Interview with Aldon Hynes

Over the past week, I've exchanged a few emails with Aldon Hynes, writer of Orient Lodge, a blog that revolves around the intersections of technology and different parts of the world. Aldon had some interesting things to say, especially in regards to Twitter, and how the Atlantic should utilize the technology.

Aldon suggested that the Atlantic needs to start using Twitter immediately, as in yesterday:

So, what does this mean for the Atlantic? They need to start using Twitter. Immediately. Any time a new story goes up on their website, it should be posted on Twitter. Whenever they are working on a story, they should be searching, and asking for tips on Twitter. They should add more user generated video and pictures. Ideally, they should set things up so that they can cut to a good live feed as it is happening.

I'm with Mr. Hynes on this. I think that Twitter could end up being an invaluable tool, a piece of tech that could help revolutionize the way that we find our news. If the Atlantic could stay on the cutting edge of that, by keeping reporters in the field microblogging at all times, our website could become a go-to spot for people. While Twitter may seem like a novelty to mainstream America today, there is no saying where it could be in 2010 or 2012. There's a real, distinct possibility that Twitter could end up as the next MySpace or Facebook, the Social Networks du jour.

However, Aldon was also quick to point out that for all we know, Twitter could have become old news by 2012, maybe 2010. With the speed at which the internet moves and evolves, technologies are usually quickly used and then thrown aside for something better:

It is not clear if it will be Twitter, or some other microblogging service that will be the top microblog in 2012. Afterall, the hot social networks in 2004 were sites like Tribe, Friendster, and Orkut, each of which has floundered. A key area for microblogging with be better catergorization, aggregation, and searching.

In other words, microblogging isn't a proven, tested commodity and there is definite room for improvement. Still, if the Atlantic wants to stay on top of the situation and out in front of the pack, Twitter is the first step. Yet, it'll also be important to keep an ear to the ground and quickly adapt to whatever next big thing seems down the pipeline. When that new tech seems ready to launch, the Atlantic needs to be one of the prominant places that takes something of a risk and jumps on early. Early adopters may get burned in some aspects but there is an undeniable novelty appeal that will draw people to the site. If it seems like what The Atlantic thought was the next big thing ends up as the next Titantic, you just need to quickly move on and hope that your innovative and adventurous thinking has brought some people to the site that otherwise, wouldn't have been there.

Mr. Hynes clued in on Ron Paul as the candidate who seemed to be the most technologically advanced in the past election. While the American mainstream, the Joe Six Packs of the world, may have believed that Obama was running a cutting edge campaign in term of tech, it was Paul who really led the tech charge, which is unsurprising, given his popularity inside the online tech community.

Mr. Hynes:

With that, I've often criticized the 2008 candidates for lacking an 'invitation to innovate'. The Dean campaign had it. The Ron Paul campaign sort of had it. The Lamont campaign did a good job of it. Right now, it is the long shots that get the importance of the invitation to innovate, but I hope and believe that this will expand. I do believe that the Obama campaign came the closest to it in the 2008 cycle of the major candidates.

Obama certainly utilized a variety of different online platforms as organizing tools but he never really utilized technologies that weren't "mainstream". We'll probably look back at the 2008 election and recognize that between the two major party candidates, Obama was far out in front in terms of exciting use of the internet, yet it doesn't necessarily mean that he was using exciting parts of the internet. Sure, he utilized the social networks to meaningful end and used YouTube and the like as a means to spread ads, behind-the-scenes features and interviews, but in terms of trying out a tech that the typical everyday American doesn't use, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking. However, the question that is raised from this is: Does it matter that he used some cutting edge tech if it doesn't reach a lot of voters? I suppose, that the answer is a simple no. With the type of populist politics that Obama utilized in the campaign, the most important thing was reaching mass groups of people, not specialize niche markets.

More later with Aldon Hynes.

Quick Hit Thoughts on the Atlantic

Here are some quick hits to get the week's blog postings started.

