AZspot

Friday 12 March 2010

Do Blog Readers Self-Segregate or Deliberate? ☀

Apparently, all of you people out there aren’t reading much that disagrees with positions you already hold. At least this is the conclusion reached by Eric Lawrence, John Sides, and Henry Farrell in the latest issue of Perspectives on Politics.

Are you just being lazy or did you try it for awhile and realize that reading something written from the opposite side of the political spectrum made you too angry every morning?

My Google Reader subscriptions tally to 1,769 feeds. While I cannot give an accurate calculation of the ratio of various political spectrums nor guarantee that’s an even 1:1:1:1 ratio, I can assure you that reflected in the contents are voices from all political persuasions. From radical Chomsky loving leftists to paleo-conservatives at the American Conservative. From adulatory Ludwig von Mises lovers at Lew Rockwell to up and coming hopeful conservatives at the Next Right. From liberal leanings by Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman to the crunchy Cons at Front Porch Republic. From the staunchly conservative neo-reformed Christian crowd to progressive people of the way.

About the only material I actively discriminate against is the Jay Rosen termed “church of the savvy” stylings of mainstream pundits like David Broder, Richard Cohen, George Will, etc.… Or the party propaganda orchestrated and espoused by loyal apparatchiks, on either side of the American party duopoly.

But, then, I’m such a political outcast that I find some level of agreement and disagreement in just about everything I read.

Before you can tear down an argument, you must be able to deconstruct it. And to deconstruct it, means you must learn and study it first. To see the perspective from an devoted, heartfelt advocate of such a plank.

Saturday 6 March 2010

Savviness! Deep down, that’s what reporters want to believe in and actually do believe in— their own savviness and the savviness of certain others (including operators like Karl Rove.) In politics, they believe, it’s better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere or humane. Savviness is what journalists admire in others. Savvy is what they themselves dearly wish to be. (And to be unsavvy is far worse than being wrong.) Savviness—that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, “with it,” and unsentimental in all things political—is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. Jay Rosen ☀

Tuesday 8 September 2009

Yesterday, Meet the Press hosted a panel discussion to debate two primary issues: (1) foreign policy — specifically, the war in Afghanistan, and (2) health care. The panel: Rudy Giuliani, Tom Friedman, Harold Ford, Jr., and Tom Brokaw (as Jay Rosen often notes, Meet the Press is doing a fantastic job of fulfilling its pledge to present “fresh voices” in its discussions). With regard to Afghanistan, there is a major debate currently taking place about whether we should stay in that country. A majority of Americans now opposes the war. But there was not a single participant there who shares that view. All of them believe that it is imperative we remain, and put on their little General hats to exchange deeply Serious analyses of how we need to adjust our strategy and tactics for greater mission success. Of course, all of three of those whose views were known about Iraq — Friedman, Ford and Giuliani — were vehement supporters of the invasion. As always, not only does support for that war not produce shame or even impair one’s credibility and Seriousness, but the opposite is true: having supported it is a prerequisite for being considered credible and Serious, which is why those are the only people — still — from whom we hear when it’s time to convene Serious discussions of foreign policy. What an odd filtering standard for The Liberal Media to use. Glenn Greenwald ☀

Sunday 6 September 2009

Twitter / Jay Rosen

☀

Monday 20 July 2009

My Top 25 Podcasts (2009) ☀

Back in 2007, soon after the genesis of this humble online adobe, I composed a Top 10 Podcast post.

Here in 2009, it’s mushroomed to a 25 count list. Mainly because I struggled with which ones to leave out of the top 10 list and cordon off into an “honorable mentions” bracket. So, in haste, decided to dump my whole iTunes podcast subscription suite (almost, there’s actually a few more that I don’t have listed here). The ones occupying the bottom of the list are either relatively new entries or shows that pile up but are infrequently played.

