The Laughing Wolf

My Uncle James was in the Army, and Dad occasionally teased him about being a supply sergeant (not his real rank). Dad and his older brother had a bit of competition and something I don’t know how to describe. They loved each other and stood up for each other, but there was a bit of rivalry there as well. Again, I don’t know as much about his service as I really should, especially given that James was one of the rare breed of Army types that served in the Pacific. He got needed supplies to the forward units, going forward to do so. I do know that he had one ship shot out from under him, and that he spent many days in the water. It was there that he picked up an algae that got into his lungs, and was with him until the day he died. That infection probably didn’t help his heart any, but there was nothing that could be done about it.

James narrowly missed having a second ship shot out from under him, when a kamikaze attack came in at the fleet. This was towards the end of the war, and Dad was on another ship nearby. After the battle, Dad asked James if he had seen the plane that was headed for his ship. Indeed he had, and James told Dad he had done his best to dig a foxhole in the deck, up until someone had shot the plane out of the sky. Dad just looked at him and said “You’re Welcome.” You see, my Dad was bodyguard and orderly to Admiral Spruance, and his battle station was often a quad 50 on top of one of the 16-inch gun turrets on the New Jersey. Dad had indeed seen the plane going at the supply ship his brother was on, and shot it out of the sky. Dad could pick on James, and James on Dad, but heavens help anyone else who ever tried.

My Uncle John was in the Pacific as well, but he was Army Air Corp. He was flying bombers, big bombers, and took part in many a raid on Japan. For those with knowledge of history, he flew of Tinian in the latter stages of the war, and was present when the atomic bombs came through. I don’t know very much about him at all, and have no memories of him that I can recall. He lived away from the rest of the family after the war, and he had a tendency to drink. How much the war did or did not play into that I do not know, but his drinking was such that Dad did not feel it wise for me to meet him. Word was that he did well in the war, but I wish I had known more than just a very rare voice on the phone.

John and Dad spent a lot of time and effort letting the family know that Dad was alive at one point. Admiral Spruance used both the Indianapolis and the New Jersey as flagships, and when it came time to take the Hiroshima bomb out, the Admiral and the high command decided on the Indianapolis to transport it, because it was one of the fastest ships in the fleet. When this came up, Dad was home on leave in Georgia, and found himself ordered to get to San Francisco in two days time. He almost made it, and almost got court martialed for not making it, but that is a story for another day. In all the confusion of unloading the bomb at Tinian, the Admiral’s detail was left on the Indianopolis, and were not retrieved until the ship was clearing the harbor. Dad and his small command went over the side on cargo nets onto the Admiral’s barge – and the Indianapolis went to the bottom a few hours later.

All the family knew was that Dad was on the Indianapolis, per those amazing orders, and they did apparently think him dead. Security being what it was, Dad and John could not say things directly, but wrote a LOT of letters with the date writ large and strong emphasis on “Cliff and I had lunch today” and “John and I had supper today” so that the family would know he was alive and okay. It was not the first time something like this was necessary, since in his first hitch in the Corps Dad was the sole survivor of his unit courtesy of a naval gunnery demonstration gone awry.

Uncle Foster was the baby brother to John, Cliff, and James. Like Johh (and Sam) he went into aviation, but Naval aviation was his calling. He flew bombing and torpedo missions against Japan, and had always joked to Dad that if anything happened to him and his crew, that it would probably be the result of his bad navigation. Foster loved Chinese food and apparently was quite interested in Chinese culture. Dad one time remarked when I was quite small, that I liked Chinese food and fried rice as much as had Foster. When I asked about this, he changed the subject and got real quiet for a while, and had some suspicious something get in his eye.

Of the four, Foster was the only one who did not make it home. It was one of the last raids on Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a raid on a well defended port, and his plane went in. Admiral Spruance found out, and had made arrangements for Dad to go talk to Foster’s commanding officer, but movement orders changed and all Dad could do as the ships sailed apart was talk with the man on the radio. Foster made it in and he and his crew apparently put their load in on target. Then or just afterwards, however, it appeared that the plane was struck hard, and that rounds had struck and killed Foster. They suspected this because the plane went into the drink at an angle that was common with a dead pilot slumped over the controls. None of his crew made it out, and it was unknown if they were killed when the plane was riddled, or when it hit. No bodies were ever recovered.

John made it home, went into sales, and apparently did fairly well at it. James made it back and went into politics, becoming tax commissioner for the county where he grew up. He also became National Commander of the American Legion, and during the stumping for that got zinged by Sam and Dad (don’t know if any other brothers were there, but John may have been). They got tired of long winded speechifying and got up and left to go to the bar. Sometime after this, James finally turned around to introduce – a group of empty chairs. He was unamused. Dad and Sam thought it was pretty good and noted that James shortened his speeches after that. The trick James used of drinking ginger ale, sometimes with just a dab of Coke added to make it darker, and acting like it was bourbon and branch while out politicking is one I have used myself. Dad, obviously, made it home too.

A few years ago, business took me to Hawai’i and I had the chance to do some of the standard tourist stuff. I also did one thing that is not too standard, I hired a taxi and went to The Punchbowl.

