The Need for Content and the New Plagiarism

This is nothing that new or shocking. It is, however, semi-original. Earlier today I read a piece by Douglas Coupland in the New York Times. I enjoyed it and my first instinct was to share it, here on this blog. Hooray for content! I do this from time to time and I see it all the time on other sites, blogs, etc. While it seems harmless enough, it's cheap. 

Too often blogs (including this one) reshare a piece of writing in the interest of generating more content. More content means more hits, more readers. More, more, more. What it does not mean is original thought or commentary. It does not mean a new piece of writing that encourages a laugh or a thought or an emotion. It's not that every original piece does that (and again, I'll raise my hand and accept some guilt), but it might.

I read a quote recently about writing (and I've seen it more times than I can count from other writers) that writing is made up of hard work and discipline. It takes place when the house is quiet and dark. When done properly,it can make the writer wish they were doing almost anything else. It spurs the creation of rationalization and excuses. It causes a tightness in the chest that makes one wonder why they're sitting there, trying to breathe life into a word, a phrase, a paragraph. In a sense, despite many not being paid for it, writing is not for amateurs. 

With blogs writing has morphed into this thing for amateurs. Worse yet, a new crop of professional writers has emerged. A new plagiarism has emerged. It's not what you might remember from college where a student lifts a passage from an obscure book to supplement their paper without citing it. It's an idea that all writing and thought is content or raw materials to be used to beef up your site. It exists for your commentary. While most writers I've known are happy their work is read and mentioned, this new plagiarism saps the discourse of new ideas. It makes us lazy.

Television news seems to be especially bad at this. Their experts are personalities who generate sound bites from multiple sources and then parrot it out on show after show. The television news media then picks it up and runs it over and over as news. The cycle then continues when the information is taken back to the blogs, recycled again for the talking heads to harvest and take back to the television news panels.

Original thought and analysis are hard. Sometimes it's appropriate to use a piece to springboard into another thought piece. Sometimes it's not.  When it's not, I'm going to try to share things more often via my Google Reader feed, at least then it's just called promotion.

Another Reason Why Corporations Need Regulation

We heard for a number of years (8 to be exact) that the government doesn't need to regulate corporations. Let them police themselves because the market will prevail. Corporations won't want to mess up because it will cost them dollars. I think anyone who thought about that idea for more than six seconds realized its idiocy. In light of the BP fiasco, there are all sorts of calls for controlling companies again (even from Florida who seems to screw up every election). 

The video link below shows yet again that corporations do not care about people. BP's most recent screw up? They're trying to stop the media from covering the event. This includes blocking public access on beaches. Though I wish the reporter realized that the military can't restrict your freedoms on US soil, that's also unconstitutional.

Live in Your Living Room: Revolution!

There's something afoot in Kyrgyzstan. The reports are that the Prime Minister has stepped down, the President is hiding on the US base (a base he kept threatening to close), and there are mobs of protesters in the streets.

I remember when the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc fell the coverage was spotty. We were treated to live shots of the goings on at the Berlin Wall, but Moscow was a mystery. It took some time for the news and video to escape and come back to us. Oh, they had live shots, but they always seemed to be of a skyline or a row of windows. Nothing happened. The only narrative was a news anchor like Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather speculating along with the men in the control room. Sometimes they didn't even know exactly what the camera was showing.

That's one of the coolest things about now. Everyone can be a journalist. I could wander into a local news event with my Flip Video camera and share video minutes after anything. The Foreign Policy blog (which is a great read) has several videos of the protests here. I know it's well established that news travels fast these days, but what's more interesting is what is gained and lost. I feel much closer to this story having been able to watch video. I get a sense of the emotions involved, the odd mixture of joy and frustration and restlessness emanating from the video. At the same time I still feel a strong need to read about the situation in the New York Times because I feel adrift. 

So the news is now more democratic. I'm closer to the action, can pick viable sources to get well rounded on the story, and feel smarter. However, I worry too because how many people are expending the energy to do so? Television news has descended into a weird mixture of gossip, talking (and yelling) heads, opinion, infotainment, and personalities. The anchor as the voice of God seems to have gone away. There isn't an attempt to cover a story like this live, even with 24 hours to fill. I applaud the new way while lamenting the masses getting their fill of missing children, highway chases, and celebrity sex tapes.

