Category: Burningbird

Categories
Writing

Truly understanding censorship

Sheila points to a nicely written how-to on newspapers having weblogs. This was spurred, in no small part, from the tempest in a teapost about Dan Weintraub and the Sacramento Bee’s new policy about editorial review of his weblog.

Many of the Blogging world’s illuminati became incensed by this action. Micky Klaus writes in a meandering, confused rant:

Unlike a mistake in a print column (or for that matter, a mistake on radio) a mistake in a “24-7 blog” can be easily and quite effectively corrected in the same place it was made. For this reason, the cost of a blog error is less than the cost of a print error. That means when you are balancing a) the cost of errors versus b) the cost of more procedures and “standards,” you come out in a different place for blogs than you do for print.

The cost of an error isn’t the amount of time to edit it, but the amount of damage the ‘error’, backed by a major publication, can do when read by thousands before correction.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

Unthinking political correctness, corporate-mandated dullness, and complete cluelessness, all in one event. If you want to know, in a nutshell, why Old Media is in trouble, this is it.

Taking a look at Weintraub’s statement that caused the uproar:

If [the California Lt. Governor’s] name had been Charles Bustmont rather than Cruz Bustamante, he would have finished his legislative career as an anonymous back-bencher. Thus there is reason to wonder how he would handle ethnic issues as governor.

And while people can debate forever whether MEChA and its more virulent cousins do or do not advocate ethnic separatism, it’s indisputably true that the Legislature’s Latino Caucus advocates policies that are destructive to their own people and to greater California, in the name of ethnic unity.

Making sweeping statements such as ‘…it’s indisputably true that the Legislature’s Latino Caucus advocates policies that are destructive to their own people and to greater California…” is something I would expect to read from a weblogger who is throwing opinions around without due consideration of the impact of the words. Perhaps that’s what Klaus and Reynolds want – more rants, less news and thoughtful commentary.

Doc Searls points to most of the articles on this issue, and seems to agree with Roger Smith:

In the future, in order to demonstrate their integrity, true blogs may have to be completely independent of major media. And maybe that’s for the best. At least that way we will be able to scrutinize the bloggers intentions without having to see through a haze of editing or, worse, the agendas (hidden and not) of media corporations.

I share Sheila’s take:

Weintraub’s comments about Bustamante are the sort of words you might hear in a bar. If Weintraub wants to pop off with unsubstantiated personal slams like that, add a comments capacity to his blog and give his readers equal opportunity to publicly challenge him.

Weintraub’s weblog is not a personal weblog hosted on Blogspot. It’s hosted and paid for by the Sacramento Bee, which has an existing editorial policy for opinions expressed by employees of the newspaper. The only crime the Bee committed is that it’s following through on what webloggers have been asking for – treating Weintraub’s weblog like it was a ‘real’ journalist’s effort.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say weblogs are journalism,and should be treated as ‘real’ publications. and then deny the sometimes stringent requirements of newspapers and other publications. An error in a weblog can embarrass a weblogger; an error in a newspaper can get the paper sued, or unfairly and adversely impact on the events being reported.

It is a given, and known fact, that people who work for a newspaper or other publication are bound by the editorial process for same. Sometimes this results in the suppression of news, but many times, this prevents offhand remarks and ill-thought comments from hitting the streets and causing damage that a retraction just won’t heal. Even a digital retraction.

Of course, the uproar on this event has died since Weintraub himself doesn’t see himself the victim of censorship, or being muzzled.

