December 17, 2004

(Updated) For Visiting OPB Listeners

This Thread's For You

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

While we continue in the background to cobble together some items on actual news, we figured some sort of place-holder item might be in order, in case any listeners of this afternoon's edition of Oregon Territory come through.

If you have any reaction, comments, or questions feel free to post them in the comments to this item, and hopefully we and other Oregon bloggers will offer some response.

Meanwhile, here's a K5M post with live updates posted during the broadcast which ended half an hour or so ago. If anyone missed the show, the above-linked page for Oregon Territory has links to the archived streaming audio.

As suggested over on BlueOregon we'll try to get a transcript of the broadcast together for posting here, though that may not happen until over the weekend, unless someone else beats us to it.

And our thanks to host Christy George and her producer Pete Springer for not participating in the media habit of too often mangling things. We, at least, are satisfied that what aired is a pretty accurate representation of the discussion.

December 18, 2004

Update

First, we really are getting other writing done for posting this weekend, it's just taking a little longer than we had hoped. Plus, we had to run downtown to the Multnomah County Library, where the opening reception for an exhibit on World War II shipyard workers was being held.

But the real reason for this update is to say that the archived mp3s of this broadcast are still not functioning. Email has been sent and passed along to the technical people behind the OPB site, but we have no idea what their weekend schedule is like, so it's still just a matter of checking now and then to see if its been properly posted.

December 19, 2004

Update

As of early this afternoon, the archived streams are now functioning properly. We haven't had the chance to check them, but we assume that the second one is where the Oregon blogger discussion happens.

« Previous Next »

Comments (10)

  1. The One True b!X on 17 Dec 2004

    Anyone else having trouble getting anything out of those archived stream links? Other such links off of OPB are working fine for me, but those from today was doing absolutely nothing for me.

  2. allehseya on 17 Dec 2004

    Ditto. What if it's due to -- say -- too many people trying at once? ;]

    I have a lot of thoughts about the show and content, but I want to quote you each where applicable -- maybe OPB will offer a transcript?

  3. The One True b!X on 17 Dec 2004

    Actually, it's because the actual mp3 file that's referenced by the m3u streaming file doesn't actually exist yet on the OPB server.

  4. Anonymous on 18 Dec 2004

    I just wanted to comment on this show. While I do agree that blogging is becoming a more prevalent activity on the internet, it's nothing new, moreover it’s a rehashed version of other technologies. Long before blogs there were Internet Newsgroups and Discussion Forums. Both of which provide open forums for the discussion of topics, in a public medium (the Internet) and are indexed by major internet search engines (google, yahoo, etc.). Long before the internet, there were FIDO Newsgroups, a national network of telephone-based Bulletin Board System (BBS) discussion groups.

    I was disappointed that the commentary from your guests on the show touted this as a "revolutionary" concept for the internet... it seems to me they were more enamored with THEIR use of blogs than the prevalence it has on the internet. In count, there are in excess of 2 million US-Based Discussion Forum sites and over 18,000 Newsgroups. All of which provide the exact same thing blogging does, and have for the past 15 years.

    Regardless of my opinion, I did enjoy the show and the content! :o)

  5. Elaine of Kalilily on 18 Dec 2004

    Annonymous --
    I have to disagree. While all of those earlier net technologies you mentioned did and do offer a place for inclusive conversation and discussion, those venues, unlike blogs
    1. do not reflect the talents and skills of an individual personality
    2. cannot develop a reputation for being a place for accurately researched information
    3. don't provide an opportunity for creative design
    4. don't have hyperlinking to related material as a fundamental part of its art
    5. don't attract the same level of skillfull writers
    6. don't offer the same kind of in-depth "getting to know you as a person" that weblogs -- especially personal weblogs. See this post, for example: http://allied.blogspot.com/2004/12/personal-weblogging-meets-real-world.html

    I'm sure there are more contrasts, but these are what I can come up with off the top of my head.