At first, the guardians there were shirty about the taxi, seems I was supposed to go rent an expensive car to go there, but after I explained what I was doing, and why, they relented. We dismounted the taxi sign off the top of the car, and were allowed on in. The driver took me to a point and waited, telling me not to worry about time or meter, this was something special. I climbed the steps, and I went in and through that place. I walked until I found

this, something concrete to which I could place my hand, something more solid than the memorial plaque in the family plot. Something to which I could link my heart and spirit, so that he and his sacrifice were made real to me in a way I had never known before.

There are pictures I have of John, James, Dad, and Foster. Each with family, friends, spouses, and such. There is one of Foster with his girlfriend (fiancé?), a woman about whom I would very much like to know more, much as I would love to know more about the men in his crew and their families. For I would know the Fosters, the Chances, and all the others who have given so much for so many. The inscription at the bottom of the picture sums it all up for me

Thank you Dad, James, John, Sam, and Foster for your service. Thank you Foster and thank you Foster’s crew, for laying so costly and wonderful sacrifice on the Altar of Freedom. Thank you all who gave your all, so that I and others have the opportunity and the responsibility to live free. May we be as unstinting in our efforts and our sacrifice as you were with yours. Thank you all. I remember you this day.

Go thou, gentle reader, and do likewise. Remember and honor them all.

-30-

This also applies to the larger service we provide as individuals within society. We obey reasonable rules, written and unwritten, so that society as a whole is better. We form stand in lines when no one forces us to, because we know that things will flow faster and smoother as we do so. We practice courtesy, for we know that it is the oil that lubricates societal interaction. We grumble, but we serve our turn on jury duty and similar tasks because we know it is the right thing to do. We help others, as we ourselves would like to be helped in similar circumstances.

Each and every one of us serve society at large. The degree of that service varies, but the least we can do is live up to the basic responsibilities of being a Citizen by being informed, voting and otherwise taking part in the body politic, and fulfilling out end of the covenant between us and our fellow Citizens.

Some people, however, are driven to take it further. They see the need to protect our society from harm, from evil, and know that they must stand between us and such danger. There is the fireman, who rushes in when others flee the heat, smoke and flame. There is the explosives ordinance disposal technician who even as they try to defuse a bomb, position their body to shield others from as much of the blast as possible should things go wrong. There is the soldier, who gives up some of their freedom and liberty so that others can have theirs in full measure. The list can go on, but what matters is that these people give, and have given, of themselves so that each of us can be free.

The circumstances that led them do so are as numerous as the number of individuals involved. The reasons they do so and did so, however, boil down to two: love and respect.

Each of these people were motivated by love of family, friends, and others. It was love that caused them to put themselves in harms way. For they so loved their family, friends, country, and even world, that they made the decision to place themselves between the dark and those people and things they loved.

It was respect that kept them there, and made them stand no matter what. They held not merely the people, but the framework of society with such respect that they were willing to give their lives as necessary to protect it. They had the self-respect necessary to take up that duty willingly, to stand fast in the way of fear and terror, and to do what was right no matter the cost.

No one who has neither love nor self-respect will ever understand it. Pity them.

Today, take the time to think about this. Remember that service to others need not be blood and guts or heroism amid the flames; but, rather it is being faithful to the societal contract we have entered into. To moan that history has given you no great challenge, and wish for a disaster so that you can show yourself fit for the occasion is self-centered, selfish, and boorish. To go forth and uphold your written and unwritten responsibilities to the best of your ability, to do well in the small things as well as the large, and to serve others to the best of your ability, that is true greatness. It is by that which history will judge you. It is by that, that you will judge yourself.

Memorial Day is a good time for those of us who do love, who do have respect, and who have self-respect to remember those who fought to keep us free. It is a time for us to remember and honor all those who died so that we might live. We honor them not merely by a show of respect on one particular day, but by taking up the gauntlet they have thrown down at our feet. We can honor them by doing the best in all we do. By being responsible citizens who are informed and take part in a constructive way in the society we have chosen. For anyone of legal age chooses to live here, and is not forced to do so. We are free to leave at any time and move to any country that will have us. We are even free to search for some deserted island somewhere. We choose to stay, and having made that choice we must make the most of it.

Remember all those who have served, and most especially those who died so that we might be free. Live up to the challenge, and do no less than your best.

-30-

Americans, on the other hand, have never been terribly good at waiting. Instead, we tend to wade in to the fray. Quite a few of us have been trained in basic first aid and CPR, so we don’t have to let someone die while waiting for the experten. We don’t let things fall or break because the experts are not there, we shore up, dam up, fill in, and do what is needed. We see something going wrong, and we tend to act. That is one of many reasons we have good Samaritan laws in place, to protect and encourage that. To ensure that good, responsible Citizenship is protected and rewarded, not penalized.

So, the Old Media has managed to concern, scare, or even panic you this morning. What can you, as a Citizen, do?

One: Pay Attention. Look around you, pay attention, and notice things. This is called situational awareness. Be aware of things that don’t fit, of odd things, and things that just don’t feel right. If you see suspicious activity, report it. If you see something more than just a bit suspicious taking place, get out and report it. If you see it hit the fan, do what you have to do to protect and defend the lives of your fellow Citizens, family, and then and only then yourself.

