faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
bugs
hof
| The Hypermedia Hazard |
Posted by
JonKatz
on Wednesday October 24, @09:30AM
from the no-pill-for-panic-and-info-overload dept. In the last week or two, some of the media and political institutions responsible for providing clarity and coherent information appear to be unraveling under the stress of coping with terrorist attacks, especially the anthrax problems, casualties and resulting hysteria. One striking trend: technology has spawned too much instant and unfiltered media. This new, mostly screen-driven strain of Hypermedia are becoming a health and civic hazard all of their own, transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news. Learning how to cope with this Hypermedia -- especially in a crisis -- is now as critical to survival as combatting terrorism.
Media officials are defensive about their coverage of anthrax and terrorism since September 11, claiming it's their duty to report bad news, and that they are only being responsible by quoting a multiplicity of voices and and instantly reporting each new development. The public seems confused about the danger, and about peripheral issues like "weaponizing", the effectiveness of medications and the means of transmission.
But the problem isn't only responsibility and ethics, it's technology. There's too much media, and when it's combined with a dreadful and scientifically complex story, and rapid-fire, immediate and ubiquitous information technologies, the results are disturbing, as well as dangerous. Even the most serious media executives seem unwilling to even consider the unthinking and frightening way complex stories like this are transmitted, reported and explained.
A generation ago, most Americans got their news once or twice a day -? from daily papers and evening network newscasts -? no matter what was going on. These were delayed, filtered media. Information could be transmitted, digested and organized before it was presented to the public. No matter how serious the story, you couldn't wallow in it for too long -- evening newscasts only lasted a half hour and there was only so much space in the paper. And reporters and editors had time to consider and check some of the information they passed along. In the Age of Hypermedia, it's commonplace to pass along information immediately and continuously before it can be verified or considered. The public, already frightened, seems to quickly lose track of what is factual and what isn't -- a perfect environment for panic.
But digital and screen technologies, from cable and satellite transmissions to the Net (especially the Web), have created an immediate, unfiltered, 24/7 kind of information delivery system. The mediastream is incessant, even when there is no new information to support it, or little time to make sure it's accurate or coherent. We are told continually, for example, that terrorist cells are dormant and waiting to strike again, and each new anthrax spore seems to have its own cable news hour.
Websites like CNN's bring the news to consumers, giving subscribers e-mail headlines all day long. Like the Net and the Web, cable TV channels are on all the time, every day, desperate and dependent on vivid and disturbing imagery, information, discussion and argument, even when the information isn?t reliable, the discussion not useful or the argument unhelpful. A staggering amount of alarmist information -- innaccurate or best incomplete -- has swamped the country in the past month, yet little is corrected or explained in the continuous rush of reports. This tidal wave of screen and e-information creates a distorted environment, a surreal sense of being surround by an ugly story. This is, literally, hyperreality. Trauma becomes pervasive, and all-encompassing. Normal, routine news and information -- that is, any sense of normalcy -- is drowned out, which adds to the Hypermedia-spawned environment. Even though the vast majority of people are living, working and behaving routinely, the images pouring out of screens suggests just the opposite.
Hypermedia have thus become a civic nightmare. They helped create the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the death of Princess Diana; they helped elevate a sordid presidential scandal ?- the Monica Lewinsky affair -? into a national political crisis.
And now, since the much more serious and legitimately newsworthy attacks on the World Trade Center, and especially following the anthrax mailings around the country, Hypermedia are generating waves of misinformation, confusion and panic. Politicians, reporters and bureaucrats rush in front of TV cameras before they know the facts or have considered how to present them. Images of death, destruction, and hazmat response teams are triggering waves of anxiety and depression. Even though only a handful of Americans have actually contracted anthrax, and it is treatable with available antibiotics, the House of Representatives fled the Capitol last week. People all over the country are flooding emergency rooms for nose swab tests and calling 911 when the see artificial sweetener on a coffee counter or flour residue on a pizza crust. Meanwhile, lobbyists, politicians and professional ideologues crowd the cable channels to take advantage of all that airtime, squabbling over everything from military strategy to airport security. National unity is not sustainable in an environment shaped byh Hypermedia. Whether there is any real news or not, you can turn on MSNBC or Fox or CNN any time of any day and get some saturation coverage. Hypermedia spreads rumors, prompts action where none is required, panic and anxiety where none is necessary.
Meanwhile, as with Desert Storm, the military conflict has been morphed into a techno-war, covered mostly in terms of exotic new weapons systems, analyzed by the generals and military analysts who created them. The corporatized networks no longer pay for enough foreign correspondents to cover conflicts; they prefer to rent military retirees who can talk about AC-130 Spectre gunships and their firepower.
Learning to cope with Hypermedia is an essential survival skill in difficult times. People are learning not to believe much of what they see, read or hear, even when it comes from the Speaker of the House of Representatives (who rushed to microphones Thursday to report -- falsely -- that anthrax spores were making their way through the Capitol ventilation system) and to take their media in small, managed regimens. You might try watching the news for 15 minutes in the morning, then again for 15 minutes at night. You'll be amazed at how little happens in between, and how much of it can wait.
It's no accident that anthrax is being mailed to media organizations. Hypermedia has become the dream tool of terrorists everywhere, sowing precisely the same sort of overblown rhetoric ("things will never be the same in this country again"), and fear that prompted the blowhards who run Congress to shut most of the Capitol down last week, even though the health threat to them and their staffs was both minimal and treatable. Sparked in part by a panicky media, Congressional leaders missed the chance to demonstrate that we aren't in terrible danger. Instead, they embraced the terrorist message that we are falling apart.
