Capitol Valley

Was that headline provocative enough for you? Are you reading? Good! I'm going to let you in on a secret...

...there is NO SUCH THING as "Citizen Journalism."

Do I have to repeat myself? I'll say it one more time.

There is NO SUCH THING as "Citizen Journalism."

Good. Now I've really got your attention. Please keep reading.

The web allows anyone to publish anything, pretty much at any time, on any subject. With some SEO voodoo, it can even get to a good place in search results.

Cheap video and still digital cameras, broadband, and the advent of blogging have brought about this idea of "citizen journalism," presumably to report the "real" stories that get ignored by "mainstream media." Many bloggers have assumed this mantle of "citizen journalist," and some sites like The Uptake have embraced the idea of publishing firsthand reporting by Joe Sixpack, as Sarah Palin would say. Some sites take this further, like the "collaborative journalism" of NowPublic. CNN has had an "iReport" site that posts "citizen journalists'" clips, reports, and other snippets.

This isn't neccesarily a bad thing. I have no formal training in journalism, and I think the more people out there who are reporting on events, the better.

But I do think the idea of "citizen journalism" needs to be abandoned, for good. Heck, I even hate the word "blogger," especially when describing people like Josh Marshall, who won a Polk Award (for journalism) based on his Talking Points Memo work on the US Attorney scandal.

I've covered events, Congressional hearings, and other issues as an independent writer and on behalf of other organizations. I haven't always gotten paid. But I've never called myself a "citizen journalist."

On the other hand, I do think that when I do these things, I am practicing journalism. Not citizen journalism, just journalism.

If you report on, provide informed analysis or document events for the benefit of an audience in a true and accurate manner, that's journalism. It's ok, in my opinion, to have a slant or to call out untruths when you see them. Some people think that reporting requires you to get someone to tell you 2+2=4. I'm not so sure I always agree. Facts are facts, and obvious facts are...obvious.

But when you're reporting a breaking story that isn't a widely known fact, you should be checking on the veracity of the story. That means sending emails, making phone calls, or getting off your butt and talking to people, BEFORE you publish. Publishing untruths, like the idiot who told the world (erroneously) that Steve Jobs had a heart attack, is not only irresponsible, but it's not journalism. It's rumour-mongering.

Calling it "citizen journalism" and holding it to a lower standard is nothing but a cop-out. Journalism is not a licensed profession, like law or medicine. But it is similar in that it has some fundimental ethical principles that journalists follow:

• Don't publish things that aren't true.
  
• Check your sources. Check them twice. If you're not sure, don't publish. Being right is better than being first and wrong.
• Ask questions. Be skeptical. Don't be a mouthpiece.
  
• Avoid conflicts, or disclose them fully and prominently. Kara Swisher has been a shining beacon on this front. Read her disclosure statements. They are easy to find, candid, and leave nothing to question, unlike some other tech bloggers. I respect Michael Arrington, but having a subordinate write about a company you have a stake in is not good enough.
  

This is what Kara has to say about investments:

I have investments in several group funds, which are managed without my input primarily by an investment bank, and they might from time to time put my money into funds that buy shares of stock in the companies I write about. But I do not have any knowledge about when they buy and sell any shares. I also have several general stock-index mutual funds related to my former employment at Dow Jones, but none is specifically technology-focused, although any one might, from time to time, acquire shares in some technology companies I write about. In this case, as with all my investments, I also have no knowledge of when they buy and sell any shares.

Anyway, considering what happened to Apple's stock Friday, I will continue to be highly skeptical of anyone who invests in companies that they or their subordinates write about. Arrington has a reputation for firing people for linking to other tech blogs. How do you think he'd handle a negative review of one of his investments?

"Citizen Journalism" does not exist. There is good journalism, and there is bad journalism. Whether you are paid or not is not at issue. The issue is how you go about doing it.

If your house catches fire, the people who put it out may be volunteers, or they may get paid. But they still go into burning buildings, and they all have the same commitment to doing it right.

Think about it.

H/T Andrew Noyes/Tech Daily Dose

This has been old news for a while, but Congress is finally starting to ask questions, as CNN Money reports:

In a letter sent to the companies Tuesday, Dingell noted that the five-member FCC could be forced to operate with just four commissioners - two Republicans and two Democrats - as early as November, and they could split votes on controversial decisions.

