David Herrera (.org)

Randomized home page: One solution to filter failure

Dave Herrera — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:12:56 +0000

I use mostly RSS for online updates — except for day-to-day, “what’s happening worldwide” hard news.

For my RSS reader to present me with 100+ unread stories from the BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, and The New York Times, two or three times a day, simply overwhelms.

I tried, unsuccessfully, to adopt Dave Winer’s river of news mentality. I can’t shake the pressure to try each story when I see the list of unreads, however irrational a task it is to try.

So, the problem: Wanting the variety of those four sources (and whatever ones I fall into later) without having to confront everything they offer each time I check in. In short, I wanted a better filter.

My solution: A random page home page generator, created using a mix of HTML and Javascript.

Each time I open a new browser window, or click to my home page, I see one of my four sites. The amount of news with which I’m confronted is decreased by 75% of what it was with the RSS firehose. Yet, I keep source diversity through encountering a different news site every time.

I’ve unsubscribed from the four news sites in my RSS reader, and I’m enjoying the results so far. I wanted to share the code so that you could create a similar page if you wanted to. Here are the steps.

Create a new plain text document (Mac users, open TextEdit and, from the Format menu, select “Make Plain Text.” Windows users, try Notepad).
Paste the following:
Unless you’re interested in the code itself, the only lines you have to worry about are the ones in square brackets, and the one with “Math.floor.”

(If you are interested, the code says: When the browser opens this page, run the function called ‘homepage.’ ‘homepage’, in turn, chooses a number at random between 0 and 3, then opens the URL associated with that number in the ‘pages’ array, where the BBC is 0, Al Jazeera is 1, etc.)
In the square brackets, paste the URLs of the sites you want included in your random site generator. Be sure to follow correct syntax: Enclose the URL in quotes, and separate each URL with a comma.
In the line below the URLs, change the number in var page = Math.floor(Math.random()*4); to equal the number of URLs you included above. I have four URLs, so my number is “4″. Be sure to write the numeral, not “four.”
Save the file as “home-page.html”. Ignore any warnings about saving your file as .html.
Place the file wherever you want on your hard drive. Remember where you stored it.
This is the tricky step, if you’re unfamiliar with how your Web browser can also navigate folders on your hard drive.

In your Web browser preferences, set your home page to the file you stored on your hard drive. This is different on different computers; on my Mac, the address is file:///Users/dave/Documents/home-page.html. Perhaps a Windows user could post where one might find the file if you put it somewhere in your user folder.
Open your home page. Hopefully, you’ll be spirited away to one of your chosen sites.

Alternatively, you could save yourself a few minutes and download my home-page file, which I’ve posted as a zip file here.

Questions or improvements? What do you think?

Short URL for this post: http://wp.me/pDmIJ-3T

Washington Post: Speak only when spoken to

Dave Herrera — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:53:12 +0000

We discussed some institutional legacies of journalism in one of my classes today, such as the idea that the newspaper or the broadcast anchor holds authority over what’s important in the world; the idea, as Walter Cronkite might have put it, that mainstream media control “the way it is.”

Wouldn’t you know it? That view reared its head in the Washington Post:

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for a reporter in our newsroom to be challenging the views, or challenging the integrity, of our editorial board”

speaketh Liz Spayd, the Post’s managing editor.

A reporter challenging authority? Perish the thought!

Diversions

Dave Herrera — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:20:09 +0000

Jan. 22: Added dropped words so the post makes sense.

It’s a news industry truism that most people read newspapers for the comics and the sports. Assuming it’s a true truism, and even given that most readers of The New York Times are not comparable to the rest of the country, doesn’t Michael Roston’s advice on what the Times should charge for on its Web site make sense? Charge them for the diversions! Wedding listings, maybe crosswords. Hey, it might work.

Supervertical?

Dave Herrera — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:40:17 +0000

From a recent story on paidContent:

PBS has confirmed its plans to create a stand-alone news website in partnership with its local New York affiliate, WNET. … The company describes the site as a “supervertical” that will allow PBS to aggregate all of its news and public affairs content along with content from other partners.

Can anybody explain the “supervertical” concept? Please do so in the comments.

All of the possible definitions I know for “vertical” lead me, I suspect, in the wrong direction: That the site will aggregate reports from its CEOs down to the janitors, for example, or that its home page will take a very long time to scroll down.

Short URL for this post: http://bit.ly/5wWRPi

First Amendment musing

Dave Herrera — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:42:42 +0000

I’ve offered some more two-bit commentary over at Digi-Docket, the blog covering law and technology. My latest post involves a thought experiment about the future of the First Amendment, inspired by Robert A. Arcamona of Protecting the Source. The post is called The big hurt (someday, maybe) coming for journalists.

On argumentation in reporting

Dave Herrera — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:57:27 +0000

Perhaps I’m being unfair to journalists, or to writers in general, but I can’t understand how an article like “Labor Campaigns Against Tax on Health Plans,” in The New York Times, could make sense as a piece of writing trying to inform me of something.