In a curious way, this is an old story for America's bizarre relationship with technology. Nobody makes more of it than we do, or is less prepared to deal with its consequences, from airline safety to hypermedia to biological terrorism. Sometimes it seems our ignorance about how technology really works -- and what its consequences really are -- will ultimately do more damage than terrorists can.
| |
|
< NASA's Mars Odyssey Enters Orbit
| Do Manufacturers Adequately Support Their Products? >
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
The Hypermedia Hazard
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 334 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
(1)
|
2
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
Oversaturation (Score:2, Interesting)
by Dead Penis Bird on Wednesday October 24, @09:36AM (#2472008)
(User #524912 Info | http://smoke.rotten.com/bird | Last Journal: Thursday February 07, @04:18PM)
|
It's similar to the problem in advertising. Too much information; it's difficult for people to filter out the good from bad.
Also, when a big story strikes, the coverage is basically the same stuff rehashed every 30 minutes. Most of the time, things don't happen quickly enough to warrant it. The events of the morning of 9/11 did happen quickly enough to warrant it, but what about the constant coverage that lasted for several days?
I've gotten to the point where I no longer want to watch the news. I'll watch the Yankees in the World Series instead.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Not the problem... (Score:1)
by justletmeinnow on Wednesday October 24, @09:36AM (#2472009)
(User #315504 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
The problem is that people take little bits of information and don't filter it through their common sense. There's always going to be misinformation anywhere you look (just watch CNN).
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
The human mind is a good filter (Score:5, Insightful)
by Troed on Wednesday October 24, @09:37AM (#2472013)
(User #102527 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I *don't* want someone else to filter my news. I read Swedish newspapers [aftonbladet.se], American newspapers [cnn.com], independant newspapers [indymedia.org] and _I_ then judge based on lots of facts and opinions what I want to believe in.
The problem starts when people ONLY read biased news, and don't know about it. CNN is a good example here - if you have access to other sources you trust, you probably know as well as I do that the current affairs in Afghanistan are _very_ US-centric reported by CNN. When others say there are confirmed reports about civilian casualities, CNN still claims there are no such reports etc.
There's a saying that americans are ignorant - can't point out Egypt on a map, don't know that Sweden and Schwitzerland aren't the same countries etc. With the risk of immideate "flamebait" moderation, I must confess that I agree with that view. Do a test sometime, and compare your knowledge (if you're american) about the world affairs with someone from Europe or Asia ..
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:The human mind is a good filter [possibly OT] by leviramsey (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @09:48AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by forgoil (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by Havokmon (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM
The Kazakhstan Oil Connection. (Score:5, Interesting)
by AftanGustur on Wednesday October 24, @09:56AM (#2472125)
(User #7715 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I *don't* want someone else to filter my news. I read Swedish newspapers [aftonbladet.se], American newspapers [cnn.com], independant newspapers [indymedia.org] and _I_ then judge based on lots of facts and opinions what I want to believe in.
Then you should also read this! [yahoo.com]
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:The human mind is a good filter by Dreamland (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:04AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by Aloekak (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:07AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by stubear (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:25AM
- Only given time and sufficient input by DoctorNathaniel (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:30AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by jools33 (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:45AM
- Because those countries are irrelevant by bwoodring (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @10:47AM
- Where are you right now? by scyta1e (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @11:21AM
- Garbage in, Garbage Out by Alien54 (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @11:42AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by carlos_benj (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @11:44AM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter EXAMPLE by ackthpt (Score:3) Wednesday October 24, @12:09PM
- Is every human's mind a good filter? by AyaMatsura (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @12:29PM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by ahs_boy (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @01:06PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by bronwen (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @02:43PM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by Sax Maniac (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @03:13PM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by vosque (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @06:24PM
- Re:The human mind is a good filter by xmedar (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @07:22PM
- Only when it's an educated mind. by Austin Tashis (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @08:40PM
- 3 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Nothing New (Score:3, Insightful)
by Computer! (mccallcATrappcollinsDOTcom) on Wednesday October 24, @09:38AM (#2472017)
(User #412422 Info | http://etv.nbc.com/)
|
This is nothing new. Anybody ever hear of the radio "hoax" War of the Worlds? How did news of Christ spread throughout Rome? This "hypermedia" concept speeds things up a bit, but the internet and TV did not invent FUD.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Anthrax Scars (Score:5, Interesting)
by Anml4ixoye on Wednesday October 24, @09:39AM (#2472022)
(User #264762 Info | http://www.cornetdesign.com/)
|
Ya know, I actually have to agree with him a bit on this one. I was speaking to some of our Haz-Mat crews (I also work for Fire/Rescue) and ours, the city's, and the next county over's Haz-Mat units have been running non-stop with Anthrax and other scares. But do we tell the media? We can't. It would only increase the load that we already have.
I agree that information has to get out there, and it seems as if most of the calls we get are people who are playing pranks more than anything else. Lots of people are exposed to Anthrax every day - it is a naturally occuring spore. And it is highly responsive to treatment when caught early. Take something like smallpox - that has potential to be dangerous. Something that hasn't been seen for years, we don't have enough vaccine for, AND is contagious? But again, it is treatable when caught early.
There is a fine line between reporting the news, keeping the citizens informed, and reporting to the point that you push people to the limit where copycats start happening and fear is rampent. I don't have a TV, so I don't know how well the TV media have done with the story, but all of the 'net coverage I have seen has been pretty responsible.
So should we run in fear because the media says it is so? Or perhaps we should merely take that as an opportunity to do more research and find out just how much danger you are really in. Remember, the media are humans too, and prone to make mistakes. Make sure that what they are reporting truly affects you before you go out an by Bio suits and build your bunkers.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
slashdot =HYPERMEDIA (Score:2, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24, @09:40AM (#2472027)
|
oh please katz,how could you talk about "hypermedia" without mentioning slashdot? This site is much worse than cnn or any of the "big media". Articles (like the microsoft .net pricing) are full of distortions, half-truths, and other ramblings. The YRO shit is designed to inflame and anger the slashbots. Remember Michael's "US Trashes Civil Liberties" headline not too long ago??