Currently, the commission consists of three Republicans and two Democrats, but Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate's term ends when Congress ends its current session. A new commissioner likely won't be appointed until after a new administration and Congress begins next year.

I've written about this before, and the folks at Communications Daily were on it over a month ago. But many FCC-watchers are neglecting to mention the fact that Tate was supposed to have been gone last week, the 26th having been the date that the House was to adjourn sine die (ending the 110th Congress). The Senate, on the other hand, will be holding pro forma sessions to prevent President Bush from replacing Tate with a recess appointment.

Another thing -- if Sen. Obama wins the election, there is a good possibility that Chairman Martin (K-Mart) may resign, leaving room for Obama to elevate either Michael Copps or Jonathan Adelstein to the Chairmanship, or bring in his own man in addition to replacing Tate's GOP-held seat (the FCC cannot have more than 3 of the same party).

But this may not happen until March, so the FCC will be operating 2-2. And currently, forbearance petitions (requests for the FCC to waive rules) are deemed granted if the Commission doesn't act, or there is a tie vote (say the Telcos). Dingell wants to know why a regulation should be automatically waived in the case of a tie (or no vote), as opposed to requiring an affirmative vote before granting forbearance.

Good question. .

Good question.

Another filing deadline, another blast of press releases about the Comcast "network management" debacle.

To quote the great philosopher Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

No, really. This topic gets people in an uproar, whether it's the good and well-meaning people at Free Press and Public Knowledge, who brought the complaint, or the folks at Comcast and their NCTA brethren, who have made a valiant effort at reaching out to the Internet community and explaining themselves. They have a great blog. Seriously.

At first, I think there was some justified anger out there. I know there was some major ranting on this blog about what was, in hindsight was a poor P.R. response on the part of Comcast.

See, Network Neutrality was originally this fear that the owners of the big pipes were going to charge Google and others premiums to have their content carried, despite the fact that GOOG and their ilk already pay. This came out of some rather inartful comments by the CEO of what was then AT&T, who ranted about Internet companies making money using "his" infrastructure.

This whole "network management" issue is totally different, but the Network Neutrality debate shifted from the long-haul to the last mile. And Comcast, bless them, didn't react well. First they said there was nothing going on, then admitted it. Then back in March they announced an agreement to try and work out the technical issues that make Cable so difficult a platform to deliver consistant bandwidth on when P2P applications come into play.

Skip ahead to today. Free Press blasted out a release saying it's time for Comcast to "come clean" on their practices, when we know what they are doing, and have known for months.

"Last month, the FCC found Comcast guilty of violating users' online rights," Free Press said. But let's be honest here. Guilty? Last time I looked, not only was the FCC not a criminal court, but there is even dispute over whether or not the FCC can regulate broadband.

But a Free Press spokesperson said that guilty, which has a specific meaning in criminal law, was appropriate as a term of art, "given the amount of deception involved."

Ben Scott, FP's Policy Director even suggested that Comcast might go "AWOL," and not file. But a spokesperson for Comcast was quite adamant in assuring me that the "highly technical" filings would be in the commission's hands "by close of business." Comcast will also make them available at http://www.comcast.net/networkmanagement after filing them with the commission.

Let's cool off until we see what everyone's cards are, shall we?

It's K-Mart!!!

{originally posted at Technosailor.com]

So, has anyone else been watching Wall Street do the 2000 style dot-com dance while the TechCrunch-watching, TechMeme-obsessed crowd throws parties like it's 1999? I feel for the guys at Lehman and AIG, some of them my age, now out on the street. In fact, I feel even more sorry for them than I did for the guys caught in the dot-com bust.

Those guys in 2000 had skills but no one to pay them. These guys in 2008 have no skill except moving non-existent money around. Now don't get me wrong. I feel awful watching people clear out their offices. I've had to do it when I've been laid off. It's no fun. You pack up the place where you spend a third of your life (8 hours a day, right?) into boxes. You turn in keys. Sometimes a guard has to walk you out. Company policy, you know.