Two: Be Prepared. Do you have a first aid kit? Do you know how to use it? Do you know how to use a t-shirt as an emergency gas mask? If not, why not? There are all sorts of helpful suggestions and links in the stories located here. Have the basic tools in place you will need. Some specific stories of interest are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

If you have not had a first aid class, take one. Then take an advanced class, and a CPR class. If you can, take more. This training always pays for itself, is not limited to terrorist acts, and the life you save may be a family member. Make it a family activity too. Get active in Scouting, find out if your police or sheriff’s department has a civilian auxiliary, and the list goes on. Don’t be terrified, face the fear in a constructive manner and learn how to respond to natural and man-made disasters.

Please, Ifni please, promise me you will not go buy a gun. That is, unless you also purchase and immediately exercise shooting lessons for you and your entire family. Guns are tools, so learn how to use it properly and responsibly if you get it. Don’t buy a gun thinking it is a magic wand to wave around, and most especially don’t bring it home where untrained hands can get to it. You would not put a power saw into the unsupervised hands of a child, so why would you do it with this or any other tool? Be responsible.

Don’t panic, but face the fact that we are going to be hit again. As the desperation mounts in the Middle East, the likelihood of something happening here grows. The flypaper strategy does have a limit, in that any one string of flypaper can only catch so many flies. My money favors the odds that when it happens, it will be an attempt to influence the election, but you may want to put your money elsewhere. Remember, though, that panic and fear by themselves are harmful, and do no one any good.

Instead, turn concern, fear, or panic into constructive things. Be prepared as an individual. Get involved with a neighborhood watch. Form a group to help buildings, blocks, neighborhoods, or whatever prepare for disasters large and small, so that they can be dealt with efficiently and expediently. Live up to your responsibilities as a Citizen, because you are the Government, and it is up to each of us to be prepared and to deal with whatever comes. That is the least we can do.

-30-

The business of any media, new or old, is not to inform, educate, or any other thing. The business of any professional media is business. It is to make money, though it may inform, educate, or entertain in the process. Within the Old Media, there are three major sources of revenue: advertising, subscriptions, and resale rights.

Advertising is the prime source of revenue for any media outlet. Somewhere between 25 percent and 75 percent of any publication or broadcast is devoted to advertising. Advertising brings in money based on demographics, readership/viewership, and time of day. The higher the readership/viewership, the higher the cost to advertise. If the outlet has demographics that are desired, it costs more still. If you want it in a prime location or time, it costs yet more.

In almost every Old Media establishment, there is what is called a “wall” between advertising and news/editorial. This wall was put in place to prevent advertisers from influencing the news in any way, and to allow the news/editorial side to pursue any story where it may lead, even unto a crucial advertiser. This wall is supposed to be inviolate, but there are times and places where it is breached, such as when there is a massive drop-off in advertising.

Subscriptions are an interesting topic. Originally, the subscription fee covered all of the production and shipping costs, plus some profit, but that has changed. A subscription fee, be it an actual subscription or the newsstand price, now may not even cover such costs, but advertising revenues now not only pay for the cost of production in most cases, they also provide the profit. This deserves a full column on its own, because with the New Media, subscriptions are starting to once again play a major role in media economics.

Resale rights have become increasingly important to publications. This is the money they get for allowing others to use their photographs, articles, etc. It is much more than gravy to some publications, and rights are a bitter argument between independent writers and media outlets.

Now, there is one additional source of revenue that does not go directly to Old Media organizations, but funds them just the same. That source are entertainment programs produced by different divisions of the parent companies of the Old Media outlets.

I touch on these because to have any effect on the Old Media, you are going to have to work against all of these at once. What you are going to have to do to get their attention is:

Phase one is to cancel subscriptions and stop watching traditional outlets. It will not simply be enough to do so quietly, you have to let them know and you also need to let monitoring organizations know as well. The latter are companies such as Nielsen or Arbitron that monitor viewers/listeners/readers/etc.

Send them a nice written letter sent via mail. E-mail can be and will be ignored, but letters are harder to hide. Keep it polite, stick to the facts, and resist the temptation to fully vent. Cite specifics and provide some documentation of same. Let them know why you think they are biased, how they are biased, and why you are no longer using their services. Let them know that you will no longer support their advertisers. Send carbon copies of the letter to the monitoring companies, and to local advertising companies/agencies. Nor should you just send it to the editor, make sure a copy goes directly to the publisher and the business manager.

Phase two will also take time and cost postage, but is where you will truly start to get results. What you need to do is select the major advertisers and let them know that you are no longer watching/reading/etc. Send them a copy of the letter you sent to the station. In your letter to them, let them know that you will no longer be using products or services that support said outlet via advertising or any other means. That you will only support those products or services that, like you, support the troops and the War on Terror and unbiased media outlets. Even more importantly, let them know what media outlets you will be supporting. This means letting them know the name and address of those you will support, including those on the WWW and in the New Media – including blogs. It also does not hurt to mention companies such as BlogAds in this context.