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
I love this! (Score:2)
by FortKnox on Wednesday October 24, @09:41AM (#2472028)
(User #169099 Info | http://slashdot.org/~FortKnox/journal/ | Last Journal: Monday March 04, @12:52PM)
|
Jon, you have proven yourself once again!
What you speak of (hypermedia) has existed for DECADES!
I'm glad you noticed it after sept 11th, but it isn't something new!
You even covered most of the topics in your last article.
How about we talk about something new, k?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Supply and Demand (Score:2)
by Root Down on Wednesday October 24, @09:41AM (#2472030)
(User #208740 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
It all boils down to the simple economics of human interest. The information is offered, more information that we could possibly digest through more sources than we could possibly use, because we /ask/ for it by visiting these so-called 'hypermedia' sites. (Note that the very term 'hypermedia' is used to denote a certain panic about the methods by which we are able to access information. Why not use the term 'electronic media', or 'internet media'? It is another point in case. The article unnecessarily raises alarm via the condemnation of unnecessarily raising alarm!)
As a culture, we thrive on media and access to current events. Otherwise, all of these net-based news networks would go under in a day. I recall a photographer being interviewed following the death of Princess Diana as to why the paparazzi were so persistent about getting photos of celebrities. His answer was simple, "You ask for them."
Don't like continual coverage? Most devices come equipped with a power switch. Use it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
once upon a time (Score:5, Informative)
by Satai (m-turk&nwu,edu) on Wednesday October 24, @09:41AM (#2472034)
(User #111172 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Learning how to cope with this Hypermedia -- especially in a crisis -- is now as critical to survival as combatting terrorism.
Yeah, remember that time CNN.com blew up a truck in front of the US Embassy?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Heres one (Score:1)
by KingKire64 on Wednesday October 24, @09:43AM (#2472042)
(User #321470 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
ANTHRAX:
Turning ppl into paraniod fucks since October 4th 2001.
BTW if I was Katz and knowing how much ppl here hate him id be warey of emails contiaing white powder.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Heres one by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 24, @09:51AM
- Re:Heres one by unitron (Score:2) Wednesday October 24, @03:01PM
|
Spreading the word.. (Score:3, Insightful)
by EasyTarget (slashdot@owen.sto ... stop.nl.spam.stop) on Wednesday October 24, @09:43AM (#2472046)
(User #43516 Info | http://www.owen.demon.nl/)
|
For once I find myself in very close agreement with JK. I've been trying to explain this to others for years and to be honest it is a very hard message to get across, so many people think 'information is good, speedy information is better' and switch off if you start gainsaying this.
So I devised an example, I ask them to think of any time the mass media has ever reported on a subject they understand really well. I then ask them to think about how it was reported.. Was it accurate? Did it actually explain anything? or was it just trite generalisations interspersed with political, commercial and personal bias?
Since the answers to those three questions are generally 'No', 'No' and 'Yes', the next step is to ask them if they really believe that the media reports anything else (stuff they do not understand so well) with any level of accuracy and objectivity.
This is a useful little argument, and while there are exceptions, it has helped me convince several of my peers and family to be a lot more critical and subjective about 'facts' they hear on the mass media.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Flip Flops? (Score:1)
by KosovoYankee on Wednesday October 24, @09:44AM (#2472049)
(User #310988 Info | http://www.mannlanders.com/)
|
So at first, Katz writes an article lauding the proliferation of media coverage/multiple sources of info regarding the Spet. 11 attacks, stating that it shows how traditional media's stasis is defeated by new 'net media's instant info. Now, Katz tells us that lots of different info from lots of different sources is actually "bad", confusing, and impacts negatively on the "truth". It's like his office has big dartboard full of buzz topics.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Buzzword Bingo? (Score:1)
by thud2000 on Wednesday October 24, @09:44AM (#2472051)
(User #249529 Info)
|
Really, I don't see the problem here. People (at least nobody I know) are not paralyzed by fear or OD'ing on raw information. And even if there was a problem, what would Mr. Katz like to see done about all this? Nothing that I could see from his article. It's like complaining about the weather, this is the way the media is today. Would we rather have one or two official news sources to hold our hands and say everything is going to be OK? I don't see the explosion of non-traditional media (nope, I'm not calling it Hypermedia) as a "hazard."
And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an Apple guy, but wasn't Hypermedia an old Mac tech from back in the day? Just curious, the name rang a bell with me somehow.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Mass panic? (Score:1)
by og_sh0x on Wednesday October 24, @09:44AM (#2472052)
(User #520297 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Yes we know lots of people are needlessly going in for nasal swabs and some are panicking every time they see a white substance, but this is a very small percentage of people. Stop and think, how many people have you personally met that are going hysterical? Most people know better than to believe eveything media and politicians say, and we all commonly underestimate the intelligence of the other guy. And we can still count the number of confirmed anthrax cases on our fingers and toes.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Content is King vs. the Boredom (Score:2)
by beanerspace (abuse@[127.0.0.1]) on Wednesday October 24, @09:45AM (#2472062)
(User #443710 Info)
|
Look, we have "hypermedia" because it's there.
Unlike 10 years ago, we have an infrastructure that can push and pull text, audio, video and pretty much everything else but flesh and blood through a simple wire. It allows us to optimize, customize and quantize what news we're getting.
When we're bored at work, and depending on our social and religious leanings, we go to places where the content is continually changing, like /., Drudge or E-Bay. In part because we're interested, but in part because it adds some variety to the daily grind.
Those of us who surf this stuff alot are usually burned "once is often enough" to know know not to believe everything we read online.
Moreover, when we do take our vactions and get away from our computers, we realize just how much "hypermedia" we can live without.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
War of the Worlds anyone? (Score:1)
by SomethingOrOther on Wednesday October 24, @09:47AM (#2472069)
(User #521702 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
When it comes to "filtered media" I think my .sig says it all.