Lehmen's situation is so bad they're not even doing that, they're too busy trying to cash in their scrip at the company cafeteria to get a few meals before the food runs out. And it's horrifying because some of these people have spent their careers at places like Lehman and Merrill Lynch, moving up through the ranks by selling and being able to sell more and more, faster and faster. They worked long, long hours. But they got huge bonuses. They got rich. I'm not so concerned about the ones who got the massive bonuses (unless they blew it all on cars and stereo gear), but I am worried about the guy at Lehman's London office who signed a lease and now has no job. That could be me.

And that was many of the people I know in the tech industry, who are warily watching a new host of companies get huge and valuable. Google is always the example, with their buses and meals. Facebook is another one. Even smaller companies like Twitter and Qik are getting new digs and cash infusions. And the fear among many is that we're in another dot-com bubble.

We're not, but we could be if we're not smart. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing overseas while the financial sector...just disappears. But Silicon Valley is doing O.K. for now.

For now. There are some monumentally stupid things that need to happen if we want to keep the tech sector, which has become our economic lifeboat, floating:

1. The 111th Congress must pass an Immigration bill that has fewer H1-B visas. That's right. Fewer temporary visas for high-tech workers. Strike that provision. Replace it with a fast-track process to give those workers green cards, and fast-track them to citizenship.
2. You've heard this before, but our immigration policies around universities are insane and must stop. When I was an undergraduate, I was on the rowing team at the University of Wisconsin (this year's national champions, fyi). I had a teammate who was a Chinese national. He had gone to high school in the U.S. and came to Wisconsin for college. Each year, we went to Texas for a winter training trip during our (long) winter break. Before that, people generally went home for Christmas, and went back home for another week and a half after the trip. But this kid had to stay in Wisconsin. Because if he left, it would take months to get permission to get back in. Unconscionable. My teammate couldn't go home for 9 months. It's harder to get a student visa than ever, when we should have more of them. Harvard and Yale and Caltech and Stanford and Wisconsin and Michigan are competing with the Indian Institutes of Technology, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne and like 50 universities in China that are churning out engineers and coders and inventors and entrepreneurs like mad. Want to come to the U.S. and study something cool? Great! Got a degree? Stay for another! Got that one? Here's a green card! Get a job! Start a company!
3. Google and Microsoft and H-P and the entire U.S. tech sector needs to give up their dirty little secret -- their Chinese and Indian R&D labs. Bring some of those people back here. I know how much money you spend on lobbying, and it's not enough when it comes to immigration. Throw your weight around and get it done. It's OK to have people overseas, but you should keep your base here. Keep the mindshare here.
4. The U.S. must have more broadband access nationwide, both fiber and wireless. Sorry Comcast, but caps won't cut it. You need to do more. And the Government? We need a true National Broadband Strategy. Whether financed by private capital or not. The railroads powered the boom of the 1800s, the Interstate made the 20th century's success possible. And I'm sorry to bring back this metaphor, but Broadband is the Information Super Highway. And we need it to get built, NOW. We need it built with the enthusiasm of the transcontinental railroad, the transatlantic telegraph cables, and the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower got the idea from Hitler's autobahns, but who has been watching Korea's broadband network? Japan's bullet trains? Our infrastructure must be reinvigorated with technology, like broadband, and real transit. Let people and information get around. Fast. We need more speed.

What am I saying? Lehman and Bear Stearns collapsed because there was nothing underneath. There was no product. Just empty credit and "irrational exuberance."

Despite our fears, our Web 2.0 economy is producing something. The struggle to "monetize" will fade as platforms allow products to be built. Products. Look at the iTunes App Store. Those products are selling. How many are American-coded? Stop thinking about monetizing and advertising and start thinking about creating something of value and selling it.

The factories need workers, and the products need a way to get to the customers.

No more hollow shells. No more Webvans. No more Lehmans. They were selling each other air.

To survive, we need to attack the information age like the industrial age. 2008 is 1958 is 1888. The opportunity for innovation can keep our economy going if we develop products.

I know some will say that I'm insane, the paradigms have shifted, and we can't exist in a vacuum. The world is flat, blah blah. If indeed the world (and the country) is flat, that flat ground is perfect for digging foundations and building new factories for new products in a new economy.