Phase three is to let the outlets you do support know that they should not use any re-sale items from the outlets you are boycotting. Be nice, and encourage them to find alternate sources of information – not everything has to come from Al-AP, Al-UPI, Al-Reuters, etc. Encourage them to pick up stories and photos from new sources, including the New Media and other elements of the Blogosphere.

Phase four will require a coordinated effort headed up by someone. If you really want to have an impact on the Old Media, hit their entertainment divisions. My suggestion would be to pick one target, then focus on one to three shows in particular. If enough people join in and boycott, with full publicity, it will be felt and the wall will not be impervious.

Phase five is the most important part of the process: offer something constructive in place of what you are attacking. Boycotts are great, but unless you provide a viable alternative to the product or service under attack, the effort will fail. You need to hold something up as an example, something people can purchase/read/view/listen to/etc. Give them a clear alternative. Give the advertisers a clear alternative. Strongly support those advertisers who follow the lead and advertise on blogs or other acceptable choices. You have to have the carrot as well as the stick to make a real and lasting difference. This is where most efforts fail.

If you really want to hurt the Old Media, it will take work. It will cost you time and some money. The only question now is, how serious are you? Are you willing to do what it takes, to avoid the easy outs and habits of convenience?

-30-

UPDATE: I have been referred to this good post that has a similar approach, and a lot of good food for thought. Go check it out.

UPDATE II: There is more to say, here and I hope one and all will join me in spreading the Shady Lady/NYT meme discussed here

A good example of this model would be news publishing. The impetus for such was the production of broadsheets for specific purposes, such as shipping. These broadsheets held information on the sailing dates and anticipated arrival dates of ships; tides and currents; weather; and other information of use to those in the shipping business or needing to ship items. This expanded, and came to include official proclamations, news of the day, and more. The economic driver here was to make the most efficient use of each sheet of paper, and to increase the consumer base who will pay for said sheets. This eventually led to newspapers and magazines. Over time, particularly within the last century, this technology matured as the customer base grew, such that specialty publications became viable. Doubt it? Just go take a look at the magazine racks in any good book store. Even newspapers have moved into specialty niches, even when they cover a broad range of topics. An excellent example here is the Wall Street Journal: focused on business, but with news of the world and its implications for business.

This specialization curve has been shortening with each new technology. It literally took hundreds of years for publishing; almost 100 for radio; and around 50 years for television. For the Internet, we are looking at about 20 years, and for blogging we are probably talking about only five years total. In that time, blogging has gone from its rough origins to an effectively mature industry with competition not only between blogs for viewership, but also between enabling technologies. The change in enabling technologies, such as the current changes underway in Movable Type and other programs, is a healthy sign even when mishandled from a user standpoint.

Blogging does, however, break the model in that it has never truly gone through a generalization phase at the start. There was no economic demand to do so. Indeed, one can argue that blogging completely bypassed the normal development curve and proceeded directly into specialization. There are a number of sites that provide general coverage, pointers to in-depth coverage of the news and topics of the day. Glenn Reynolds is the undisputed king of this niche in the market. There are others that provide a similar service within a given topic area: The Command Post for war news; MilBlogs for leads to military bloggers; and, Transterrestrial Musings and Rocket Forge provide both gateways to news of space and space commercialization, as well as coverage an in-depth analysis of same. These are just a few samples, and all reflect a new market: generalized coverage of specific topics. This is a very new twist in the old, old, media game and it is a direct result of the technology involved. That technology is also going to continue to change the model, as well as media as we know it.

The end part of the specialization curve is one of extreme specialization, and of weeding out. The fact is, nothing lasts forever and those that don’t deal well with change will die off sooner rather than later. This can be seen in newspapers, magazines, book publishers (the changes there right now are profound, and I find Baen Books efforts to get ahead of this curve well worth studying), and in radio and television stations and programming for same. The blogosphere has had extreme specialization from the start: if you search you can find almost any type of highly specialized knowledge well represented here. There has already been some weeding out. Yet, there is much more to come.

That which comes is going to change the blogosphere and the media. For less than $100.00, any person can purchase a domain, buy the software needed, and establish hosting for a blog. It can be done for a lot less, in fact, so it is well within the reach of even the poorest person in America. This means that almost everyone can establish an op-ed or other online journal. The good news of this is that many divergent viewpoints will be available, along with a great deal of esoteric knowledge that would otherwise not be readily accessible. The downside to this is that quite a few people are going to be starting blogs so they can pontificate upon their viewpoints.

Yet, is this really a downside? In one respect, it will greatly increase the signal-to-noise ratio. In another, it is the realization of a dream of some of the Founding Fathers to have the most possible viewpoints presented. While it will make separation of wheat from chaff a bit more difficult, the technology already provides a means to do so in a fairly economical manner. Nor is technology the only means: already, there are bastions of sorters who provide links to the good stuff as it were. The process of this expansion will, however, do two things.

First, it will tend to move the blogosphere more towards a commercial operation instead of the semi-free model followed today. People value quality, and blogs that provide a needed service, either in acting as a reliable guide to quality information or as a provider of information and analysis, will be rewarded. The final model of this remains to be seen, but arguments can already be put forward for either a fee-based system (subscription), an advertiser-supported system (Blogads anyone?), or both, just as most publications are done today.