Anyway, if someone did a 'War Of The Worlds' style broadcast over e-mail, I honestly think people would belive that we were being invaded by Martians.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The journalists' role (Score:2)
by alen on Wednesday October 24, @09:47AM (#2472071)
(User #225700 Info)
|
Reporters have always seen their role as reporting the news, and not getting involved. While it may have on occasion involed risking one's life to get a story, the risk has always been voluntary. Now two popular journalists have been the targets of an attempted murder. Suddenly they are part of the news and they have no control over the situation.
This is probably one of the most stupid things a terrorist could have done. Most reporters have a liberal slant. That's no secret. If they weren't targets of anthrax, they may have intruduced a liberal bias into their reporting as civilian casualties mounted. Or they could have simply tried to find something negative about the war effort. No since they are pissed off at being target they may simply say screw the bastards and give a more hawkish bias into their reporting.
Another thing is the sending of anthrax to only democrats. Democrats are liberals and usually doves. They would probably be the first ones to try to bring about a peaceful ending. Before the Gulf War the vast majority of democrats voted against the war resolution. You don't try to kill of the peacemakers.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Read This !! (Score:5, Informative)
by AftanGustur on Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM (#2472077)
(User #7715 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Somebody should give this guy a medal !
From a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert :
The truth about Bio/Terror/Chem Weapons. [cryptome.org]
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Misuse of the term "hypermedia" (Score:2, Insightful)
by viveka (me@karmanaut.com) on Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM (#2472081)
(User #81107 Info | http://www.karmanaut.com/)
|
"Hypermedia" already has a meaning. Mr. Katz is attempting to coin a new usage for it here, which is only tangentially related to its current meaning.
In its current usage, "hyper" refers to beyond, as in "hypertext" (with a connotation of "beyond linear").
Mr. Katz is attempting to redefine the "hyper" in hypermedia to mean "hype" (a contraction of hyperbole), or possibly "hyper" as a contraction of hyperactive. This kind of misuse of terms which already have an important and useful meaning is damaging to communication.
The Web is an example of hypermedia, and television is not.
I define it thus: hypermedia occurs when multimedia information is structured in a hyperlinked information space. Simple enough? Please Jon, find another term with which to flag your rant. You'll only confuse and irritate your readers, especially playing to the /. audience, who undoubtedly know the existing meaning of the term.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Consumers must become more intelligent (Score:1)
by akula1 (akula1ooo.attbi@com) on Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM (#2472082)
(User #463239 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I personally do not feel the need to have my media filtered and spoon-fed to me. I feel that one of the key strengths of the Internet is the ability for information to travel quickly.
Granted, some of this information is bound to be false, either through malicious or unscrupulous reporters or simply because of a "rush to market" mentality. This is not necessarily a flaw with the Internet; it is a flaw with how we perceive the Internet. I do not believe Internet news should be filtered, but rather that we, as consumers on the Internet must rise to the occasion.
People seem to assume that it is normal to have an Orwellian reaction to everything they see on the Internet. This is both foolish and dangerous. All it takes is stopping for a second thinking about what you are reading. Is it from a reliable source? Does it sound plausible? Etc. Then you double-check it at another site just to make sure.
If people do these simple things, then there would be no cause for panic every time someone starts a rumor on the net.
People want to blame the media because it is easier then blaming him or her for either not being intelligent enough or being to lazy to check the facts.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
problem is journalism, not hyperwhatever (Score:5, Insightful)
by rakerman on Wednesday October 24, @09:49AM (#2472083)
(User #409507 Info | Last Journal: Tuesday January 08, @05:39PM)
|
The problem is that people are reporting unsubstantiated rumors, dropping the time-honored journalistic tradition of confirmation from multiple sources in some illusory quest for "speed". Terry Pratchett wrote about this in his book The Truth. Journalism for small communities was a revelation. Before that, any crazy rumor would circulate around the town like wildfire. With journalism, people said, hey, maybe we should go talk to the baker who supposedly baked the Satanic bread, and the person who supposedly saw it, and see if there is any actual confirmation of it being true.
So the problem is not hypermedia, it's hyper people on TV who report anything immediately, in order to keep us "informed", without checking their facts.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
I've finally figured it out! (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24, @09:51AM (#2472090)
|
Katz is trying to inspire us to think by writing the most thoughtless drivel he can come up with! That way we'll be inspired to actually wrestle with these ideas for ourselves and come up with our own answers!
Pure genius!!!
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Is it just me, (Score:2)
by browser_war_pow on Wednesday October 24, @09:51AM (#2472091)
(User #100778 Info | http://culturalcollapse.tripod.com)
|
or has Katz over the past 1-2 years undertaken a 180 degree shift away from his original very pro-technology, new media, geek views?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Metahysteria (Score:2, Insightful)
by spliff on Wednesday October 24, @09:51AM (#2472094)
(User #225977 Info)
|
Since Katz is Media (or fancies himself as such), shouldn't he consider the hysteria about the hysteria that he is creating?
Katz, please, write something original, something that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed. You know, writing, imagination, primary research, unique insights. Give it a shot.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
more, not different content (Score:2)
by MillMan (millbizzatyahoodotcom) on Wednesday October 24, @09:51AM (#2472095)
(User #85400 Info)
|
A generation ago, most Americans got their news once or twice a day -? from daily papers and evening network newscasts -? no matter what was going on. These were delayed, filtered media. Information could be transmitted, digested and organized before it was presented to the public. No matter how serious the story, you couldn't wallow in it for too long -- evening newscasts only lasted a half hour and there was only so much space in the paper. And reporters and editors had time to consider and check some of the information they passed along.
News of old may have been more carefully checked out, with less content that really says nothing, but the level of propeganda probably wasn't much different. As in it's very, very pro-USA. There is never any critical analysis of our government and what it's doing, which is unfortuante, because it's necessary to keep a democracy flourishing. Jingoistic chest-beating (as of late) does not make up for this.