    For a perspective on the evolution of blogging see:
    http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

  6. The One True b!X on 18 Dec 2004

    What was missed by Anonymous and everybody else was the one bit that did get cut for the sake of time, which was where I said (if I recall correctly) that the "wild west" and "free speech" concepts as applied to the Internet in no way arrived with blogs, and were already well-established when I first got online in 1993. My argument was that whatever else there has been, it's been blogs that have done the most to remove the technological barriers and technical arcana and foster an explosion of personal written expression online.

    So I'm well aware of all that came before blogs. It's just that this context was one of the bits that got lost in the translation to a discussion that would fit in the allotted time during the broadcast.

  7. Tenskwatawa on 19 Dec 2004

    I liked that OPB did a segment on the topic, and I thought the 3 bloggers spoke thoughtfully, engagingly, and made some fuzzy points and some sharp points.
    But ....
    I considered OPB may have lifted the idea and adapted it, and one segment one day does not cover the blogger topic informatively, (much beyond see 'n' say "blogger").

    Here is the reference that got me thinking of the formulaic OPB treatment. (Seemingly you taped your segment before this item hit the website, but I read this before I heard the program.)

    Media Crisis 2004: Summing Up and Moving Forward
    By Danny Schechter / Mediachannel.org / NEW YORK, December 17, 2004

    -- It is that time of the year again, the time for closing out the news year
    ...for many 2004 will be heralded as the year of the blogger ...
    Missing in the media march down memory lane is likely to be the trends that are reshaping the media itself.
    The central question is: how did an institution with a brave history of safeguarding democracy become a threat to its survival?

    That's a part-sense of it -- blogger media critic pans the media. Link in to read the rest.

    [Partial full disclosure: Danny and I share stuff, he posts some bits I send him, and we go back over thirty years when 'media' had some (Danny) anti-war, Nixon-impeach initiative.]
    [B!x, is that too much plug?]

    My transcription of an excerpt from the Ed Schultz Show, Fri. 12/17, KPOJ 620 AM:
    Schultz: "Do you think the internet is going to impact the broadcast networks?"
    Caller (female, California): "I think the internet is going to be the death of broadcast networks."
    Schultz: "Really? I've heard talk about it, but I thought it was maybe wishful thinking on the part of progressives."
    Caller: "I sorta wish it was."

    I had thought about and agree with the caller's view, as do many people I have heard. I'd say you can feel it in the air. It surprised me to hear Schultz sound oblivious, but my sense is that most people who are figures in mass media, especially TV, are equally clueless, bordering on denial. Christie George had a touch of that tone in her voice. For their part, much of what media makes mention to know about blogs and bloggers (including George's interview), starts and ends with professing a weary exasperation at it all -- Who can you trust? How do you tell? Where are they going with it?, or similarly: Where are they? and almost: What do bloggers want?

    George tossed in the by-now usual discrediting canards that establishment media keep repeating, trying to parry blogging's encroachment on broadcasting's franchise. 'They (bloggers) are not rigorous journalists.' 'They don't do real news reporting.' 'It's risky to believe them.'

    I just think broadcasters have occupied an isolated bubble of unchallenged celebrity status for so long they are atrophied, incompetent if not irrelevant, and increasingly dogmatic of justifying their worth and to such an extent they put preserving their own outdated edifice ahead of people's progress. Once "safeguarding democracy [now] become a threat to its survival."

    All in all it seemed to me you three were gentle in your moment with OPB but I wondered if that was kind.

  8. The One True b!X on 19 Dec 2004

    All in all it seemed to me you three were gentle in your moment with OPB but I wondered if that was kind.

    Gentle in what sense? In recording a discussion segment that will end up being, what, 10 minutes long or something, there's no way to address every single issue relevant to the whole blogging subject. There were specifics things the host targeted for coverage, and that's the context in which the discussion was going to occur.

    As you yourself say, "one segment one day does not cover the blogger topic informatively" -- but no segment on no day at all would cover it even less informatively.