Second, it will force a crisis of media. Freedom of the press has evolved from a concept of equal access to technology to that of a self-appointed elite that informs the public. With the exception of certain judges in Texas, the Government has largely stayed away from any official declarations of who is and is not a journalist. To rule in any way on such is a step towards governmental regulation of the press, and wise media moguls and practitioners have worked against this. While there is some de-facto standards set by media accreditation to provide special access for coverage of governmental operations, these have tended to be fairly elastic and most often have been used to ration limited seating and other related facilities.

The expansion of the blogosphere into the mainstream is going to force this issue in ways for which neither the government nor the media are going to care. The government is going to have to face that anyone can be a published reporter, since blogs meet all basic current standards for same. This means either dealing with the legal challenges inherent in such, or in establishing government licensing and accreditation of reporters – something likely to be challenged. The media is going to lose their self-annointed status, and the country club will be open to all. This will not sit well, and I rather suspect we will see some extremely foolish and short-sighted efforts to obtain governmental regulation or licensing in an effort to preserve their special status. This is indeed a huge danger, to free speech, to the concept of true journalism, and to the Republic.

As for the blogosphere, I do see an onslaught of new bloggers and I welcome it. Some will stay, and will become productive and important parts of blogging. Many will be mundane at best, and most of those will likely fall out when they realize how much work it takes to sustain the effort. Given the dynamics of the model, I suspect that this process too will be much faster than in the past. Some will fall out rather quickly. In the process, provided the dangers to freedom and the Constitution can be avoided, we will all be enriched.

As this process spreads around the world, it will also have the benefit of making life extremely difficult for bad governments and extremists. The news will no longer be as easy to manipulate or block. Reporters will no longer be a few individuals who can be controlled, bought, or manipulated. Reporters will be everyone, everywhere, and the news will out. The news will out in ways of which we can only dream, of which the Founding Fathers could only dream. It will mean direct or near-direct access to the source, to the event, such that each individual can determine the event and context for themselves. It will mean a broad range of viewpoints and analysis are available to all. It will mean access to a large number of subject-matter experts. It will mean a global knowledge net.

The meme is already out there, and it is working and growing in ways we cannot begin to imagine. This growth will be interesting and productive, as will efforts to prevent it. For by their actions you will know them, and enemies of freedom will be easy to recognize by their efforts to regulate this new media in any guise.

Yes, it is the end of the blogosphere as we know it, and I do feel fine.

-30-

I am not the best person to ask about what food with what wine, simply because I don’t believe in the so-called rules. Given the lack of flavor in most mass-produced meats, what you really are looking for are wines that will go with the spices and flavors that are added. This holds true to a certain extent even with good meats. Before I can even think of answering, I need to know the type and quality of meat, how it is to be prepared, spices, etc. With that knowledge, I may select a white wine to go with beef, or a new port to go with fish.

Given this, I was a bit intrigued by the announcement of the wine tasting at Pauli’s this week, because the wines were all developed specifically to go with wild game. A bit different, to say the least, but interesting. The Wild Game blends came about as a form of joint venture between Mossy Oak, the camouflage people and River Wild Winery. I was very pleasantly surprised yesterday by the products.

We started with Trout Blend, a mixture of Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, and Viosnier. It had a nice straw colour that went well with a crisp nose of vine and wood misxed with dry green fruit. The crispness continued with the mouthfeel filled with pear, apple, and hints of wood and spice. The finish was quite pleasant, and it is a good warm weather white.

Next up was the waterfoul blend, made from Syrah, Grenache, and Mouvedre. The colour was purple-red, and the nice nose was filled with leather and plums, with hints of spice. The mouthfeel was good, with a dry start that fills with fruit and leather. There was a slight sweetness on the sides with the finish, and it was not a heavy wine despite the richness.

Turkey blend was next, made from Zinfandel, Grenache, and Petit Syrah. The medium-red colour was rich, and the nose quite good being filled with leather and spice. The mouthfeel was good, filled with spice and fruit over leather, and the finish crisp with a slight bitterness.

The final wine was Venison Blend, made from Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc. A nice purple colour leads to a good nose of tobacco and leather with hints of chocolate and fruit. The mouthfeel was rich with ripe red fruit and chocolate, with spices and leather under. A delightfully complex wine.

My one regret was not being able to try the wines with appropriate foods. While I did try some with some of the snackage set out by Pauli’s, the result though good simply made me long even more for the real thing. These wines are quite good on their own, but I also think that they will go well with appropriate foods. I will also admit to being taken with the Trout, Waterfoul, and Venison, and particularly taken with the Venison.

Enjoy!

-30-

Rifle: 2013 Super Match
Pistol: Baikal Target Pistol
Vehicle: Ferrari 360 Spider

My rationale is as follows: with the shoulder surgery I am having to shoot left handed, and stay with small caliber for now. I’ve been wanting to try some of the new target weapons, and this seems a good way to do it. As for the vehicle, it would be very fun and this one just struck my fancy. Nice performance, convertible, good way to lose my driver’s license for a while…

-30-

Kathy at On The Third Hand has a short statement up on this, and it is a good jumping off point. To my mind, there are several things at work here.