This American Life — fellow family members and friends are puzzled about my adulation on what I believe to be the greatest radio show ever… …I find the program to be fascinating and riveting, even on matters I am faintly interested in… …and it’s high quality, professionally produced fare too, a delight for the auditory organs.
Bill Moyers Journal — there is just not any other program like this on television right now, providing a forum for knowledgeable subject matter experts in long form (at least for the medium it is created for) interviews… …sort of the un-Larry King of talk shows. Moyers can meander into excessive preachy mode, but again, the guests and the questions that are not asked on all those other shows make this show.
This Week in Tech — Leo Laporte’s podcast universe’s flagship product… …of recent, quality has started to suffer as I believe (a) Leo has too many irons in the fire, (b) is increasingly coming across a spoiled tech debutante far detached from typical tech users and (c) needs to shuffle some of the panelists off. This ranking is mainly reflective of past years and Leo’s pioneering in this realm.
Thom Hartmann Show — Probably the talk show host that comes closest to mirroring my political views. Which makes me wonder if his program would rate so high if I did not. As a radio host, he’s full of flaws: (a) still hasn’t mastered inflection and speaking into the microphone, though he’s conducted a radio show for many years now and (b) his intro segments where he “duels” with libertarian thinkers, neoconservatives and paleoconservatives are too short, and worse, he’s often “bested” in debate, especially when engaging with a crafty righty like Frank Luntz. I keep wishing he’s eschew the whole token 10 minute “debate an opponent” affair and instead, slot an hour where he could invite a full panel — one additional person for his “side”, who’s much more knowledgeable in the subject up for discussion, and two in opposition, along with time in the second half hour for callers to get a crack at the panelists.
Media Matters with Bob McChesney — Professor McChesney’s program is one of the few places where I can listen to Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Mark Weisbrot, John Pilger, etc.… …all the voices shunned on mainstream outlets.
Three Moves Ahead — I don’t even own a Windows machine anymore so most of the banter on strategy computer games flies past me but I do harbor an affection for strategy games (card, board, or electronic) and the host and panelists do talk about the greatest turn based strategy game ever. One of the frequent panelists, Bruce Geryk, was the author of the Dominions 3 manual.
MacBreak Weekly — by next year, this show may not even be on this list. Outside of the annual MacWorld and Mac developer conferences, the panelists struggle for subjects, and the conversation descends into silliness. And the way they use their Macs may be congruent with those adorning money hats, it’s just not that practical for me.
Woodland Hills Church - Sermon messages from Pastor Greg Boyd, author of The Myth of a Christian America and The Myth of a Christian Religion.
The Media Squat with Douglas Rushkoff — Media pontificator and modern day McLuhan wannabe Douglas Rushkoff ventures into radioland.
Real Time with Bill Maher — I think Bill Maher is a detestable fellow. But he’s funny.
Antiwar Radio — The program’s web page title still lists longtime Phoenix radio jock Charles Goyette as a host, but I think it’s a strictly Scott Horton (not to be confused with this Scott Horton) run enterprise now.
Democracy Now — Amy Goodman’s enterprise delivers news from a leftist point of view.
FLOSS Weekly — A podcast featuring interviews with interesting figures from the world of free and/or open source software. Hosted by Randal Schwartz and sometimes Leo Laporte.
KunstlerCast — James Howard Kunstler’s acerbic rants are better delivered in written form. In audio, his blustering frequently comes across as “get off my lawn you infantile baggy pant wearin’, tatoo stamped sluggo”.
Behind the News with Doug Henwood — Economics commentary and interviews, hosted by Left Business Observer publisher Doug Henwood. I enjoy listening to Henwood, though he seems awfully jaded, often firing many more darts at those on the left, who at first take, would seem to be more sympathetic to his worldview. Or maybe we can just award him with +1 in objectivity.
Brain Science Podcast with Dr. Ginger Campbell — Dr. Campbell explores discoveries in the world of neuroscience. Fascinating, but there is a major annoyance (have not listened recently, so it may have been remedied since my last podcast consumption) in that the commercial advertisement inclusions are at a decibel level exponentially greater than the content in the rest of the program.
EconTalk — Professor Russ Roberts discusses economics with a right/libertarian Hayekian bent.
Le Show — the voice of the Simpsons Mr. Burns and Waylon Smithers (along with a slew of other characters) has his very own NPR comedy show. It’s a hit or miss affair, and Shearer isn’t bashful about letting his politics seep into the comedic material. Still, some funny bit gems to be discovered here.
Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show — Actor Kevin Pollak has jumped into the podcast game, and from my brief listening experience to date, he’s got an engaging show. Interesting, lengthy (his podcast clocks in at over 2+ hours, though that includes his intro bits) interviews with directors, actors and celebrities like Kevin Smith and Felicia Day. And listeners get a chance to play the Larry King game.
Glenn Greenwald Radio — is a professionally produced quality affair, but the schedule is just so sporadic.
Rebooting the News — Dave Winer and Jay Rosen on rebooting journalism in the age of the interwebs.
Berkman Center for Internet and Society — I love the subject matter and the speakers, but the audio quality is extremely poor. It sounds like somebody is recording from a Sports Illustrated sneaker phone in the back of a conference hall.
Trinity Mennonite Church — Sermon messages by local Glendale, AZ pastor Shane Hipps, author of Flickering Pixels.
Truth Seekers — Fellow Valley native and friend Dani Cutler.
NPR Fresh Air — Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Gross’s interviews, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, are “a remarkable blend of empathy, warmth, genuine curiosity, and sharp intelligence”.

