Library Without Walls » Political

My Soapbox

AJ Million — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:52:03 +0000

I said it once. I said it twice. I even said it a third time. Now, the internet utopians have shame on their hands. The message, as they say, might be the medium but what happens when a medium encourages people to stop double-checking their facts?

I’m talking here, of course, about the failure of the media, the government and the “blogosphere” to handle the Shirley Shirod case.

In case you aren’t familiar, three weeks ago a conservative pundit posted an online video of Mrs. Shirod, a Department of Agriculture official, speaking on race and racism. A previous victim, Shirley spoke candidly about her experiences but several statements were used to claim reverse discrimination. To make a long story short, the media picked up on the clip, she was fired, and nobody verified anything. Then the truth came out – her story was a tale of redemption. The clips where out of context.

Over the past year or two, Nicholas Carr has been arguing with journalists and new media advocates about the merits of the Internet. His argument isn’t so much that the Internet is bad as that it encourages short-sighted behavior.

This is the basic idea:

The net allows for quick, easy access to information. Moreover, it’s easy to produce, publish and edit electronic material. Part of new media’s success is due to it’s ease of use and web accessibility. But, in making things easier and more accessible an over-reliance on the internet encourages users to think superficially. Sources, facts and opinions are questioned less.

In short, Carr’s thesis is that the internet works well because it feeds into human nature. Interactivity is an impulsive behavior. But, our innate proclivities often result in negative consequences. Like people getting fired. The fact that a book titled “Don’t Make Me Think“ epitomizes a mainstream approach to web development speaks volumes about it’s merits and demerits.

At it’s best the web is intuitive to users and creates a democratizing effect. We can all act on instinct, skim a page, or post to Facebook. It is also true, however, that an over-reliance on intuition does not lend well to careful observation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Internet is a great thing. It’s perfectly feasible for people to learn to use it in a responsible way. To do that, though, I think requires the careful cultivation of our habits. Once upon a time focused thought was encouraged. Now, we rush to use computers as a “time saver.”

Being able to read does not make one fully literate. Neither does being able to use the internet. Yet, we continue to be obsessed with accessibility and being able to find information as quick as possible.

Bad idea. Here’s why.

Once upon a time publishing was a controlled, one-shot process. A lot of time and effort went into printing material. Now, anyone can publish to the web and it’s easy to have trouble distinguishing between “good” and “bad” information. There’s so much! Format, or creator, doesn’t necessarily determine quality but we aren’t taught how to identify quality information. I never took a class to tell the truth from lies. Most people don’t underlying mechanisms that make new media function either.

Unfamiliarity limits perspective.

Moreover, as companies like Google emphasize ease of use… finding quality information takes a back seat. The nature of the web is open and free, but that can be a bad thing. Especially, when you don’t realize what you’re dealing with.

Keeping em’ Honest

AJ Million — Sat, 08 May 2010 19:18:33 +0000

Last October I singled out Gary Nodler (R-Sen.) from Joplin, because he helped to block the use of laptops by Missouri State Senators. At the time I said I wouldn’t vote for him if he ever runs for a statewide office. Turns out he is. He’s looking to take Roy Blunt’s U.S. Representative seat in southwest Missouri where I grew up.

My, how the tables turn!

This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.

I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.

This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.

Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.

Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.

What You Want to Find

AJ Million — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:33:07 +0000

With tomorrow’s vote on health-care reform due, it’s become increasingly obvious that Americans get the majority of information from sources that back up what they already believe. I’ve already argued in another post that I believe the internet and ”cheap media” has made this possible. Now, as a librarian – a supposed expert in research methodology – I’m willing to go a step farther. I think it has to do with market specific media segmentation.

This morning I took the time to read through a variety of sources concerning Congresses’ effort and the results were telling. Predictably, everything fell into camps that catered to their target demographic’s pre-conceived perceptions. What does this mean for the future of objective research? Is the “media,” if such a group exists anymore, fostering too much democracy?

My point isn’t so much that the media are to blame for Americans not “getting along.” As long as differences in opinion have existed, so have different information sources. Plus, to stay solvent a number of news agencies have had to market to specific audiences. Instead, what I’m arguing is that we are seeing something unique thanks to information being so easy to produce and find.

Newspapers, broadcasters, and other media producers have to segment the market to thrive. Simultaneously, people can find skewed information that backs up their beliefs easier than ever before. The two form a circular process in which the public can look for what they want and the media can produce more of it. They rely on one another. They’re supercharged by the internet and computers. It’s common to talk about clamor in democracy as occurring in a feedback room. I think a completely different feedback process is occurring as we speak.

Is Free Information Really “Free?”

AJ Million — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:19:03 +0000

Unless you’ve lived Ted Kaczynski style this past year, nobody in their right mind would say it’s been a harmonious one – politically, socially, or economically. I guess you can say a lot of people are pissed off. They’re pissed at heathcare reform, they’re pissed at the economy, and they’re pissed at a gazillion other little things like the I-Pad. Let’s face it, in America righteous indignation is in.

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.

An Informed Move

AJ Million — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:42:37 +0000

If Sen. Gary Nadler ever runs for a statewide office there’s a good chance I won’t vote for him.

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.

Anti-Political Correctness?

AJ Million — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:06:10 +0000

I usually avoid politics here at Library Without Walls but Adam Potthast, a Professor at Missouri S&T, has posted an excellent read on Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the simmilar crew of conservative “talk media” politicos. Essentially, he argues that years of railing aginst government and political correctness have brought Republicans to where they are today; Glen Beck and rowdy town halls. It’s not a treatise on the topic, but it helps provide a starting point for a discussion on today’s “populism.” Read the full post here.