-In class, we discussed the idea of adding another section to the Atlantic, a new Voices tab. I think there is some promise there. My only hang up lies in the fact that I'm not sure that we want the Atlantic to be a spot to be a proving ground for up and coming writers. Given the code that we established for the magazine and knowing its history, there would have to be a concerted process to ensure that the writers we put in the Voices section are, in fact, up to Atlantic standards. If that's the case, and there is an extensive amount of checking out a writer, why just not put them onto the regular Atlantic role?

-Do the new Voices write only for a Twitter feed initially and leave the more heavy duty analysis up to the more established writers? I understand the value of injecting new blood and life into the magazine but I don't think we should completely overhaul who we are just to cater to a more mainstream crowd. Part of what makes The Atlantic unique and interesting is its non-mainstream stance. How do we bring in new readers while not betraying our regulars?

-As for the entertainment industry side, we need to cover the ways that candidates reach out to get celebs backing them. Whether we want to admit it or not, a large population of our country look to celebrities as guides. In 2008, Obama killed on the celeb front. That video has been viewed 15 million times since the beginning of Feb. John McCain couldn't dream of matching that. How much of an effect do celebs have on an election?

More later.

Emergence of Twitter

With the emergence of Twitter, a new, exciting way to track the everyday workings of the most complex to the most mundane is that much closer. In other words, Big Brother isn't far off. Initially, Twitter emerged as a key component for keeping up to date with the tech industry, as some of the major figures regularly updated their feeds (such as Digg founder and major tech media figure Kevin Rose or This Week in Tech's stalwart Leo Laporte). Yet, the more popular it has become, the more other industries has latched on, leading stars such as Britney Spears to join the Twitter revolution.

In the past few days, Twitter has been prominently featured in the news as the fallout of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai continues to be explored. The issues lend themselves to an interesting conversation as to what exactly Twitter is. This blog, which I had never encountered before, suggests that Twitter has emerged as a viable form of legit journalism, a place to go for news. He admits that the sources may not be completely reliable on first glance, but Ingram wisely points out why that doesn't necessarily differ from other, more established services:

"Does that make those reports invalid? No. Obviously, no one wants a loved one to be worried by false reports. But at the same time, chaotic situations result in poor information flow — even to the “professional” journalists who are working at the scene. First-hand and second-hand reports on Twitter are no worse. Should anyone take them as gospel, or the final version of the events? No. Obviously, at some point someone has to check the facts, confirm reports, analyze the outcome, and so on. News reporting and journalism are much more of a process than they are a discrete thing. But as I have tried to argue before, Twitter reports are a valuable “first draft of history,” and that is a pretty good definition of the news."

I've got to agree with him there. While Twitter may not be the be-all-end-all of news sources, but as a place to get breaking news, its invaluable. The tech industry has been connected into the feed for a good time now and its been the place to go for all your tech related breaking news. People can send out a quick tweet with some brief info before they write up a larger report. Sure, its got some issues with scaling, leading to some confusion and frustration with new users, but given the correct funding and attention, Twitter could continue to revolutionize the way we receive our news. I can't help but feel that the horrific events in Mumbai may be a key turning point in Twitter's story.

The Change in Campaign Coverage

I found this quote, from the article Colin linked to, to be very interesting:

A political reporter not covering politics from the campaign trail? Political journalism legends such as Theodore H. White, author of "The Making of the President" books, would surely raise an eyebrow. But during the 2008 campaign, "the trail" never seemed less important – or perhaps it was just less populated. Although a definitive headcount is hard to come by, the number of reporters traveling with the candidates during this election cycle appeared to be down considerably. Major regional newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle and Cleveland's Plain Dealer, didn't bother to staff either campaign. USA Today, the largest-circulation paper in the nation, had only irregular representation, as did campaign stalwarts like Time and Newsweek. In fact, only five dailies – the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune – kept reporters on the road with Sens. McCain and Barack Obama in the campaign's closing months. The TV networks were still there, too, but most relied on young "embeds" rather than their frontline correspondents until the last few months.