Perhaps folks upset by Weintraub going through the editorial process need a reminder of what censorship really likes like:

  • This week is the ALA’s Banned Books Week. Books on the list include any of the Harry Potter novels, The Chocolate War, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Native Son, To Kill a Mockingbird, and far too many others.
  • Amnesty International lists several authors imprisoned in their countries for speaking their mind, including Zouheir Yahiaoui who was arrested for for expressing his opinions online.
  • Al Jazeera has been banned from access to official sources of news in Iraq for supposedly sedicious reporting.
  • The directors of Zimbabwe’s four private newspapers have been charged with “illegally publishing” their newspapers. (Thanks to Frizzy Logic)
  • Reporters without Borders can also give you an eyeful, including the Defense Department’s clearance of all culpability for the death’s of journalists in Iraq by US soldiers
  • The Patriot Act

If Weintraub wants to start a personal weblog on Blogspot and carefully disassociate what he writes there from his newspaper, I’d be more supportive of him not ‘being censored’. However, the price a writer pays for a steady income from a publication is that the publication usually has some say in what’s written. It’s not just the writer who is credited, or discredited, when they spout off.

Categories
Books RDF Writing

A kinder, gentler Slashdot…and friends

Today Practical RDF was reviewed at Slashdot, a fact I found out when some kind souls warned me of the fact so that I might prepare for the hordes marching in. However, Slashdot book reviews usually don’t generate the server stress that other Slashdot articles can, and the server was able to handle the additional load with ease. This now makes the second time I’ve been slashdotted and lived to tell the tale. Thirds the charm, they say.

It was a nice review, and I appreciated the notice and the kind words. In fact, I’ve had very positive reviews across the board for the book, which is very gratifying for me and for Simon St. Laurent, the lead editor. I’ll probably earn ten cents for every hour I spent on the book, but at least I can feel satisfaction that it’s helping folks and the writing is respected and seen as a quality effort. That’s pretty damn important for a writer – worth more than bucks.

Well, bucks are nice, too.

Speaking of Simon and the book, I was reminded that I owe some articles on RDF and Poetry, and a view of RDF from inside the XML clan, and a few other odds and ends. Hopefully this nice little push will energize me again and I can get these written. It’s been a while since I’ve delighted in the act of writing.

I also wanted to thank the folks for the thoughtful comments in the Tin Can Blues posting. I must also admit I lied in the posting – horrors! – but the lie was unintentional. I forgot that when I worked at Express Scripts earlier this summer that one of the people I worked with started weblogging just as I was leaving. I still remember the shock I received coming around a corner and seeing him read my weblog. As to the question whether your writing changes when you meet those who read it, I remember that for two weeks after that incident, I focused almost exclusively on photography and technology.

There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer to the issue of meeting webloggers in the flesh. I think it really is up to the person, and the opportunities, as many of you noted. For myself, several St. Louis webloggers and others passing through the community have invited me to events, cook outs, coffee, and beers, and all of the people are terrific folks, and I know would be a real treat in person. But it’s not easy for me to mix my worlds.

Ultimately for all the chatter I’ve indulged in online, I have become somewhat of a reclusive person; uncomfortable with larger gatherings (i.e. more than three people), quiet at any events other that professional ones. I love to speak at conferences, but I find corners to inhabit when I’m finished. This person in this weblog – assertive, outgoing, and anything but shy – is the real me; but so is the physical person who runs from parties and get togethers, and I just don’t know how to reconcile the two.

I do know that my not meeting people in the flesh doesn’t diminish my genuine affection for the people I’ve met and come to admire, respect, and like through this virtual medium, and maybe that’s all that matters.

(Po-ll-y-a-nn-a!! This sounds good, but I don’t think it’s that simple. I can see a time when friends met online but never in person become less tangible than the ones whom we’ve pressed the flesh with, in one way or another. Our presence will begin to thin as it stretches to meet always and continuously across the void; touching through the mists, our essence flows around the shadows cast by the real, becoming increasingly transparent – true ghosts in the machine.

Or maybe I’m just tired. And maudlin. Time for new topics…)

Speaking of people I’ve not pressed flesh with, Liz writes about Google search hits, mentioning the phrases she now ‘owns’, such as “introvert extrovert”. I checked my stats and find that I own or partially own several phrases including ‘parable’ (number two), Shelley (number one), and ‘love sentences’ (number two).