Sensationalism is newer, or at least more sophisticated in how it grabs the viewer. But an American public whose biggest daily worry is how to pack all those groceries in the SUV is ripe for irrational thought.
If anything technology has led to a homogenization of media, even though there is far more content. Lets face it, all the news stations are saying pretty much the same thing. This started when television became the primary means of information dispersal. We don't have the Labor press handing out newspapers to factory workers like we did in the early 20th century. Media with different points of view and ideas like the labor press had don't exist except for a few fairly marginalized magazines like The Nation.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The amount of information isn't the problem (Score:1)
by juggleme (juggleme@yahoo!.com) on Wednesday October 24, @09:52AM (#2472096)
(User #53716 Info)
|
It's the sources of that media. Who controls these thousands of images that flash by us every day? A thousand different companies, each with their own take on it? No, it's a handful of conglomerates, each with their own agenda. Once they agree on what they want to show as facts, they become engrained in the minds of everyone in this country who still pays attention to this crap. There's an overwhelming majority of people who do this and this makes the problem worse.
I agree that the human mind needs to filter out crap. But when there's nothing else to compare it to, we're given the choice between crap or nothing; most people are going to choose crap because of some overwhelming need to be "informed".
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
by debrain on Wednesday October 24, @09:52AM (#2472097)
(User #29228 Info)
|
Yes, well, it's not like we hold the media liable for the damages they cause or even the validity of their statements. As a worst case scenario they have to put a little rebuttle in the corner of the 3rd page, that states that their entire front page article released the day prior was completely false and utterly incompetent.
I live in a small city in Canada, and every single news article to which I've had insider information has been totally botched to the point of being unrecognizable. Out of dozens of verbatim quotes, I've never seen one that someone never said "that's not what I actually said". I've more faith in the regularity of earthquakes than I do in the validity of the media.
Not to sound like a specialist luddite or paranoid conspirator theorist, but I think the news media is only a pawn of corporate media and corporate media a pawn of political and corporate interests.
Slashdot excluded. ;-)
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
I know whose fault it is.... (Score:1)
by pheit on Wednesday October 24, @09:52AM (#2472100)
(User #517422 Info)
|
...blame the Corporate Republic
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Well written, katz (Score:2)
by Laxitive on Wednesday October 24, @09:52AM (#2472101)
(User #10360 Info)
|
First of all: nicely written, Katz. The media, due to several factors (one of which is the ability to deliver news instantly and frequently) has been getting much more alarmist and irresponsible recently. This point either seems to be missed, ignored, or misconstrued by most people.
But perhaps this is not necessarily all bad. Hopefully, the mainstream media (which is generally seen as having a responsibility to deliver relavent and truthful news) will lose a bit of credibility in the eyes of the common person, due to crying wolf one too many times. I think American media has for a long time been reporting one-sided and skewed news. For example: "International news" in mainstream US media is a joke, usually focusing on a couple US-focused events that happen to occur outside of US borders. It's pathetic. So the media flushing their own credibility down the drain is not necessarily a bad thing.
Now, the question is, how much credibility will mainstream media lose in the eyes of the people, and will it be enough to cause any sort of change in the general perception of reported events?
-Laxitive
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Look a little deeper (Score:3, Troll)
by Christianfreak (christian_freak@yahoo.com) on Wednesday October 24, @09:55AM (#2472122)
(User #100697 Info | http://www.christianfreak.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 06, @11:57AM)
|
One striking trend: technology has spawned too much instant and unfiltered media.
No. Humans have spawned too much instant and unfiltered media. I've seen things like "5 ways you can protect yourself from terrorists" on the news. This isn't news its fear mongering and it isn't about informing the public-- its about people (not technology) maximizing eye balls and profit for their own greed. I hope they shall be judged accordingly for using a tragidy to their benefit.
Obligatory Jon Katz flame:
And yet again Jon fails to see the root of the problem instead sensationalizing the idea of technology controling everything the exact same way the big media sensationalizes terrorism.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
There's a good book on this very subject. (Score:1)
by Anton Anatopopov on Wednesday October 24, @09:55AM (#2472123)
(User #529711 Info)
|
It's called 'data smog'. Information used to be scarce, now it is ubiquitous. We are all desparately trying to 'drink from the firehose', but our human brains have not evolved fast enough.
The only real answer is to disengage from the media hype machine. Stop watching TV news, stop surfing the net etc.
Having said that I think Mr Katz is on dangerous ground when he says unfiltered news in untrustworthy. Often the best sources are the uncensored ones straight from the front line.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
More Katz drivel (Score:2, Informative)
by owlmeat on Wednesday October 24, @09:57AM (#2472131)
(User #197799 Info)
|
Once again Katz whines about the obvious. Maybe the problem is that nobody in the media has a fsking clue. They're nothing but shills for the political machine. Look at the anthrax coverage. The FL anthrax broke at the same time as the bombing started. The media effectively ignored it, citing "not wanting to start a panic", and "no evidence it's related to 9/11" 2 days later, it gets a sidebar and another day later, Wolf Blitzer is apologizing for not covering it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The question that needs to be asked (Score:2)
by alen on Wednesday October 24, @09:58AM (#2472134)
(User #225700 Info)
|
Is this hypermedia 15 years old? SInce everyone knows that only 15 year olds produce anything of value I bet all the really good reporters in this hypermedia thing are 15 years old. They decided to learn reporting and in a few weeks of reading books they are now hypermedia.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Can't disagree (much) (Score:3, Interesting)
by BobGregg (rgregg at hiwaay dot net) on Wednesday October 24, @09:58AM (#2472136)
(User #89162 Info)
|
The morning of the 11th, I was a bit late to work in my Fairfax VA office (about 12 miles from downtown DC, less than 10 from Dulles airport), arriving just about the time the Pentagon was hit. Needless to say, we were pretty worried. The question on all our lips was, "Are we at war?", and nobody knew. All 'Net outlets were swamped; all our cell phones were useless as the networks clogged; the only way to get any information at all was to go down to my car and turn on the radio. And at that point, the following things were "known" to be true:
- The Mall was on fire.