First, America is the enemy, but it is through the enemy that a lot of financial and other support has reached a number of organizations. America has been and is still one of the largest cash cows for terrorism, courtesy of open and clandestine fund raising. No one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs unless they have to.

Second, America is also the reason that a number of groups and causes still exist. While it will never be admitted openly, America has stopped Israel and others from dealing with those problems. If America’s restraint slips, what happens then? The people that are the problem have had some taste of this with changes in policy since 9-11, and the new view was not at all to their liking. Something happens here, and the Arafish and a host of other people and groups stand to find themselves rapidly translated to whatever awaits them.

Third, America does not have the conditions that breed the best, most fanatical of suicide bombers. For all the problems we do have, this country and its inhabitants have it soft. Comfortable living with plenty of governmental and private safety nets is not the prime breeding ground. You can and do get extremists, but not of the type nor in the numbers that are best for sustained operations.

Fourth, a such attacks in America will force everyone off the fence. The word has been given: you are with us, or for them. Many don’t get it, or choose to ignore this for political points and grandstanding, but it is there and it is the third rail of the situation. Attacks here mean that so-called moderate and other Muslims will have to make a choice; the so-called silent majority will no longer be silent; and, the useful tools are going to have a hard time stopping the fire that will result. The tricky thing about fire is that you never know what it is going to do: it can temper metal and take it to new heights, or it can utterly destroy that which it touches. America has been through the fire several times, and while past action is no real indicator of future performance, it gives hints and that hint is not something our enemies like.

I could go on a bit more, but the basic points are made. The question remaining is, Why Now? In short, I think it is desperation.
The axis of evil is being thwarted on many fronts and in many ways. Despite the fact that France and others have been recently emboldened to try and play games in the UN, the U.S. has shown that it is quite willing to ignore those games and take practical steps. Despite aid from Iran and Syria, Iraq has not turned into the quagmire desired and while not perfect at all, the transition of power is proceeding despite all being done to disrupt it. Even a partial true republican form of government, with rights, in the middle of despotism is quite a nasty threat. Despite all those efforts, the U.S. has not been so distracted that it has not been all over Iran and its nuclear weapons program, among other things. Despite all these efforts, Syria is facing a different type of war from the U.S. and – apparently – other members of the Coalition. Despite all these efforts, North Korea isn’t getting what it wants, and a lot it doesn’t.

So, the enemy is having a tough time of it. Some of the desperation can be seen by the type of activities in Iraq. Some of it can be seen in rhetoric and action elsewhere. A desperate enemy is indeed a dangerous enemy. The question we now face is if the enemy is so desperate it is willing to face the four items above. That is a very good question, and one only time will answer.

-30-

The modern reporter rarely has to go search for stories. They may stumble across one, but most of the time the story comes to them. Let’s review the process a bit, and see how news is made.

Within any newspaper newsroom, there are essentially two systems in place: general assignment and specialty beats. The reporter generally is at the bottom of the food chain in either, and there is a rigid pecking order within the ranks of reporters based on seniority, splash, and then talent. It not being a terribly efficient use of resources to send reporters out to look for stories, most are assigned to the reporter. Newspapers get lots of story ideas submitted to them. They constantly get faxes, calls, e-mails, and sometimes even very unusual presentations of information and story ideas.

In general assignment world, these go to assignment editors and associated staff, who wade through the material and combine it with information from the newswires (Al-AP, Al-UPI, Al-Reuters, etc.), what they see on the television shows they monitor, and whatever they can divine from the entrails of interns who screw up. There being only so much room in any given paper, the amount of weedout is impressive. They run the stories by the top editorial staff, who often have things they want to see in, and ultimately a decision is made as to what stories will be pursued. The assignments are then given to the reporters.

The reporters may or may not know anything about the subject in question, but they are supposed to study up, sometimes aided by a research desk within the organization, develop a plan of attack, and then go commit journalism. Ideally, they will have enough info to recognize excrement when it is shoveled in their direction, ask decent questions, and to determine who all they need to interview on a given story. They are also supposed to look for other sources who can confirm or deny what is being said. Then, they go write up the story and turn it into the process.

Understand that the reporter writes the story, and nothing else. Most stories have some identifier (rocket reaches space) for the story and some identifier for the reporter (Hominigrits01). The story is often submitted to a direct supervisor, who reviews and edits it, and sends it on to a specific editor. That editor then reviews and edits the story, and it may go to yet another editor or straight on to the copy desk.

The copy desk is semi-insulated from the newsroom. While they are a part of it, they are also separated at least somewhat, so that impartial checking can occur. In many organizations, the copy desk reviews the story, they edit for grammar and spelling, they edit to the style guide of the organization, they check facts, they check for obvious legal problems, and they check for standards. This can mean that they will call the people quoted to verify quotes; it means that they may call expert sources to verify facts with them; and, it means that they make sure the stories and photographs meet the standards of the organization and of journalism.

