Previous entry: "30-Sept-2001 -- E-Media Tidbits: A Group Weblog" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "30-Sept-2001 -- Columnists Fired After Criticizing Bush"

09/30/2001 Archived Entry: "30-Sept-2001 -- Columnists Fired After Criticizing Bush"

Columnists Fired After Criticizing Bush -- "Two columnists for dailies in Texas and Oregon have been fired after writing pointed opinion pieces critical of President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States." (Comments: From a usability point of view, this is a total disaster.)

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 10/01/2001 09:16 AM EST

I agree with you John, but I think that kind of 'universal access to information' would only be possible in Utopia. Why I think that way?

Looking to the matter from that point of view, I am thinking: "Then, news and media events have been a usability disaster from the beginning.." We can't really say that there's anything in the media that's 'totally free' which provides universal access to universal information. Whatever the media channels' owner's view is what lights our information for us. We see the things s/he wants us to see, and the rest is left in the dark.

I hope to get comments on this and would be extremely interested to view evidence that says otherwise...

Posted by Berna @ 10/01/2001 11:29 AM EST

Berna,

Good comments. In response, I would say that you are conflating two issues. The first issue is freedom of speech and the second issue is freedom of access.

In light of my earlier comments, freedom of speech is important so that writers and publishers are able to produce any material they want, within their rights under the law. Freedom of speech is important, from a usability point of view, because without freedom, people cannot act effectively in the communication network. Now let me slightly re-state my main comment: When freedom of speech is crushed, usability is crushed.

Your second point is a different point. Freedom of access is also important. When people do not have access to information, they are in the dark, as you suggest. However, this "freedom" is not necessarily the same as the freedom of speech. This freedom is bounded by economics. It is harder to understand and discuss. My comments about usabilty and freedom are not tied to this type of freedom.

Another point, one that works against me, is that a newspaper is a company and it does have the right to publish what it wants. It also has the right to hire and fire employees as it wants. The newspaper has that right. Therefore, if it wants to work against freedom (as I think about it) then it can. It is that simple. For example, should everyone have access to all information? Probably not. I am not sure that want CNN to be 100% accurate all of the time. If it was, then terrorists would have too much information. They would be in a damn good position to strike again.

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 10/01/2001 12:17 PM EST

I disagree with John. Show me statistics of how many people faithfully read a particular news site vs. people who read dozens or hundreds of news sites through link aggregators or weblogs.

I frequently visit CNN only to see what the front page story is and whether there is breaking news. So the rest of my news reading is through weblog-type links. I have *no expectation* that a news source will give me a "full review of ideas and information" because I know nothing about the news source except the name I see at the top of the page.

Hell, I don't even expect that from CNN (in fact, I believe CNN provides slanted or filtered news, as do all of the corporate-controlled major networks.) Big Media is rallying around the President as much as Congress is. How is it good journalism to play sorrowful music from the soundtrack of "Born on the Fourth of July" during news coverage?

Posted by JS @ 10/01/2001 12:52 PM EST

JS,

Interesting. However, there is perhaps one caveat. The story I point to is about newspapers (Daily Courier and the Texas City Sun). It is not about web sites, and that might make all the difference in the world. We might not even disagree.

What does this mean? Well, on the web you are indeed able to surf from large to small sites, and back again, without much problem. However, most people only read one or two papers (literally) per day.

I think that this has more serious implications offline than online. I would venture that most people reading newpapers expect a full range of viewpoints. I don't have the statistics on this, and I would certainly be interested to find out more.

I totally agree that corporate news sites seem to be quite biased. This is unfortunate, but true. On the other hand, do you think that weblogs are any better? I'm not sure. Big sites, driven by big companies, have the resources to check the facts. Weblogs don't, in general. This doesn't mean that weblogs offer less interesting news, it might just mean what they offer is not as well supported by facts.

All in all, I would also love to see statistics. Maybe someone can offer them up for us.

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 10/01/2001 01:17 PM EST

John,

Thanks for the comments. I would have to say that to an extent I agree with you. But only to an extent.

Even if we are only talking about freedom of speech, do you honestly believe that in newspapers (online or offline) they practice this freedom 100%? I don't.

As you said, newspapers hold the right to hire or fire their employees, as many corporations do. In some cases, like the one you sited today, they don't even have to give a valid reason. And for THIS reason, reporters, editors or any other writer does not want to publish or write anything that will give the corporation the slightest opportunity to fire them.

We can use the September 11th event as an example. I have not seen a single article that goes against Bush's single decision, or even criticizes him in full. TIME did have a piece last week, I don't remember which article it was but I'd be happy to dig it out for you, which, along with dozens of other articles, stated that Bush was handling the situation in a "better than expected" manner. But it also added that he could have said some things a little differently in his speech to congress. This article was the only one who was even minimally criticizing Bush. But I am aware that I do not read every line in every newspaper published everyday so I might just be reading the wrong papers(?).

On the web on the other hand, there are websites full with criticism towards Bush's every word. These are personal sites or logs that only link to these kinds of articles because that's what the weblog owner believes and wants to see.

I see what you mean with "freedom of accessibility is limited economically" and I agree. Because many people don't have the pleasure of browsing through tens of sites everyday which hold different views.

However, my underlining point remains the same, there is no single newspaper that the public can read and get a full view of an event. It will always be slanted for two reasons. One is obviously political. Second is because those articles are also written by humans who hold a certain opinion about the issue, and who were hired BECAUSE they hold that opinion. Which means the destruction of "freedom of speech" If the newspaper I'm reading hires those writers who mainly hold a "liberal" view than that's what I see. In other words, if everybody who is talking is thinking the same way than there isn't really much to say about "freedom of speech".

I hope I was able to express my thoughts clearly. (And sorry for the length). :o)))

Posted by Berna @ 10/01/2001 01:56 PM EST

John asks: "do you think that weblogs are any better?"

They are better in the sense that if I frequent weblogs A, B & C I have a sense of the leanings of the people behind A, B & C. They are people who post links of interest to me, and consequently, have viewpoints similar to mine.

That poses the one danger - I tend to see links that reinforce my existing viewpoint. However, on sites such as Metafilter.com (containing links from a community) I do get a mix of links, including some I find offensive.

Now, with regard to newspapers, firing a columnist because of his or her opinions is an issue of credibility. I simply would unsubscribe to such a newspaper. I have done so with the (only) newspaper in my community because of questionable ethics and editorial policies.

Posted by JS @ 10/01/2001 06:13 PM EST

what is 'usability' in practice .. is it subscribing to a set of best practices and idealised specifications and performing accordingly, or is it adjusting your product to suit your users, your market, reacting to feedback, finetuning your product, doing testing?

Newspapers are products, like any other product, and each is fine tuned to their own market. I don't ask that Coca Cola taste like Pepsi, I don't expect MacDonalds to churn out product like Meals On Wheels. Alternative products exist for different markets. If I want in depth analysis I read X, if I want local gossip I read Y, if I want to read coverage that caters to my political perspective I'll read Z.

Posted by eric @ 10/02/2001 05:17 AM EST

Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
Newsletter Archive | Services | Interviews | About WebWord.com

URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/

©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved.
Do not reproduce or redistribute any material from this document,
in whole or in part, without explicit written permission from WebWord.com.