- The White House had been attacked.
- A bomb had blown up in the USA Today headquarters (which faces the Potomac, just up from the mall).
- Another hijacked plane was circling Dulles airport, practically over our heads.
- A car bomb had blown up outside the State department.
Needless to say, *none* of these stories turned out to be true - but it took hours to discover that, as all media outlets were reporting rumor as fact. Even the next day, the Washington Post was *still* reporting the State department rumor, even though anyone driving through downtown could clearly see that it was false.
You'd think that it would just have been the hurried rush of events, and that surely in the month since then, calm and reason would have returned to reporting. But if anything, some outlets seem to have become even more sensationalist. Many times the headlines look like something out of the New York Post. Granted these are extraordinary times; but that just calls for extraordinary measures, to make sure that facts are facts and the public isn't needlessly panicked. The past month has been a real eye-opener for me in terms of my ability to trust what the American media says.
On a separate note, describing this phenomenon in a hysterical meta-story, and creating a titled meme ("hypermedia") to describe it, are some of the same tactics that cause the problem in the first place.
And finally, the term "hypermedia" is already taken. Perhaps "hysterimedia" would work for you, if you have to have a meme to rally around instead of just calmly reporting facts.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
The media does to you what you let it. (Score:1)
by deacon (Ctbv4@oP6bwR.IoY) on Wednesday October 24, @09:59AM (#2472145)
(User #40533 Info)
|
Get rid of your TV. I did that over a year ago,
and now _I_ control what I am exposed to and how. The insistent noise and flashing lights of the TV are designed to mesmerize you, in the same way a Cobra mesmerizes a Rat. You become just a passive target, too numb to even press the buttons on the remote. And since all the stations show basically the same thing, changing the channel wouldn't save you anyway.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Only a problem if you're a MORON. (Score:1)
by MegaGremlin on Wednesday October 24, @10:05AM (#2472171)
(User #216264 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
So what you're saying, Mr. Katz, is that someone who is smart enough to FIND a news source that's running something other than the CNN news feed wouldn't be smart enough to try to verify its accuracy. I don't think I agree with that.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
24-Hour News Cycle = 21st Century Crack (Score:2)
by tenzig_112 on Wednesday October 24, @10:06AM (#2472176)
(User #213387 Info | http://www.ridiculopathy.com/)
|
News is quickly replacing religion as the "opiate of the masses."
We say the media manipulates the news to create panic- and this is probably true. However, since people consume news faster than it can actually happen, reporters have to find new ways to re-hash old stories, making old bad news look like fresh bad news.
[Many people were convinced the world was coming to an end before 9/11 and now believe it already has.]
In light of the Anthrax situation, news organizations are already predicting the next big terror wave.
What's next? Cooties?
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?displ ay=20011024 [ridiculopathy.com]
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Contributing to terror (Score:1)
by yusing on Wednesday October 24, @10:06AM (#2472177)
(User #216625 Info)
|
If the media had actually set out to support and amplify the effects of terror, how would it have been different from what they've been doing?
Everything that has happened so far is, more or less, common fare in many countries in the world. After decades of hearing about the Irish and Palestinians, it's as though Americans never really felt what was going on there. Just as they don't understand that *millions* of Afghans face starvations.
It's as though we're-- being conditioned.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The Media Equivalent of "First Post!" (Score:1)
by jnd3 (jd3work at yahoo dot com) on Wednesday October 24, @10:06AM (#2472178)
(User #116181 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
While I'm sure it's not the only example of the dangers of the acceleration of news coverage, CNN recently ran a story [cnn.com] in which the Taliban claimed to have shot down a U.S. Special Forces helicopter. Seems like reasonable news. But according to a blurb [plastic.com] on Plastic, CNN could have gotten the real skinny on the story if they'd bothered to do a little research. As another poster noted earlier, journalists can't be bothered to take the time for fact-checking. The drive is to get the breaking news first, regardless of whether it must later be retracted. Facts? We don' need no stinkin' facts!
The biggest problem is that much of the hysterical news-watching public just plain doesn't care about facts. Sensationalism, spin and sordid details are the name of the game. Katz mentioned the Lewinsky scandal, a fine example of media sensationalism that glossed over the facts (like perjury and obstruction of justice) with sordid details (like activities with cigars and telephones). Welcome to the world of infotainment.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
a hazard only because we're not used to it (Score:1)
by pomakis (pomakis@pobox.com) on Wednesday October 24, @10:08AM (#2472185)
(User #323200 Info | http://www.pobox.com/~pomakis/)
|
I really don't think there's such a thing as "too much information", as long as the majority of it is accurate. The problem society is experiencing now is that it's not used to receiviing so much information. Back "a generation ago", when "most Americans got their news once or twice a day", just about everything that was reported in these newscasts was considered generally important. It had to be, because the media only had a small window of time and space per day in which to report. Therefore, society has grown used to assuming that if they heard it from the media, it must be important (and therefore something to fear, etc.). However, now that we're able to get up-to-the-minute reports on most news stories, not everything is necessarily important or relevant. It's up to the individual receiving the information to determine how much relevance a particular piece of news has to his/her life.
Some may see this as a bad thing, using the argument that it should be the media's job of filtering out the unimportant or irrelevant information. However, that assumes that the media knows what's important or relevant. These things are highly subjective.
So, to sum up what I'm trying to say, I think that today's abundance of hypermedia is a good thing, but it may take a while (a year, a generation?) for the public to adapt to knowning how to judge the imporetance or relevance of the news they hear.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Run for your lives!! It's an attack of hysteria!! (Score:2)
by Sebbo ({sebbo} {at} {sebbo.org}) on Wednesday October 24, @10:08AM (#2472188)
(User #28048 Info | http://sebbo.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 06, @09:08PM)
|
Count on J. Katz to put they "hype" in "hypermedia."