The approved text then can do one of two things: another senior editor can review it (this should take place with all major stories) or it can go to the technical editor and staff. This is the group – whatever the name – that lays out and designs the publication. They know that they have so much space for the story, and they have to fit it in by hook or by crook. If space shrinks because another, more important, story grows, then they have to cut text elsewhere. This can mean holding a story to print later, killing it entirely, or in simply taking out chunks.

Another part of the process, which may or may not be a part of the technical area, is the headline writers. In some cases, they never see the story for which they write the headline. They are simply given a summary, and told “We need a two line headline for this story that fits in X space.” They then provide just such a headline, often on extremely tight turnarounds.

The result is that the reporter knows what they submitted, but they may not know what comes out or what the headline will read. In a good organization, a reporter should know what comes out and should be contacted in the event of significant changes or questions about the story. It does not always happen, however.

There are some good reasons for the process. The idea behind it is to catch bad stories early and prevent them from getting out. The staff in the review chain may or may not let the reporter review the edits. Theory one is that letting the expert on the story review it prevents editors and others from adding in mistakes. Theory two is that by preventing the reporter from reviewing, it removes any chance for bias or intentional manipulation. You pays your money, you takes your reality.

Personally, I like something between the two, especially with specialty reporting. Specialty beats are things like sports, science, living, etc. You want someone with knowledge of the area in question to approve the final product, so that your organization does not end up as the joke of the day. One brilliant example of this was a story on a plasma physics experiment done in space that ended up with a headline stating that a blood experiment had been done in space, the copy or technical desk apparently having a biological bias.

Thus, if you want someone to talk about sports stats and rules, you want someone from the sports desk. If you want someone who can talk about “supplements” and what they do, you want someone like me. Some of the worst stories out there, especially science related, come from when the science writer or desk is bypassed and the story done by general assignments, who often know nothing about the given specialty area. Examples of this can include Alar, breast implants, and much more.

And therein lies one of the largest problems facing any media organization: knowledgeable staff. To cover many stories, you need people who specialize in and understand various sports, science, technology, medicine, computers, military, and more. That gets expensive fast, so most papers tend not to have lots of specialized people. There is also a tendency to bypass the specialist when they say something is not a story, especially when its something juicy. Accuracy far too often takes a back seat in that case, and sensationalism rules.

Radio, because many of its pioneers came from newspapers, tends to follow a similar route for news. The number of steps is usually reduced, and there may or may not be a copy desk to fact check, but it is similar in fundamentals. Television, however, does operate a bit differently. The basic unit there is a team of the personality, the producer, and the cameraman. In more cases than you probably realize, the personality may have done little or no reporting/investigating, as the producer develops and packages the story. This varies, but the person to get to know on such a team is the unit producer or the assignments editor/producer at the station.

Another part of the process that needs to be understood is the “space” allotted for news. Be it a publication or a broadcast, there is only a certain amount of space available. That space must be shared with advertising, because the business of the media is not journalism, but business. They are in it to make money, they just happen to do that by “informing” the public. The amount of space available for news is dependent on many factors, but it can be as little as one third the available space.

If you are truly looking to change the media, this key is the advertising and money. All media organizations make their money by the sale of advertising, with the cost of ads dependent on readership/viewership within target demographics. While there are walls between the news division and the advertising side (or are supposed to be), if you want to make changes go through the advertisers. Let them know that you no longer read/watch a given outlet, and that you will not be supporting those who advertise on same. One or two people doing this can and will be ignored. Larger numbers and organized groups will get attention. Boycotting an outlet works, but it is slow as it takes time for ratings to drop. Boycotting and letting advertisers know there is a boycott shorts that particular circuit.

Hope this helps one and all understand some of the mechanics of the media a bit better. It is an interesting process, and one that should be understood by anyone with an interest in the media and accuracy.

-30-

UPDATE: You may also be interested in this post.

Before we go any further, it is extremely worthwhile to spend a few minutes exploring a concept called “gatekeeping.” Gatekeeping is most often discussed in terms of the media, but it really is an information/knowledge technology system description. The various gatekeeping models all show how information/knowledge flows from start to finish. There are quite a few steps in any of these models and processes, and it is the number of steps that determines how free (and how accurate) information is within any given construct. This applies to social constructs as well.

As an example, let’s look at a book in pre-Gutenberg times. The writer of the book has written (or had a scribe do so) their thoughts onto sheets or a roll of parchment or paper. The writer is the source and the book/scroll is the information. For that information to flow out to others, copies must be made and distributed. If the writer is wealthy, they could theoretically hire teams of scribes to do this and spread them around. This rarely was the case, and for many years it was monks or those employed by the Church who copied books and passed out the copies. What this means to our model is that we suddenly have the leadership of the Church deciding what books/scrolls would be copied, and how they would be edited. There were several levels involved, but for simplicity we will go with the top leadership, a Bishop, and the head of the local group of monks. Now, in addition there were secular authorities, and it would not be uncommon for their to be two layers of approval there. What this means is that we now have five levels of gatekeepers between the source knowledge and the distribution of the knowledge.