What is the most important contribution of technology in terms of campaign coverage? It may be that a paper, a news channel, a blog need not have a reporter with the candidate's press team at all time. Unlike, say, the inspiration for this blog's title, the necessary existence of a moving collection of reporters tied to a campaign's hip isn't all that, well, necessary. Rather, news outlets, through use of the internet, can gain information nearly instantaneously without much effort. While many reporters, as the article points out, do somewhat regret not being able to cover the entirety of a 3 month, general election presidential campaign, the fact remains that they increasingly don't have to. They can sit in a cube and gain nearly as much information. 25 years ago, when the ideas of live video feeds had only scratched the surface, the being-there-in-the-moment reporting was invaluable. Now, why should a paper foot the bill for a reporter when it costs significantly less with almost no drop in actual news coverage to keep them glued to a computer screen and a couple of TV's?

Palin's Turkey Killin' Interviewin' Skills

What a moron. She needs to get out of the public eye, and quick.

Silver's Republican Death Rattle

I found Silver's article particularly interesting and insightful but I've got a few comments about specific moments. First, his assertion that "it is, in a nutshell, why conservatives don't win elections anymore" in reference to his conversation with John Ziegler seems over the top but I think points to a larger media theme happening here.

It's difficult to look at the 2008 election as being anything other than a massive landslide victory for the Democrats. They reclaimed the Presidency and reasserted, even lengthened, their lead in Congress. By all counts, the Democrats dominated the Republican Party in every imaginable aspect, leading many to signal the death knell for the GOP. Yet, I'm not quite sure that I agree with Silver's assertion that "conservatives don't win elections anymore". To me, Silver's claim strikes me as a hot off the press over exaggeration, an idea that one election (or two if you want to include the 2006 midterms when the Democrats barely squeaked out a majority in the Senate) shows that conservatives don't win elections. Unless I'm mistaken, the GOP enjoyed a majority in Congress from 2000-2006 and had a President in the White House for that same duration, a President that was elected twice. To simply say that because of one horribly performing election cycle, that conservatives don't win elections seems foolish. One could argubly say that if one takes away the past two elections, Democrats had issues with finding themselves on the victorious side in recent times. Silver's claim is technically correct I guess, seeing as how the GOP has lost the past 2 national elections in 2006 and 2008, but to make such a broad sweeping statement rings hollow.

Yet, I don't believe that Silver is the only one pushing this idea. The media in general has the thought that the GOP is in serious trouble and for the short term at least, I agree. Yet, I'm not ready to start heaping the dirt on the coffin. In the long term, there is no telling how the GOP reacts to this election and with as many skilled political operatives on the right as the left, there is no reason to believe that the right won't bounce back in some way. If we need any other evidence that the Democrats Party, of which I'm a proud member, need not rest on their laurels, we need not only recognize the way that Karl Rove and his cronies essentially slapped us around for the past eight years. Its unfortunate for the Rover that he backed such a lame candidate in Bush but given some kind of live wire with, gasp!, intelligence and some legitimate national political experience, is it so hard to believe that he can't put another right winger in the White House in the near future?

Future of Fox News

Despite being slightly old-ish (from Nov. 15), I think this article holds some interesting points with our upcoming topic being the right wing media, most prominently Fox News. With the change in the White House, the question for the rightest of right media outlet is how do we cope with the new administration. The Times article seems to imply that the course may be not much different than 8 years ago:

At the same time Fox News, which had been the most significant media supporter of the Bush administration, is now expected to revert to the position it held when it first broke through during the Clinton years: the aggressive voice of the opposition.

“The administration has changed, but the politics haven’t,” said John Rash, an advertising executive who teaches a course in media and politics at the University of Minnesota. “The liberal and conservative commentators who dominate each news network will have to invert their roles.”

In other words, instead of being the last line of defense, Fox News can now go on the offensive and begin to readily attack the new administration. If I had to venture a guess, look for the channel to become even more vicious, even more partisan since they now have to fight for their political life.