Using Less “Stuff,” Part #1

AJ Million — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:26:40 +0000

Part 1 | Part 2

Have you ever wondered where all the stuff we buy comes from and where it goes when we throw it out? I couldn’t. So I looked it up! And what the textbooks say is that stuff moves through a system. From extraction, to production, to distribution, to consumption, to disposal. All together it’s called the materials economy.

- The Story of Stuff

I’ve always been surrounded by people who are mindful of human impacts on the environment. So, when I packed up and went to college I payed close attention to an up-and-coming form of environmentalism; sustainability. I can’t say exactly how it caught my attention, but the differences between sustainability and previous environmental approaches are notable.

Traditional environmentalism advocates conservation and preservation. Think of Jane Goodall fighting to save gorilla habitat or the government creating a national park. The other. Well, the other – if it’s not carefully heeded – means that humans need to drastically change the way they live. Proponents of sustainable living practices note that we only have a finite number of resources on Earth and that it’s our duty to change present consumption habits from linear to sustainable ones.

Unfortunately, this is not only a tall order but it’s complex to boot. Complex enough in fact that it requires every portion of the materials economy (including you) to do it’s share! Previous identification of environmental issues weren’t quite like this. Take, for example, halting global climate change… perhaps the largest issue identified by environmentalists to date. Scientists point out that they think Earth’s recent warming trend is being caused by Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and that it comes from tangible sources. Human sources! The United States yearly transportation accounts for 529 million metric tons of CO2 released a year while Industrial, Commercial, and Residential sources produce 447, 340, and 296 million tons respectively.

So, without taking too much time to go into Global Warming, an important point needs to be made: previous environmental protection measures have identified specific problems and sought to reduce or resolve their severity to protect the environment. In cutting CO2 emissions humans can take drastic measures that change their lifestyle, but that’s where the impact stops – the problem being fixed. Sustainability, instead focuses on making an entire society sustainable. It follows that human influences are treated differently. Sustainability is an orientation toward the world around us… not an attempt to resolve or avoid singular problems that constitute the whole. And, because it doesn’t limit itself it requires help to make feasible. A lot of help. Humans can try and act as stewards and protect the environment on a case-by-case basis, but unless we try to do so in a sustainable manner (across the breadth of the materials economy) a long-term risk is run; we can run out of a given resource. We can damage local ecosystems and the planet beyond repair too.

This is where I intrude.

I think that, properly used, digital libraries can help librarians do their part to “go green.”

Certainly, the concept of sustainability is controversial to some, and Cornucopians argue that humans can always find ways around or through our problems. Transforming the global economy to a sustainable footing may also turn out to come at a very high social, humanitarian, or economic cost!

Not being willing to ignore these objections I personally believe that it never hurts to prepare for the future. That in mind, I am willing to argue that digital libraries can offset a number of environmental and ecological problems. Plus, since libraries are moving toward a dependence on digital material anyway it seems harmless to entertain the benefits of such a model. If it helps the environment then great! If it can be run on a realistic sustainable model even better still.

Retro Thing

AJ Million — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:47:04 +0000

No wonder my Blog doesn’t get any love. There’s just too much good stuff out there. I stumbled across Retro Thing the other day which fits perfectly with my current Amateur Astronomy obsession. Lots of cool gadgets!

Tip O’ My Hat

AJ Million — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:21:38 +0000

Normally, I’m not one to praise politicians for fulfilling promises. After all, political vows usually ring hollow or aren’t met thanks to partisan wrangling, bickering, or compromise. I get that. Democracy itself is compromise, and sometimes politicians can’t follow through on the issues that they would like. But, at least in regards to his promise to provide “open and transparent government” – especially regarding the TARP and ARRA – President Obama has thus far delivered.

Case in point: Discretionary funding for transportation improvements.

Yesterday, I had a question at work regarding when the U.S. Department of Transportation would be able to release discretionary funding to the States. Thanks to an online version of the ARRA, the newly created Recovery.gov, and several other online resources I was able to find out exactly when the funding would be open for competitive bidding. Mind you, this let me sort through a 400 page legal document in 10 minutes.

If the Federal Government can keep this up then as someone who does this for a living I might just be impressed.

The Internet a utility?

AJ Million — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:57:47 +0000

When my parents moved to rural Fordland, Missouri two years ago they expected to give up a few luxuries. First, they have to commute to town for work, food, and most of their basic needs. Sometimes this includes a thirty minute drive to Springfield. Second, they gave up local utilities, and at least in part thanks to my dad, are living on a home-brewed utility network (i.e. a well and several solar panels). But, they never realized how much of a pain it was to get access to external information.

The Webster County Library is twenty miles away and their only options for Internet access are dial-up and an expensive satellite Internet contract. A few months ago the local phone company provided DSL service to the rest of the people on their road, but because they live in a valley the company decided not to hook them up. Interestingly enough this presents a very unique situation. With the Internet out of reach and broadband necessary to access all but the most basic sites my parents are effectively being denied a link to the outside world. Given a recent NPR piece on rural Internet networks this is the case for about 10% of the United States.

Twenty years ago nobody would have considered the Internet and information access to be a utility. I’m not so sure this is the case anymore. With important Government information, forms, and other private sector data only accessible online those without access are left, well, disenfranchised. The children who group up in rural environments are notably at a disadvantage as well. Though I haven’t taken the time to lay out a strong argument for it my intuitions certainly seem to hint that the Internet is a utility that all Americans should have access to. After all, isn’t the cornerstone of Democracy an informed general populace?