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Irrational Fear and The Lottery (Score:3, Insightful)
by Saeger on Wednesday October 24, @10:10AM (#2472202)
(User #456549 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Most of the people freaked out about flying, anthrax, and "arabs in public," are the same ones who play they lottery every week; i.e. they let their emotions cloud the actual odds of winning and/or dying. I realize this is human nature, but the media isn't helping, in fact they're rubbing salt in the wound.
As for this "hypermedia" -- well, I hate to be cynical (not really), but being factual and rational aren't conducive to RATINGS. Our "respected news organizations" are more like the tabloids than they (or their viewers) would like to admit, and as long as this profitable, they're not going to stop exploiting paranoia.
Personally, I fear anthrax about as much as I fear Michael Jackson, and I fear a rogue briefcase nuke about as much as I fear Bill Gates...which is saying that Gates is only a TINY bit more frightful than MJ, but they're both still mostly harmless. :)
(Oh, and how to make up for that first week of good reporting without ads? How better than by running spots that exploit patriotism...you've bought YOUR genuine U.S. Flag Pin and Medallion Set haven't you!? No? You must be a terrorist sympathizer then!)
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
What does this remind me of? (Score:2, Funny)
by return 42 on Wednesday October 24, @10:12AM (#2472210)
(User #459012 Info)
|
One striking trend: technology has spawned too much instant and unfiltered media.
Darn...that reminds me of something...some news site on the web. Can't remember what it's called.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Hypermedia, how about misinformation (Score:1)
by jonniesmokes (ninjo@thenospamworld.com) on Wednesday October 24, @10:13AM (#2472212)
(User #323978 Info)
|
I was burned during this whole thing. But by the CDC. If anyone should know, they should. And well they didn't. They reported that the first cases were accidental. Its not the media's fault for this kind of mis-information. Its not the internet's fault. Simply too many people jumping to too many conclusions and then the other side lying so as to calm the public. Almost everyone I know (except my boss) seems to have a level head.
I don't think Jon Katz's critique of the instant media is valid. Most people know not to jump to conclusions. Most people know not to trust the government's words. Most people know that the real fears are Small Pox, the Plague, nuclear weapons... And while Anthrax does liquify the few it gets, its not a serious threat to US national security. I do feel sorry for the letter carriers though. Jeez, who'd a thought that ultra-fine powder could get out of a letter. I'm not very impressed with the government health officials in this depressing story.
One lingering fear I have is this. If we have a representational democracy, and my representatives don't open their letters to read my view, and they don't read email because... well... they just don't, exactly how are they supposed to do what we want. I think the hijackers hijacked some planes and our government has been hijacked by fear.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
The Internet? What about the FBI and TV, Jon? (Score:1)
by aka-ed (beelzebub@christianemail.com) on Wednesday October 24, @10:14AM (#2472221)
(User #459608 Info | http://www.aka-ed.com/)
|
TV did us the great favor of getting rid of the ads, so they could broadcast the WTC tape over and over and over. Now, they blast in with new promos: "More anthrax victims! Details at 11!" Newscasters' preference to refer to each anthrax exposure as a "victim," no matter how clean their bill of health (even the bogus MS anthrax "victims"), is a pure ratings ploy, completely in conflict with public interest.
And the FBI. Why would they think we need terrorist warnings? After the WTC, we damn well know that *anything* can happen. As I recall, there was a "100% likelihood" of a terrosist attack a few days ago, that never came about (unless you count the Lone Nut of Trenton). But the FBI gave us warning after warning...not coincidentally the "anti-terrorist" USA Act (which I recall you defending in this same forum) was in Congress over the same period....
Your essay doesn't name a single thing that originated on the Internet. What are you talking about? The story about the dude who "surfed" a building fragment from the top of the WTC? Yeah, that silly story was spread by the Internet, so what? Cipro marketers? Yeah, I get that spam, too. But the real harm is not coming from the people, or from their ability to communicate.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Garbage in, garbage out (Score:2)
by cryptochrome on Wednesday October 24, @10:16AM (#2472229)
(User #303529 Info | http://www.geocities...rome/char/index.html)
|
It's bad enough how commentary masquerades as news these days, but the biggest problem is the media quoting unreliable, heavily biased, or strictly speculative sources as fact. Just the other day I saw a segment on CNN on sites you might want to check out for more information, including Stratfor [stratfor.com], an interesting but mostly speculative independent analysis group, and the perennial clinton-hating Drudge report [drudgereport.com].
More significantly, they also cited Debkafile [debka.com], a right-wing Israeli affiliated rumor/news site with the bad habits of:
1) presenting "facts" that later prove to be false, and then not acknowledging them (i.e. they said terrorists shot down that russian plane, when it was later shown to be an errant ukranian missile - they changed the story but did not admit error)
2) basing their headlines and articles entirely on unnamed "Debkafile sources" which they make out to be deep within the upper eschelons of every government in the world (US and China included).
If you follow the TV news closely, you'll see how "news" is making if from web to TV in record time. This needs to stop.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
I wish there were 'status' pages instead of 'news' (Score:2, Interesting)
by ers81239 (slashdotspam@stardotstar.org) on Wednesday October 24, @10:17AM (#2472236)
(User #94163 Info | http://www.stardotstar.org/)
|
I found it irritating on cnn.com that you might find this list of headlines:
3 cases of Anthrax in Florida
CDC reports that 5 media cases isolated.
22 testing in DC, 4 positive in early results.
Second man dies of Anthrax.
Two reported dead due to Anthrax.
The point is, you never really get a clear picture of how many cases there are, where they are, etc. You might think that there were way more cases and deaths because they keep getting rereported, and its not clear if they are totals or new cases.