I thought it was funny that Dorothea, Liz, and I have part ownership of the word ‘frustration’ – Dorothea at sixth, me at eight, and Liz at ninth. See what all of you guys are doing to us?

The most problematic phrase I own is ‘baby squirrels’. Yup, search on baby squirrels and there I am, Kicking the Baby Squirrels, Again. I get a lot of visitors for ‘baby squirrels’.

I also own the number two position for the phrase ‘virtual friends’. I’d rather own ‘real friends’ but that’s owned by cats.

PS Nobody make AKMA laugh for the next week.

Categories
Burningbird Photography

Recognition of flaws is not defeat

I’ve been a fairly serious rare mineral and crystal collector for a number of years, obtaining my samples from various dealers around the country. A few years back, when we all still had both money and blind hope, I decided to cut out the middleman and go direct to the source – the Tucson Gem and Mineral show.

The Tucson show is a worldwide event for mineral collections, and consists of a large show, called the Main Event, and several peripheral shows in motels all throughout the city. My original intent when I arrived was to stay with the Main Event; I knew that the vendors were vetted in this show and if I couldn’t get a killer deal, I knew I wouldn’t get ripped, either. However, inspired perhaps by my positive experiences at the Main Event, I branched out to the motels, feeling comfortable enough (read that ‘cocky’) with mineral identification that I believed I wouldn’t be scammed.

There must have been a sign pasted on my butt that read, “Fresh Meat” because I was hit with scams the moment I arrived at the first motel. It’s not that the dealers are bad people; it’s that they’re firm believers in Buyer Beware. Not all, but some of them. Most of the scams I could sidestep because they were so obvious, such as the man coming into the room of a vendor I was exploring and the two loudly dickering over a tiny grain of moon rock for sale (accompanied by hopeful glances over at me from time to time to see if I was snapping at the bait). I also didn’t have problems with my favorite minerals – dioptase, rhodochrosite, cinnabar, and azurite; I do know these distinctive minerals and picked up a beauty of a rhodochrosite for a bargain price.

However, I also ended up with two fakes when, in my arrogance, I did some shopping for unfamiliar minerals. I was fairly sure about one being fake by the time I got home, and became surer about the other over time. A disappointment at first, but now I’m rather philosophical about them. We learn by our mistakes.

This post isn’t about minerals or rock shows or about getting scammed – it’s about photography. However, the earlier reference to the rock show is appropriate because this writing is also about learning from our mistakes.

Today I will finish the uploading of the last of the photo albums I’m posting to the Faux PhotoBlogs, with only three more albums to go. Building these pages has been an eye opener, as I found myself being much more critical of the photos when examined as group than when looked at individually. Pictures I thought were relatively good when I first took them I can barely stand now, and the worst I erased from my disc. Of the ones left, I am completely happy with 12 of the photographs, and the rest are what I consider ‘bodererline’.

(These borderline photos have something I liked in addition to flaws, and learning to recognize the good aspects of the photo, objectively, is just as important a lesson as recognizing the faults.)

I consider the act of publishing these albums as being equivalent to an end of term photo publication a student might do when studying photography; a sampling of work, good and bad that demonstrates where I started, my current skills, and the direction I’m taking with my photography. I see this weblog as a classroom and you all are my teachers; you let me know when you’ve liked a photo, and why. Occasionally, you let me know when you don’t like a photograph, though this is more rare since we’re all a relatively polite bunch when it comes to photography.

In particular, a few of you have stood out for the insight you’ve provided, and are primarily responsible for the improvements in my photography (but not my continuing flaws, of which I, unfortunately, must still lay claim). I wanted to thank you for your direct, and indirect, help.