Consider (what I think is) the article’s conclusion:

Having failed to persuade President Obama to scrap a proposed tax on high-cost health insurance policies, labor leaders took their case Tuesday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and they said they received a more favorable response.

“[Labor leaders] said they received a more favorable response [from Pelosi].” Shouldn’t this be an extraordinarily easy argument to prove? All I need is a to read a labor leader telling me how they were received by Obama, and how much better their reception from Pelosi was.

But what are we told about the reactions of “labor leaders”? Only Andrew Stern saying: “I love the House, and I love the speaker.”

By what rules of logic and argumentation can we reach the conclusion from Stern’s statement?

If no such rule exists, why should we believe what the article is arguing? Why couldn’t the article have simply featured a few quotes?

What upsets me is that the kind of logic on display seems to be common among journalists–those who describe their role as helping people know about what their government is doing. It frustrates me that what passes for political journalism is appears to be devoid of basic argumentative skill.

But, I can’t back up with data the feeling that this writing style is common. It is just memory talking. So, I would welcome arguments to the contrary.

Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/78feOZ

Cyberwar

Dave Herrera — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:11:01 +0000

My friend Curtis Bunner graciously allows me to contribute to Digi-Docket, a group blog dedicated to discussing ideas related to technology and law. Today, I posted my first Digi-Docket entry, which addresses the underdeveloped laws of war as they relate to cyberwar. If you have time, check it out: Fighting fire with firewalls.

Differences between reporting and journalism

Dave Herrera — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:18:19 +0000

George F. Snell recently argued that “reporting” is distinguishable from “journalism” in the following way:

Reporting: A 747 aircraft crashed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean yesterday.

Journalism: A review of maintenance reports of the 747 aircraft that crashed last month revealed that the airplane had a faulty engine parts. Reports indicate that airline management ignored warnings that the parts were malfunctioning.

Journalism is getting beneath the news. It’s investigation, analysis and thoughtful commentary. It’s in-depth expository reporting. And people are still willing to pay for good journalism. That’s why newspapers and magazines that have placed a premium on providing good journalism have done better — for the most part — than those that focused more on reporting (the Wall Street Journal and New York Times come to mind).

Whose journalism?

“It’s in-depth expository reporting.” How can journalism be different from reporting if it’s a particular form of reporting?

Setting that question aside, is it correct to say that Snell’s definition makes no assumptions as to who is investigating, analyzing, and commenting? If so, is it true that “people [I assume he's thinking primarily of Americans] are willing to pay for good journalism”? Were they ever willing to pay for it?

I present Exhibit A: the federal government. The government happens to have a Federal Aviation Administration, which, according to its Mission, “[issues] and [enforces] regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft.” The FAA issues reports on such matters. The Government Accountability Office also issues reports investigating, analyzing, and commenting on government activities, reports that news organizations generally find trustworthy [1].

Although it’s incorrect to say that federal agencies are the only groups capable of producing journalism (as Snell points out, the major newspapers and magazines do so as well), were we to support a higher taxation rate, of course, we would also be supporting for the invaluable journalism of the FAA, GAO, and others. But, I think I can just assert that Americans shudder at the word “taxes.” Is it then fair to assert that Americans are still willing to pay for good journalism? Or, does the question require additional clarification: Whose journalism?

Journalism and argument

Why is the distinction between journalism and reporting important? Is not the quality of a claim — its evidence and reasoning — more important than naming the species of the claim?

What if I were to tell you that a plane crashed outside my apartment yesterday. Would you believe me? Not unless you were given additional evidence, such as a quote from an airline official, or images from the scene. So long as a reader uses critical thinking skills, and thereby recognizing that some claims are more difficult to prove than others, shouldn’t we be discussing which kinds of claims are more important for us to preserve?

Notes

1. Here’s a report from The New York Times, which Snell approvingly cites, that uses a GAO report to add background to a story.

Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/8o5Ly9

Incoming!

Dave Herrera — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:24:00 +0000

The New York Times reports that the CIA plans to increase its use of pilotless drones over Pakistan.

I’ve found fascinating the ongoing use of these drones. If you’d like to learn more, I suggest starting with Jane Mayer’s recent New Yorker article, or Wired for War, by P.W. Singer (who’s quoted in the CIA and New Yorker articles).

Journalism: worth philosophy’s time?

Dave Herrera — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:01:43 +0000

Should people study the philosophy of journalism? Take it away, Brian Leiter:

As to why “philosophy of journalism” is not a major topic of philosophical study, I would have thought the answer obvious: it’s not a central or substantial intellectual or cultural practice, unlike science, art, or law.

John Merrill or Clifford Christians et al. might disagree. But, I dunno. What do you say, journalists? Can you defend your profession?

Short URL for this post: http://bit.ly/7spY3U