The New York Time Lens Blog

via lens.blogs.nytimes.com

I've been getting a lot of news and information from the various blogs that the New York Times offers. Often, the writing is some of the best and the writers (especially the tech and sports writers) use the forum to work out stories. One of the most beautiful blogs is the Lens blog (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com).

Today they've showcased what people do to their bodies in pursuit of beauty (or at least the image they want in their head). Some of the pictures highlight transformations that are stunning, others that are heartbreaking. Either way, the photographs highlighted today each tell their own story and are beautiful.

Lots of Chatter but What to Say?

As a blogger, I often have aspirations of writing more and better stuff. In the past I've written about stuff that bugs me, sports, a little about travel, pop culture, etc. To be honest, most of my blogging projects fail for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes I get bored with a topic and move on. Sometimes I'm distracted by, well, life. As a writer, each of my blogs is one of my babies. While none of them have generated any kind of readership, I still look back on each of them with a little bit of protectionism. I like the idea of them.

This blog has been a lot more casual and agnostic (partly due to the ease of posting) and in some ways more successful. Despite that, I still often find myself asking, what on Earth should I write about? It seems to me this is a common thread in online writing (even when the author doesn't really think it on a conscious level).

So why do I bring this up now in my 89th post? Well, I was thinking about quality writing today in response to the New York Times' decision to begin charging for access to its website in 2011. A lot of people online were angry about it. Some of the comments I read (and I am paraphrasing) included thoughts such as:
  • I hope the NY Times fails
  • I'll get my news elsewhere
  • You're dumb
  • I'm mad and I hate the NY Times
It seems this decision just made the internet unhappy. Personally, I found myself thinking it was a good decision (and I'm cheap). Why? Well, the New York Times puts out some of the best content in the world. From straight news, to honest reporting, to up to the second blogs covering everything from baseball to books. The organization puts out an incredible amount of information and content. Additionally, this content is reliable. They're not going to publish something stupid like, "Phyllis Diller named Secretary General of the UN." Why not? Because they are stocked with professionals who pay attention to what they do.  How good are their people?  A handful of them have started examining the Times and its practices to make sure that the organization upholds its own ethics.  Really!  Check them out on Twitter @NYTPicker.

So why do they do this? It's not because they're bored. These people all have homes and families and like to eat and buy things. It's a job, just like yours or mine. The Times needs to be able to pay for its reporters, pay for its offices, and pay to send objective reporters to the far reaches of the globe.  In order to do so, it needs money. As more and more news sources evaporate it means that fewer eyes are observing for us. Fewer voices are discussing events. Consumers get crappier and crappier information. Sure, you could go to CNN.com for your free news and get as many stories about John Mayer banging actresses as you would about the Senate election in Massachusetts. 

Good information is worth paying for.  Good news is worth paying for.  Free isn't always bad, but eventually news that is driven by advertising is going to be more interested in getting eyeballs than it will be in getting the facts right. That's never good.

Living Stories from Google

Living_news

Google has been releasing quite a few interesting things lately, so has the New York Times (the Times Skimmer).  Now they've teamed up (with the Washington Post as well) to produce the Living Stories experiment. They've been putting a few stories up there a day, one interesting use was the continuing troubles facing the Washington Redskins. 

Some of the interesting highlights include:
  • Timelines
  • Photographs
  • Highlighted News Stories
It's really interesting how these organizations are working hard to keep professional news media alive and publishing.

Times Skimmer by The New York Times

Media_httpgraphics8nytimescomimagestimesskimmerschemesserendipitypng_xfadwebjggjwhdt
via nytimes.com

Have you seen this? It's a pretty great way to read through the New York Times online. Once again, I'd pay for online access to the Times (or would at least hope that my physical subscription would get me access). It offers the ability to customize the view too.

It doesn't seem to work on my phone yet, but I'm guessing that's a next step for the format.