Allan Moult is a professional photographer, writer, and former magazine editor who has provided positive comments about my photographs over time, as well as lovely examples of his own work as models. Equally valuable is Allan’s insight into the nature of the business, and about persevering in the face of rejection (and rejection is the name of the game for both photography and writing). He’s also made me aware of audience, and It’s through Allan that I learned that sometimes the best photograph of a race isn’t of the winner.

(Allan has also been gently helping me with my malapropisms ever since one incident when I mixed viral and virile in a context that ended up being rather humorous.)

Jonathon Delacour is another professional photographer (though now retired in favor of writing), and former photography teacher who helped me a great deal in subtle but effective ways. When Jonathon mentioned he once was a photography teacher, I thought about asking his advice on my photography but was uncomfortable with putting him on the spot. Well, me, too, to be honest.

What Jonathon would do, though, is make a comment from time to time on photographs that he liked, pointing out the details that made the picture stand out, and why. Through this approach, he helped me learn how to add perspective to my photographs and to take my relatively flat and lifeless photos and imbue them with life. More than that, though, he provided just the right amount of encouragement to make me more confident of the direction I want my photos to go; to celebrate the slight amount of quirkiness and connectivity I find deeply satisfying in my photos.

Wood of Wood s lot is another person who helped, though more indirectly. Through him I’ve been exposed to wonderful new photos and photographers, and have discovered that there’s so much more to photography than just the mechanics of snapping the pic. A good photograph has to reach out of the page and draw the viewer in, either through beauty or horror or even a new way of looking at the mundane. Good photographs are not passive.

Wood has also helped me discover that black and white photos have a power all their own, and that you don’t need vivid hues to create beautiful pictures. Conversely, I’ve also learned that black & white doesn’t make art, and using high contrast doesn’t compensate for pictures mechanically perfect but bland as unsalted bread.

(I remember talking with a photographer I knew years ago when I worked at a photography studio in Yakima. He pompously told me at the time that the mark of a true photographer was the use of black & white film. No true artist used color, he would say. Today, I have enough confidence to reply that the marks of a true photographer are talent, dedication, and passion, not the color of the film they use.)

Jeff Ward helped indirectly, too, again by providing examples of his own work and the works of other great photographers to appreciate and absorb. Through Jeff, as with Wood, Jonathon, and Allan, I discovered one common thread – that sometimes the best subject for a photograph is ordinary people doing ordinary things, but captured in an extraordinary manner. So thanks go, too, to others who provide examples of their art and thus become my teacher, such as Farrago, and Jerry, qB, and Dan Lyke.

Photography is learned through consuming as well as producing, and is made up of equal parts apprenticeship and appreciation. There is only so much that we can learn from books and practice, such as the mechanics of light and the mysteries of F-stops, or how to choose and frame a subject. Photographers communicate thought and emotion with their photographs, as much as writers do with their words; it’s only through watching others communicate through their work that we learn to communicate through our own – much as a child learns how to speak by watching and listening to adult caregivers.

Through these photographers sharing their time and their expertise, their art and their love of photography, I found the storyline I want to follow with my own work, though the people I learned this from are vastly different from me and each other.

I still have much to learn, but now the learning must come from within as much as it originally came from without. I must learn to look at my photographs objectively: to see the flaws, true, but also to see what’s right with each picture; to learn to be both critical and confident.

I’ve tentatively sent a few photographs to publications and have received encouraging results. However, this is a long way from becoming a published photograph and I have a lot of work to do, not the least of which is I must return to film in order to capture photos at the resolution necessary for publication. Since I can’t get either of my film scanners to work, and since hauling around the equipment for a film camera in addition to the digital camera is just too much work, I’m going to be posting very few photographs to this weblog. While this might disappoint some of you who like the pictures, it will probably make those of you accessing this page with low bandwidth modems much happier.

I’ve also refocused another one of my weblogs, the former “Today’s Photos” into a weblog where in each post I’ll take one of my borderline photos and critique it – describing how I took the photo, what I like about it, and what I would do to improve the shot. I invite the photo buffs in the audience to join me and add your own comments because you’re all still my teachers.