Some additional ramblings on podcasts:

Podcasts should be posted promptly. No later than the following day. For most podcasts, waiting more than a few days top publish — why bother wasting disk space and bandwidth for a show that’s gone stale already. Sure, there are some podcasts for which there is a timeless quality to. But most, especially those that deal with tech related subjects, need to be published posthaste. Which is why Leo Laporte’s syndicated “The Tech Guy” podcast is not on this here list.
Even with limited funds, it’s really not a herculean effort to produce a quality audio podcast. A decent mike, a stable broadband connection, and freeware software is all that is required. There’s really no excuse for substandard audio in 2009.

What are your favorite podcasts?

Comments (View)

Saturday 7 February 2009

…if Amy Goodman came on “Meet the Press,” she would say all sorts of things that not only challenge the people on the program, but challenge what they have been saying over the years. Would go back, in a sense, discredit the narrative that’s been building up for a long time. And even though it’s maybe not wholly conscious, the idea that there’s a kind of building narrative that is more or less accurate, that we kind of tell you what’s going on in Washington, is a common assumption in the press. And people who would completely shatter that, don’t. Jay Rosen ☀

Monday 12 January 2009

We can now see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition. In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news. Jay Rosen ☀

Wednesday 31 December 2008

I doubt that ink on paper can ever replace the smell, the feel of the Internet in my hands. Jay Rosen ☀

Friday 10 October 2008

What happens when, in a competitive, two-party system, you have asymmetrical warfare conducted against the press by one — but not the other — of the two major parties? In asymmetrical warfare, they get to blast you and try to lower your negatives and turn as many people off to your reporting as they can reach with cultural resentment projected at the media, and even whip up the crowd against you at rallies and stuff, and you’re supposed to be (I’m guessing now, correct me if I am wrong…) stoic newsmen. Jay Rosen ☀

Thursday 18 September 2008

People in journalism who want to bring ethics to blogging ought to start with why people trust bloggers, not with an ethics template made for a prior platform that was a closed system in a one-to-many world. That’s why I say: if bloggers had no ethics blogging would have failed. Of course it didn’t. Now you have a clue. Jay Rosen ☀

Wednesday 3 September 2008

John McCain’s convention gambit is a culture war strategy. It depends for its execution on conflict with journalists, as well as bloggers (the “angry left,” Bush called them) along with confusion between and among the press, the blogosphere, and the Democratic party. It revives cultural memory: the resentment narrative after Chicago ‘68 but with the angry left more distributed. At the center of the strategy is the flashpoint candidacy of Sarah Palin, a charismatic figure around whom the war can be fought to scale, as it were. Jay Rosen ☀

Tuesday 22 January 2008

But the biggest advantage of horse-race journalism is that it permits reporters and pundits to “play up their detachment.” Focusing on the race advertises the political innocence of the press because “who’s gonna win?” is not an ideological question. By asking it you reaffirm that yours is not an ideological profession. This is experienced as pleasure by a lot of mainstream journalists. Ever noticed how spirits lift when the pundit roundtable turns from the Middle East or the looming recession to the horse race, and there’s an opportunity for sizing up the candidates? To be manifestly agenda-less is journalistic bliss. Of course, since trying to get ahead of the voters can affect how voters view the candidates, the innocence, too, is an illusion. But a potent one. Jay Rosen ☀

AZspot

My Top 25 Podcasts (2009) ☀

Recent Text Posts ▶

Mastermind ▶

More Tumblr ▶