| |
| Disseminating Information |
To: zinesters@webzine99.com
From: Paul Weinstein
Subject: RE: The Use of Technology to Dessiminate Information: KOSOVO
>Frankly, that's one of the things I hate most about the net: the ability for
>'pseudo-babble-claptrap' to be presented as if it is a piece of worth and
>deep philosophical meaning. It will analyse something again and again until
>it can justify anything. Sometimes the world isn't that complex a place and
>our actions do not need justification on such a grandiose scale.
I would disagree, in principle at least. Sure, there are times when the
world isn't complex, but the one thing that I would argue is missing from
the most in our modern media is constructive systems of analysis and
criticism.
Take literature, we're taught to analyze what we read. To look for meaning,
read between the lines, to find what the author is "saying" to us and how
s/he says it. We even have methods of how to go about "understanding text."
Yet for some reason we don't apply, even in some cases refuse to apply,
these methods to other modes of media. "Yeah, Armageddon has a weak plot
and over the top acting, but those special effects where cool man, four
stars."
To borrow from Stephen Jay Gould, "As I have often emphasized ... the study
of error provides a particularly fruitful pathway to understanding human
thought. Truth just is, but error must have reasons." To be sure, the
concepts of "error" and "truth" are a little more muddled in media and life
in general then in Mr. Gould's scientific profession. However, the concepts
still stands, to study and analyze, is to help bring understanding to how
we think and process information.
My question, after reading the discussions about criticizing the news, is
how do we build and teach a constructive system of analysis for media. Or
how do we, at least build one for our small world of the web and webzines.
This may seem "high-minded", but ultimately, it's the only way I can think
of to bring perspective to media and to the information it sends us.
My Two Cents,
-Paul
|
| |
| |
To:
From: Paul Weinstein
Subject: RE: The Use of Technology to Dessiminate Information: KOSOVO
>But debating whether or not our
>involvement is necessary, wise, prudent, or even justified, is completely
>abhorrent to me. If the media in the West takes a particular stance against
>Yugoslavia, I say: Good. They are human beings, after all. I am sure that it
>is very very hard for reporters on the ground with all the refugees to try
>to remain "impartial" to the stories of atrocities.
People will debate involvement in Kosovo long after it's over. I personally
agree that we have a right to get involved because of the atrocities that
have been committed. However, I do questions our methods and more over I
question how the media has presented this debate of involvement. Henry
Kissinger wrote an interesting article for Newsweek last week about how
this war is different from anything else, no comparison between say World
War I or World War II can truly bring understand about the complex issues
involved. Yet it seems to me most of what I hear from the media is, "well
we need to do this because it's just like the issues the world faced in
WWII." In reality some of the issues are, but not all.
Now, I can questions our methods all I want, ultimately, I'm just an
arm-chair politician, with no "real word" experience. But, this arm-chair
politician does vote. How can I make the correct assessment of my voting
power if I can't understand the information about the world that is sent to
me by the media? I need to be able to say ok, now that I got the
information, how did it get to me? What issues are involved with the path
this info took? Where did it come from? All, of this brings me to a point
we I can say, Yes, I agree with this information, or No, I don't. But not
only that, I can answer the favorite question of all my teachers, Why do
you agree or disagree?
I just don't see a method of discerning information being taught, but more
over I think it's needed. Why should I trust information from the media
(one or more sources?) Because it comes from the news and their impartial?
To me that's the same an answering Why with "Just Because."
-Again, Just My Two Cents.
-Paul
<http://www.weinstein.org>
|
| |
| About the popular image of the Internet |
To: "webzine"
From: Paul Weinstein
Subject: Why do people think this? (Was: You got mail from Wired News)
Actually, the most interesting comment in the Wired article for me was the
following:
"The public seemed to buy the explanation. Over half of Americans polled
say the Internet was at least partly responsible for the shooting. In a
CNN/USA Today poll conducted Wednesday, 64 percent of the respondents said
the Net contributed to the tragedy. Only 11 percent said there was no link,
and TV programs, movies and music also got blamed."
The question that isn't asked here is why is this so? Remember that the
latest stat in the PC industry is that only 50% of the households in
American have a PC. Sure, some people have Internet access at work, but on
the same token some people who have PCs at home don't necessarily have or
use Internet access.
So, then the question of why gets answer (some what) with this:
If only 50% have a PC with access (see my disclaimer above) what is the
correlation of this to the 64% who think that the Internet directly relates
to this or any other tragedy? If the correlation is high, that is, that
most of the people with Internet access do think this then; What websites
have they gone to that give them this impression? What else have they seen
online to make them feel/think this way?
On the other hand (and what I think is more likely) if the correlation is
low then most of the people who feel this way haven't really been online.
So what other information sources (friends, neighbors, kids, news, etc)
have given them the impression that this is true.
The question that really effects us is: If 64% of the American People feel
that the Internet directly or indirectly effects people in a negative
(whatever negative is defined as) way, how do we educate (since part of are
charter is: DEMYSTIFY, to EMPOWER, and to CELEBRATE) them about the web and
webzines in particular?
My Two Cents and Some Food for Thought,
-Paul
|
| |
| Two cents on Geocities' Terms of Agreement |
To:
From: Paul Weinstein
Subject: RE: Geocities Terms of agreement
>What I want to know is: Does it include email? Let's say I'm on Yahoo
>email..do they have rights to my email as well? Can they just publish my
>emails because it is sitting free on their servers? Doesn't that all into
>the definition as well?
I don't know what their service agreements says about email (I'll have to
check). But the US Courts have already set the precedent in relationship to
the ownership of email. He who ones the server owns the email (sort of).
Now this precedent was set in relation to people receiving personal email
at work..the courts agreed that the business does have the right to limit
and censor email. Hence they are the ones who own the email for they can
only be allowed to censor if it is provided that they own the right and it
is not a public forum.
The reason why I say sort of is because the business is providing a service
that is work related, the person is not paying for the service. If they
where paying for the service then the situation changes and you can argue
that ownership resides with the payee and not the provider..hence in this
case the owner of the server doesn't necessary own the email.
To give a meatspace example. If I live with my parents (or board for free
with someone) and the police arrive with a search warrant to search my
room, my parents (or whoever) can let them in even if I'm not there...for
they own the space I reside in and thus own access to even my personal
stuff that is residing their. However, if I pay rent to my parents (or
whoever) then they can no longer let the police in to execute the search
warrant and I have to actually be there for the search to commence.
I would agree in principle that the service agreements that Yahoo,
Geocities or whoever may not be totally fair and opens the chance for your
rights to be abused. But in reality the courts do need to draw a line
somewhere and the chance for problems if low.
The obvious moral of the story is that when in doubt you should pay for
your service be it living quarters for you or your web page.
This of course brings us back to square one which is what do people who
want to publish do when or if they can't or won't pay (and make sure they
still own their works)?
-Paul
<http://www.weinstein.org>
|
|
|
| |
"But let no person say what they would or would not do, since we are not judges for ourselves until circumstances call us to act."
-Abigail Adams
|
|
|