  9. Tenskwatawa on 20 Dec 2004

    - -
    There were specifics things the host targeted for coverage, and that's the context

    Let's see, an alternative ... what alternative is there?

    Within the context there is(are) content(s). I mostly think most bloggers's approach to, or purpose in appearing in mass media, expects to drive some people in the media program audience out to surf the website(s). And do this with the things they show and tell (content) during their appearance. I 'discovered' new websites from mention of them in some mass media.

    I discovered ten times as many websites from other websites, mass media be damned. I also discovered ten times as much information from websites as from mass media. With these points I am suggesting the phenomenom of the web, the 'revelation,' so to speak, of the web's communal multilateral experiential essence, can not be communicated via the unilateral 'issuances' of conventional newspaper and broadcast media. Something like the difference between a phone call and a letter -- web = phone call; mass media = letter -- and so, one does not, by writing a friend a letter about telephony, tell them what it is with as much expression and effect as by picking up the phone and calling them. (And saying 'hi, this is a telephone call, what do you think of it,' I suppose.)

    [As I'm composing this my thoughts keep circling a moral-of-the-story ingrained in mind from John Barth's book, Giles Goat-Boy; which says: "To pass you must flunk the examiner." With that introduction, here's how I see it applied.]

    Don't go on OPB. Tell them thanks, no thanks. That's being gentle, although an unstated passive/aggressive sense in it is mean. That is, it stops short of giving them the reason you decline to appear: that their's is a sinking ship, broadcasters are going extinct, that you don't want to step aboard, and (tough) loving advice to the people employed there is to jump to new employment before time pushes them off.

    Next degree: Go on OPB but reject (flunk) each question they ask and even the whole framework of questions. For example, there was a question of how blogs can offer news when bloggers are not reporters. An answer within the frame of the question may be 'some bloggers are better at reporting, some are worse, you have to judge, caveat emptor.' A 'flunk you' answer may be 'reporters are not much a source of news.' (Compare the 'news' (information) in a phone call's tone of voice, with the 'news' in the same words written. Maybe it's like muting TV audio and reading the closed captioning as you watch.) Anyway, agreeing to be on OPB and then keeping up your end of a Q. and A. conversation, is gentle. Not telling them they are cluelessly off-track is discretion perhaps of kindness, perhaps not. (I'm thinking of a doctor who knows a patient is terminal -- do you tell them or hold back, either way you can be gentle but which way is 'kind'?)

    A third variation could be to decline OPB's invitation in and rejoin to them an invitation out -- 'Come over to my place.' They could broadcast from the blog, or with the blog. The early crude forms of this I see are the Air America programs 'on the air' and 'on the blog' at the same time. 'Majority Report' seems to do it most, and in their setting more stuff ('news') comes from the blog to the microphone than vice versa. Again, the distinction is: blogs are two-way, microphones are one-way. The web is interactive, mass media is invective.

    I'm not convinced "no segment on no day" is less informative, (in the letter-writing instance, some think 'no news is good news,' and generally, 'silence means consent'). The crux of it is whether or not no information beats false information.

    I liked that OPB asked you. I liked that you went, and spoke, and if what you said; by prior notice from the web, not from OPB, I tuned in -- gentlepersons, all. Some divergence of opinion as to what is 'kind' or 'unkind' seems derived in whether and how strongly one sees and knows a future demise of mass media. If it is impossible to see the future, and what will be simply will be, then it seems there should be no contradicting opinions, no invention (only discovery), and 'kind'-ness essentially means agreement.

    I wonder about that.
    - -

  10. Tenskwatawa on 20 Dec 2004

    --
    Holy batflunk, Batman, it's errata time. An "if" fell into the wrong hands one paragraph up from the bottom, and the screwed up sentences there were supposed to look like these:

    "I liked that OPB asked you. I liked that you went, and spoke, and what you said ..."

    "If it is impossible to see the future, and if what will be simply will be, then it seems there should be no contradicting ..."

    "Pass all, fail all." -- Giles Goat-Boy