So around the middle of July there was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on laptops being searched at the border by Customs. Witnesses had concerns over the scope of searches, sometimes with the laptops not being returned. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was not pleased.

But there is now a bill pending that would require some accountability from DHS...introduced on the House side by Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-California. H.R. 6869 would require reports to Congress by DHS and impose some limits on the searches. But the Courts have already ruled that laptop searches are constitutional, so what's the point? Ars Technica sums it up:

Sanchez's bill would bring more routine to the search process. The bill requires the government to draft additional rules regarding information security, the number of days a device can be retained, receipts that must be issued when devices are taken, ways to report abuses, and it requires the completion of both a privacy impact study and a civil liberties impact study. Travelers would also have the explicit right to watch as the search is conducted.

It's September. The House adjourns at the end of the month unless they recess "subject to the call of the chair," effectively ending the 110th Congress and letting the campaign season go nuts. The Senate will probably hold pro forma sessions, as has become the practice, with a local, either Ben Cardin, D-Md., or Jim Webb, D-Va., gaveling the Senate to order before recessing, only to avoid recess appointments by President Bush.

So what's the point? Over 40 groups wanted this bill months ago. Why nothing?

In its ongoing dispute over "network management" practices, which some are calling the latest battle over so-called "net neutrality," Comcast filed its (expected) appeal today with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (which has jurisdiction over the FCC). They have also appealed the decision to the FCC itself.

Comcast Exec. Vice President David Cohen said of the appeal:

"Although we are seeking review and reversal of the Commission's network management order in federal court, we intend to comply fully with the requirements established in that order, which essentially codify the voluntary commitments that we have already announced, and to continue to act in accord with the Commission's Internet Policy Statement.  Thus, we intend to make the required filings and disclosures, and we will follow through on our longstanding commitment to transition to protocol-agnostic network congestion management practices by the end of this year.  We also remain committed to bringing our customers a superior Internet experience. 

We filed this appeal in order to protect our legal rights and to challenge the basis on which the Commission found that Comcast violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable standards or rules.  We continue to recognize that the Commission has jurisdiction over Internet service providers and may regulate them in appropriate circumstances and in accordance with appropriate procedures.  However, we are compelled to appeal because we strongly believe that, in this particular case, the Commission's action was legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record."

Some on the right are now calling for Net Neutrality as some sort of way to protect themselves against domination by "liberal media." I'm finding this more and more hilarious as the same people who want deregulation in everything else want regulation because they feel like they aren't as good at a medium, so they want a different one regulated because they think they're smart enough to get an advantage. *gag* More later.

Comcast responded to the FCC's order to revise and explain their network management practice.

It's simple, really. They're just going to cut you off at 250GB.

Now think about this. The original premise behind this issue was that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, and potentially cutting off a rival provider of video downloads. Now it's being turned into the more general issue of what is a fair amount of bandwidth.

But here are two points to consider when evaluating Comcast's announcement:

1. Comcast doesn't believe the FCC has the authority to tell them what to do on this. They may be right. The guys over at Technology Liberation Front have some good rationale behind it, and even Bill Kennard, former FCC chairman says that the Commission's K-Mart led majority (since when does Martin agree with Adelstein and Copps?) is probably overreaching.

2. Comcast doesn't care about downloads. They care about uploads. The big idea is that if you can create content, they are no longer the gatekeeper. Already discussion on FriendFeed is saying this. I'm not so sure it's true. Sure, Comcast has an interest in getting you to pay them for cable, etc, but how do they benefit from screwing their customers? Free Press says the real issue is one of monopoly. This might be true where Verizon and ATT haven't been able to roll out Fiber To The Home and where you can't get DBS or DSL, but Comcast doesn't have a monopoly on Internet access.

I would be more interested in discussing #1 than making emotional arguments about #2.

New York's WNBC has this stupidity:

Tomorrow, I'm going to tackle this in detail, but here's the real story. This television "journalist" probably did less research for this segment than the reporters that uncovered John Edwards' affair. Over and over again, you see the same idiotic sound-biting and fearmongering. Second Life is simply the newest target.

I wonder how long it will be before Linden Lab signs "voluntary" agreements with 48 separate attorneys general to monitor Second Life for boogeymen...

Here we go again.