Arianna Huffington has declared that she will do away with anonymous commenting in her publication, the Huffington Post. Let’s hope she sticks to her guns and doesn’t cave in to vehement — though ultimately weak — arguments in favour of retaining anonymity.
One of these is an article written by Mathew Ingram, one of the great defenders of no-name. He contends that there would be much to lose:
. . . there are valuable things we can learn from commenters that they would never contribute if they had to attach their real identity to it. Comments about spousal abuse, sexual identity, religious persecution — the list goes on.
He goes on himself to quote a snide tweet by technology columnist Dan Gillmor:
HuffPost will soon require Federalist Papers #1 author Publius to post comments under his real name, Alexander Hamilton.
In other words, without the protection of anonymity, much evil would carry on without us ever being able to expose it. Great words would never be spoken due fear of repercussions from those in power.
Ingram and Gillmor are both smart, so it’s astounding that they would have us believe such nonsense. I would like to see even one example of a comment that made any kind of difference to the world — or even the well-being of one person.
Anyone suffering from spousal abuse can surely find better recourse than the comments tacked on to the end of an article at Huffington Post. A phone call to the police or a social worker might be a good start.
But supposing you just want to talk about it. Forums for this type of sensitive discourse already exist — just look up your local social agencies or advocacy groups. The people who attend these meetings are much more helpful than random commenters.
And my goodness, how did Alexander Hamilton ever get by without the benefit of anonymously commenting on the Internet. He took advantage of something still available to all of us — self-publishing. And now it’s easier than ever — just start up a blog.
Ingram also argues that making people use their real name won’t help anyway. He cites evidence from South Korea and Facebook to back this up. OK, first of all, South Korea is a whole other country and culture. Lessons learned there might apply here, but we need more than that. Second, Facebook’s insistence on real names does make a difference. It’s far from perfect, but the number of persistent trolls is diminished.
But let’s say we’re convinced — that real names do nothing to improve comments. It’s still a good idea for the very reason that people who want to stand up and be counted should have the guts to show their faces. There are few good excuses for doing otherwise. And there are plenty of good alternatives for those rare instances where there is a good excuse.
In other words, if you have to be a troll then do the right thing and be a troll with a real name.
Whether we’re creating the news or consuming it, we all have one thing in common: words. And, I would venture to say, a love of words.
That’s why one of the best ways of taking a break from the news is by playing a game that involves words. The three I like best are SpellTower, W.E.L.D.E.R. and Letterpress. The first two are available for iOS and Android. Letterpress is iOS only, but there are Android imitators that appear to be similar.
SpellTower: Think of this game as a cross between word-finder puzzles and Tetris. There are a number of different modes of play, but they all involve finding words in a grid of letters. You can connect the letters in any direction and the words can be as short as three letters. In Tower mode, the letters disappear as they are used and the others tumble into their place. Eventually you run out of letters that will make words, and you get your score. It’s a relaxing experience. If you want to get the adrenalin flowing, there is Puzzle mode. In this case, a row of letters drops every time you make a word, so you’re under pressure to make sure the letters in the grid don’t reach the top. Things really get hairy in Rush mode where the rows keep falling regardless of whether you’re making words. The game has a multiplayer option, where players — each on their own device — go all-out in a Rush mode battle. I haven’t tried this, but it could be a good way to blow off some steam.
W.E.L.D.E.R.: Once again, you’re presented with a grid of letters to make words from. In some ways, it’s more restrictive because the words have to be at least four letters long and they have to read top to bottom or left to right. To create the words, you swap adjacent letters. You’re only allowed so many swaps to get to a pre-determined number of words in each level. There are a few tricks you can use, such as reversing groups of letters, but you can only use these special moves a few times in each level. Of course, the levels get progressively harder and you may find yourself forced to trade in “gigawatts” to gain enough swaps to stay alive. You build up gigawatts as you’re rewarded for good playing, but even so you can eventually run out. And this is where to game may lose its appeal. To get more gigawatts you have to pay for them, which makes me a little suspicious of whether the game is truly winnable or made just hard enough that you’re forced to pay to carry on. So far I haven’t had to do this, but be warned.
Letterpress: There is only one way to play this game — and that’s against a friend . . . or random stranger. So if you’re a loner (and hey, some of us are), this one is not for you. Again there is grid of letters, but you can tap letters anywhere in any sequence to form a word. Tap Submit and the letter-tiles flip to your colour. Then it’s your opponent’s turn. You get a point for each tile. The thing is, though, that the game not just about making words — it’s about defending territory. When you surround a tile it becomes defended, and your opponent can’t use it. This aspect leads to all kinds of strategies becoming available, some which are chess-like in their complexity. It’s best, then, to find a friend who plays at about the same level or you might find yourself embarrassed.