A map with all of the cases and a color code for death, infection, exposure would be nice.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
advertising driven (Score:2, Informative)
by ZeissIcon on Wednesday October 24, @10:22AM (#2472260)
(User #67281 Info)
|
I think that Katz is largely right, but he missed a critical issue that is really destroying what is left of integrity-driven American journalism: advertising dollars. It has generally been accepted that local newspapers don't run anything too controversial because it will piss off the local car dealerships, who will then pull their advertisements, and the paper will cease to exist. The same with local news broadcasts. National news, however, is different. Papers like the New York Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, and the LA times have national distribution, and have long been thought of as reliable, accurate and well considered news sources. People advertise in the NYT because it gives the advertiser an air of authority, so the NYT doesn't have to wonder where it's next advertising buck is coming from.
(For those of you who don't know, the cover price on a newspaper barely covers the printing costs, much less the distribution or paying all of those nice reporters and editors).
National TV news was much the same way for many years; people trusted 60 minutes and Walter Cronkite because those shows were not expected to pay for themselves. They were paid for by advertising revenue from other parts of the network, the idea was that if people trusted your news people, they would like your network and watch your other shows, too. Having a good evening news program was a public service designed to maintain viewer loyalty to the networks.
Enter the Cable News Network. How has this changed things? Well, how does CNN exist? On advertising dollars. How do you generate add revenue? You provide viewers for those ads. And how do you provide viewers? You repeat the same sensationalistic story over and over again, with a slight variation each time so that people are afraid to turn the channel.
"Oh my God! Anthrax is everywhere! I'd better stay home and watch CNN today instead of going to work and providing for my family and reassuring them that their chances of contracting anthrax are about one-tenth that of them winning the Florida lottery."
Any time the presentation of news is contingent on that news' ability to attract advertising dollars (whether explicitly or implicitly -- I'm not saying CNN only runs stories that it thinks will attract advertisers, but they sure as hell don't run things that will offend, or deal with issues that the majority of Americans aren't interested in) there is something dreadfully wrong. As a journalist, if money or politics (e.g. The Insider) is driving the content of your news, you should be cricified. But by and large, the public seems to accept news-as-entertainment without so much as a blink. Oh well.
And speaking of old-school journalism, Katz, how about a little proof reading. For a fun game, find the place where the word "the" shouldn't be, in the above article.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Danger especially with anthrax and anitbiotics. (Score:1)
by DoctorNathaniel (doctor_nathanielNO@SPAMhotmail.com) on Wednesday October 24, @10:24AM (#2472280)
(User #459436 Info | http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~tagg)
|
I think perhaps the scariest thing happening in the West right now is what I hear about people attempting to aquire anthrax-effective antibiotics. This is due entirely to uninformed panic.. if people really knew the implications of this, they wouldn't do it, but uniformed panic has driven many to attempting to get this medicine.
For those of you who may not know, antibiotics are very dangerous to take if you're not sick or if you fail to take them in the correct fashion. Bacteria (of all kinds, including anthrax), if not killed off by your medicine, will become bred to be resistant by successive small exposures, ensuring that the antibiotics become useless. The rate at which new antibiotics become developed is slow compared to the rate that baterial strains can become resistant if they get this kind of exposure. (Heck, it's even possible we'll lose this war if we DON'T do stupid things like taking antibiotics we don't need.)
I don't think I'd blame "Hypermedia" for this problem exclusively.. but I'm sure it must be a contributing factor.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Sanitizing the Past and Demonizing the Future (Score:2, Interesting)
by Gedvondur on Wednesday October 24, @10:25AM (#2472295)
(User #40666 Info)
|
While I think that hypermedia is an issue, I don't think it was necessary to pontificate THAT much on it.
People have to learn to be smart about what they read in the popular news media, and to speak up when they are spouting a line of BS. I am also offended by the sanitation of the past that occured in Mr. Katz's commentary. Sure, people only got news once or twice a day. It does NOT mean that coverage was good, well thought out or even accurate. There were media barons back then, just as there are now. For some reason we seem to think that the media barons were defeated.
Guess what, they were not. They just learned to keep a lower profile. Yellow journalism and outright lies were the order of the day 100 years ago. We went through "self-correcting" phase after that, and journalism got better. News reporting got better. We will self-correct again, now that some news is not as good.
One of the things to remember is that while errors occur in our hyper-fast news, corrections appear just as fast.
People need to use there heads. Question authority, and question what you are told. Have a skeptical eye. A healty dose of skepticism makes the world a better place.
Its the blind believers that cause panics. Its people who do not even begin to TRY to find out what is going on. Its ignorant commentary and a reliance on "common sense" that cannot be sensible due to lack real information. The only thing true about "common sense" when it comes to news is that it is is COMMON. Meaning that every ill-informed, ignorant fool who has seen a 5 minute video clip has an expert opinion.
If people do not educate themselves about issues that they care about, they will be decieved and deceive themselves about what news organizations present.
Take for example the E-mail that has been going around about former President Clinton and his promises to "get the terroists and make them pay" and the "common sense" failure to do so.
While I am not a big Clinton supporter, do you REALLY think that there was enough outrage in the public or in Congress to justify an invasion of another country over a couple of embassy attacks and the attack on the USS Cole, all spaced out over eight years?
Guess what, there wasn't. We all went about our merry little lives, and so did Congress. Had Clinton gone to war, he would have been decried as doing it for political reasons. He couldn't do it, so he didn't.
But yet we get ignorant, uninformed, badly thought-out email about it. For God's sake Paul Harvey even read the thing on the air. Common sense says that email is right. Examine your own attitudes about military action AT THAT TIME. Now is it REALLY right? Try to see through the fog of patriotism.
Be skeptical! Don't believe everything you read or hear. Look it up! Study it! And don't offer an opinion on something until you understand both sides of the issue.
Gedvondur
|
[ Parent
]
|
| 19 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
(1)
|
2
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
 |
|
|
Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers.
-- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
|
[
home |
awards |
contribute story |
older articles |
OSDN |
advertise |
self serve ad system |
about |
terms of service |
privacy |
faq ]
|
|