

Segment Replay:

• Libraries and the Economy (Media Player)

• Libraries and the Economy (Real Player)