With recent events in Egypt, death-toll journalism has gone into hyperdrive. There was a time when we would be content with mounting death tolls — now they’re apparently soaring. The thinking must be that the faster the bodies pile up, the more engaging the story becomes. At this rate, we should keep our fingers crossed for the death toll to reach that all-important 1,000 threshold.
Yes, I’m disillusioned. And I also know I’m a voice in the wilderness. The never-ending quest for pageviews will win every time.
Fortunately, I’ve found an antidote to death-toll journalism: it’s called history. My epiphany occurred while reading a science fiction novel that takes place in the future. Interspersed among the chapters were snippets of the history of this future, which got me thinking . . . real-life history could be just as interesting and have the added benefit of helping to explain the current messes we find in various parts of the world.
I just finished reading Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson, an overview of the past 500 years during which the West came to dominate much of the rest of the world — plus a look at how this dominance may be coming to an end. Ferguson has some interesting theories, with a focus on competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumerism and work ethic. More than a few times, he gets sidetracked but still manages to be enlightening. Most relevant to current events in the Middle East is the history of conflict between Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Ferguson argues that the West triumphed in this case because of advances in science that allowed its military to become more powerful. The Ottoman Empire (basically, a much enlarged version of Turkey) was held back by powerful religious leaders who mistrusted science. Sound familiar?
I’m now reading Lawrence in Arabia by Scott Anderson. This book seeks to explain how the current map of the Middle East was drawn by exploring the lives of four men who were particularly influential during the First World War. Among them, of course, was Thomas Edward Lawrence — better known as Lawrence of Arabia. Once again, the Ottoman Empire plays a large role. Did you know that this empire once laid siege to Vienna? Imagine how different things would be today if it had succeeded. We might be living in a world where Islam dominates. The West helped the Arabs free themselves of the Ottomans, but now certain Arab forms of Islam have become a threat to the West.
Next on my list is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. This book won a Pulitzer Prize for its look at the geographical and environmental factors that created the world we live in today.
Perhaps history is a logical progression from journalism. We’ll see.
It’s one of the most commonly used phrases in journalism — “death toll.”
Like a number on a giant scoreboard in the middle of an arena, it appears in every newsroom when tragedy strikes. It might be a train crash, a tornado or a war. But the first thing we want to know is how many people died. And this makes sense, of course, because the worst thing that can happen in any situation is the loss of human life. Without it, we are nothing.
And so the relentless and ominous death toll begins. We start with a preliminary number, perhaps an estimate, and go from there.
Sometimes the death toll from a disaster will take weeks to unfold. In the case of a war, it can take months or even years. It may reach the point where the death toll is only revised when thresholds of a thousand are reached. At certain point, the numbers become meaningless. What does it mean for 100,000 to be dead in a war? Every single one of those deaths is a tragedy for friends and family.
I won’t try to answer the philosophical questions involved here, but I can say unequivocally that referring to a “death toll” is an unnecessary trivialization — a habit we have fallen into for the sake of convenience in headline writing. “Death toll hits 46” is about as tight as it gets when it comes to writing — and it could be argued that we don’t have a duty to do anything more than inform. Why not leave it to others to interpret the meaning of the number.
If all you aspire to is commodity journalism then, sure, stick with the tried and true “death toll.” But we are living in an age where people expect more from journalism, especially if it’s journalism they’re actually willing to pay for. And aside from that, I suspect that deep down we expect more of ourselves as well. To that end we really need to stop treating human lives as nothing more than numbers on a Jumbotron.
I’m not gong to be so presumptuous as to prescribe a replacement term for “death toll.” We’re all smart enough to figure these things out on our own. But I do urge all of us to treat “death toll” the way we do any other cliché, with the realization that with a little effort we can almost always improve our writing by using words that more precisely fit the circumstances. Think about the context, think about why the number of dead is important to an understanding of what has happened.
A story about loss of life demands at least this much from us.
Here’s the problem: you’ve got a Twitter widget on your website based on a hashtag. It’s a unique hashtag, so you can be fairly confident that it will only be used by people you tell about it.
But still, it crops up from time to time in other people’s timelines and they make their way into your widget. Maybe they’re just trying to get your attention. Maybe they’re retweeting and the hashtag comes along for the ride. Who knows what the great unwashed will do with your precious hashtag?
You can’t stop them from using the hashtag, but you can stop them from appearing in the widget. Twitter’s advanced search comes to the rescue.
There are only two fields you need to fill in: “these hashtags” and “from these accounts.” In the first case, of course, fill in your cherished hashtag. In the second, fill in the names of accounts that you want to be allowed in the widget. It might be just yours or it might be several people in a group. If it’s more than one, separate each account name with a space.
Then click on the Search button. You’ll get a list something like this: “Results for #yourhashtag from:youraccount OR from:anotheraccount.”
Now click on the gear at the top right and go for “Embed this search.” Assuming you’re logged in, you will go to Twitter’s standard page for configuring a widget. If you like what you see, click on Create widget, and you’re good to go.