As a final note of thanks (before I trail off into a poor woman’s Sally Fields), I also want to thank Sheila Lennon who has kindly consented (along with Allan) to advise me on another project I’m working on. She mentioned a book, “Now Let Us Praise Famous Men”, in a recent email that made me remember the type of photography I prefer doing, and why. I find this book to be deeply inspiring along with similar works by the author WG Sebald.

In these books, the photographs are an extension of the writing, and as such complementary to it. I don’t claim the ability demonstrated in these works, but I hope to claim a kinship with the creators.

Categories
Just Shelley

Of course

Have you ever woken up in the morning and the first thing that comes into your mind is, “Of course”.

Regardless of the doubts and the fears and the regrets, it’s as if all the possible futures had made their way through your mind in the night, each leaving an impression, nothing more. And everything is carefully clear.

Suddenly, you no longer fight against your limitations or curse your circumstances because neither is the core of what you are unless you let them be. You’re not giving up to the circumstances, nor are you bowing to the limitations; you’re accepting both as shapers of your life, and moving on.

I’m reminded of the Prayer, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” I am also reminded of the words, from wherever they come, “This, too, shall pass.” It is both a promise of sadness, and of hope.

If today the tree sits dormant and the weather is bleak, then tomorrow the buds will open and the sun shine. If today the tree sits, limbs filled with emerald green leaves and red fruit, then tomorrow the stems will brown and the fruit fall. It is a cycle, fall, winter, spring, and summer and one we cannot change – but we can choose to see the beauty of the tree in all seasons, and we can work to nuture it. This, we can control.

I wrote in an email to a dear friend yesterday, “Life can never be truly bad when it keeps throwing so much beauty in your face.” The key is not closing your eyes.

Categories
Political Weblogging Writing

Like to Like

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The new group weblog Open Source Politics had its first week, and one can’t help but applaud the quality of much of the writing that’s come out of this effort. Of course, I know two of the people contributing, Mike Golby and Loren Webster, and have enjoyed their writing for some time so this isn’t surprising.

As much as I applaud any effort that gets Mike and Loren the readership they both deserve, I’m still not fond of these group weblogs. Rather than expose important issues to a new audience, the decidedly liberal nature of this weblog will either attract those who are liberal in the first place and likely to agree; or attract those from the opposite viewpoint, looking for cannon fodder. I think those who are more neutral are going to be pushed away by the tone and focus of the weblog.

I can see wanting to move political commentary from your weblog if you want to focus on writing or poetry or linguistics or some other specialized topic. However, if you’re hoping to influence people who haven’t made up their minds on specific issues, wouldn’t a more effective approach be to focus on writing or poetry or linguistics or technology, with an occasional sneaky aside into politics?

Speaking of politics, yesterday was the first of the Democratic candidates debate and though I know that people wanted fireworks, I thought all of the candidates were very responsible in focusing on Bush rather than each other. No candidate is perfect, but there were some good points raised. As for my political leanings, it’s no surprise I’m voting Democrat, but which specific candidate is between me and the button. I make no apologies that my focus is on removing Bush from office, rather than promoting any one of the Dems. I can say I don’t support Lieberman because of his hawkish outlook, and I don’t care for Gephardt because I think he sold us out when he stood behind Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Other than that, I’ll support whoever has the best chance to defeat Bush.

In line with recent discussion about politics and religion, the Pew Forum just released survey results relating religion and politics and voting in this country. Extremely interesting reading.

For instance, from what I can see from these results I would more likely to be voted president if I were Muslim than aetheist. In this country, we’re willing to concede a shared heritage from Abraham – reluctantly – but the non-religous, and one has to assume the polytheist and animist and other outsiders, need not apply.

In fact, unless there’s a drastic change in culture and attitudes about religion, it will be a cold day in hell before an aetheist is voted President in the United States.