Now your widget will only show tweets with your hashtag from the people you’ve specified. You own that hashtag.
Of course, Twitter’s advanced search allows for all kinds of combinations and permutations. Let your imagination run free.
Twitter, of course, allows you to embed a timeline widget on your website. But the CMS I’m using — Textpattern — has a plugin that does much the same thing except that it blends in with the style of the site.
I’ve added it to the sidebar here at newsonaut.com so I can experiment with some of its special abilities. I’m hoping I can get it narrowed down so that only certain tweets show up. I’d also like it to be able to display pictures and video.
I’m usually not a big fan of Twitter feeds on other sites, so bear with me.
Update: I’ve changed the feed so that only tweets with #newsonaut show up. That way I can ensure that only tweets I feel are relevant to this website are displayed.
Update 2: The whole thing was kinda meh, so I dropped it.
Instagram has a lot of good things going for it, but it’s no good for journalists. That terrible realization came back to me when the app was upgraded to allow videos as well as photos.
Once again, I thought about how it would be great to use Instagram, and once again I realized I couldn’t.
The thing is, we need to be able to post to Twitter, because that’s where all the breaking news is. But Instagram’s owner, Facebook, has decided not to co-operate with Twitter, so pictures posted to Twitter from Instagram are not displayed in the timeline. You have to click on a link and go off-site to see them.
Look at the screenshot below. The picture of Spock has a link to the Instagram site and that’s it. The picture below of solstice day has a View Photo link that allows you to see the the picture in the timeline.
For most people this is a minor inconvenience. But for journalists it’s pain in the neck. We want our stuff to show up right away. On top of that, if the timeline is embedded on our website, we want people to stay as long as possible — not go traipsing off to Instagram.
Making this state of affairs sadder is the fact that Facebook is also hurting itself. There are plenty of alternatives to Instagram, including the Twitter app itself, which can crop pictures square and add filters. And iOS7 will allow you to do it with the built-in Camera app.
With all the attention Circa has been receiving lately, you’d think it was the best news app since sliced bread. And you wouldn’t be far wrong — it serves the news in bite-sized slices and offers a way to receive added slices on topics that catch your interest.
An article might start off as a few screens of information, but can grow over the days and weeks as more information becomes available. You use a checkmark system to follow along.
Once you get used to the concept, it’s a neat way to keep up with the news, especially stuff that might otherwise get lost in the shuffle. And it’s especially suited to mobile.
As an example, there have been rumours about various companies taking over or buying Hulu, a U.S. TV and video streaming service. They started swirling in March and there have been updates as late as June 6. As long as that story stays in my Followed list, I can keep up with the latest.
There are a few drawbacks to the app at this point, the main one being the limited number of topics. If you live outside the United States, nothing about your own country will be covered unless it’s something of interest to the rest of the world. The Politics section covers only American politics. And beyond that there are Technology and Science & Health.
I suspect Circa will broaden its range soon with the hiring of Anthony De Rosa as editor in chief. He has a fine pedigree as Reuters’ former social media editor, and a version 2.0 is said to be in the works.
De Rosa and CEO Matt Galligan have alluded to plans for partnerships with other news providers along with some original reporting of their own. Circa is a pure-play news app — not the product of an old-school news service — so it’s definitely worthwhile to watch where it is headed.
I’m not sure what the medical term is, but hunchitis might do. All those hours hunched over a smartphone or computer add up fast. Oh how we love our devices, but unfortunately they can twist our bodies into unhealthy shapes over time.
So is there an app for that? As it turns out, there are a gazillion apps out there to get you back in shape with exercise programs. Just try doing a search on pushups in the App Store. I got so many hits, I gave up counting.
The one I chose is called Pushups 0-100. The idea — as is the case with many of these apps — is to gradually work your way up to 100 pushups a day, three days a week.
With Pushups 0-100, you start off with beginner pushups — pushing off a counter while standing. They’re a lot easier than getting down on the floor. You start off with five minutes of stretches, which is a good idea because working on a computer or over a phone can get those muscles tensed up in ways they shouldn’t be.
Next comes fives sets of pushups with 90-second rests in between. The interface that coaches you along is nicely designed and easy to follow. You wrap up with another five minutes of stretches.
Looking ahead, the number of pushups gradually works up to five sessions of 20. After that, there is the option of moving up to intermediate pushups from your knees. After that, it’s full body on the floor.
Of course, you could just as easily do a similar program without an app. But an app, whichever one one you choose, has a couple of advantages. First, it’s nicely laid out for you, which is encouraging. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the icon sits there on the screen day after day, reminding you to get busy. It could even go in the dock and become an even more prominent reminder.
I’m only on the first couple of steps in Pushups 0-100, so the question remains as to whether I’ll be able to maintain my enthusiasm over the next few weeks. I’m hoping an app on the screen will do the trick.