But, the gatekeeping did not stop there. Once the limited number of copies were distributed, it was most often up to a local priest what was read from the book, how it was edited and slanted, etc. Sometimes, the local authorities also demanded a say, so there were now seven layers of gatekeeping between the source and the destination. Each of these seven levels not only were a binary switch (yes/no), but also had the ability to edit or change that material to suit themselves. The net result is that information was not very free and what reached the destination may or may not bear any resemblance to what was created at the origin.

In theory, Gutenberg’s press eliminated many layers of gatekeeping. In practice, the authorities did all in their power to reinstate them and add more. Even then, it was well known that knowledge is power, but the new technology was not fully controllable. With the advent of more books, even carefully approved and edited texts, literacy rates grew and with it came new and independent thought.

In practice, the Old Media is not that far away from pre-Gutenberg gatekeeping. In a modern media organization, you have – on average – the following between “news” and the destination: a reporter, a beat editor, a general editor, a copy editor, a managing editor, and the publisher. Each of these is a binary switch (yes/no) and has the chance to edit/change as they see fit.

Mass media does indeed provide images, sound, and information in amounts never before seen. The amount is not in issue, what is rapidly becoming the focus is the quality of that information. Until recently, the public, the destination of the information has had little or no ability to directly view the source. A great deal of the power of the Old Media comes from the fact that it controlled access to the source material. The members of the mass media decided what would be news, how it would be presented, and the public had to take what they said on faith, just as our pre-Gutenberg ancestors had to take the information and news that came from the village priest on faith.

Just as the press provided each family with a Bible to read and interpret for themselves, the new “press” that is the internet theoretically provides each individual with access to the source of information flow. It reduces the number of gatekeepers effectively to one; and, unlike past technology, there can be multiple sources to view the source. In this way, if one gatekeeper blocks or distorts, then other access will clearly show this.

Indeed, that is exactly what is happening right now in Iraq. We have the “news” as presented by the Old Media. We also have direct feeds from cameras, blogs, and other sources on the spot, so that we are able to compare the information. This comparison between multiple sources is most interesting and illuminating. What is happening is fascinating.

Previously, the means to bypass the Old Media have been extremely limited. Someone could write a letter or tell a friend or relative what the real story was, in their opinion. Now, thanks to the Internet, their words reach thousands instantly, and hundreds of thousands within a matter of hours. The words, images, and sounds they provide give counterpoint to what is presented by the mass media. A growing percentage of the public has become aware of this, and is starting to take a critical look at the Old Media and its reporting.

This is not helped by stories such as this one at Right Thoughts (hat tips to Instapundit and Winds of Change). Stories such as this coverage of the marginalization of Nick Berg by the Old Media. Stories made possible and posted through the Internet.

The Old Media sees its power slipping, and with that comes loss of revenue, loss of power, and loss of political capital and clout. They see their beliefs losing in the marketplace of ideas, but rather than question the beliefs they prefer instead to question the intelligence and wisdom of the masses. Add to this an overwhelming (and overweening) hatred of President Bush, and you have the makings of a classic Greek tragedy.

Their friends are out of office (if you think it is the conservatives who are putting out legislation to regulate the Internet and Internet Journalism, look again) and growing increasingly out of touch; the Internet is already providing serious competition and damage to them, and that is only going to grow; the members of the Old Media are, like their friends, growing increasingly out of touch; and, they have no one to blame but themselves, and that they will never do.

To their eyes, the only thing to do is to put their friends back in office this November, by hook or by crook. All is fair in love and war, and the justifications for what they are calling coverage are just that. What is happening is a complete and utter desecration of the Canons of Journalism, but that is okay because it is for the greater good: the retention of power by a self-anointed elite, and at least one final infliction of social engineering by those who know what is best for us far better than we do. The end justifies the means.

This will become increasingly apparent, both because of blogging and Internet journalism, and because of reporters – like some of those featured above – breaking ranks and taking an ethical rather than political stand. For those that will see, it will be clear and painful. Spread the word, for the real show is just starting, and it is one that we cannot afford to miss.

-30-

Related Post: Playing "Telephone" With The Media

Rubs are great for many meats, and you should consider having some for the meats you cook regularly. I have a grill mixture for beef, and am working on mixtures for chicken and pork. Figure out what works for you, and go with it. Most grill or beef seasonings are pretty simple: salt, pepper, and garlic as a base, with other things thrown in according to the individual. I usually add a small amount of chipotle to the mix, just for a dash of smoke and heat. Cinnamon is great with pork, as is nutmeg, when used in small amounts. That little dash can really bring out the flavor in a good piece of pork. I also use cinnamon, just a small pinch, with fresh blueberries and strawberries – done right, people know something is there, but they are not sure what. Now, for roasting rubs I don’t usually do salt, as they can pull moisture out during a long, slow roast. Save that for when things are done and the meat rested.

Whenever you reheat the meat, keep in mind that you are continuing the cooking process. I tend to pull mine a bit rare when cooking to freeze, so that it stays rare or at least juicy during the reheat. To be safe, I also use the trick of adding some pork stock or chicken broth either at reheat or to the package if I vacuum seal the meal. Another thing to do is some version of maitre d’butter. All this really is, is herbed butter. To make it, take some good butter and bring it up to room temperature so that it is nice and soft. Add a small amount of lemon juice or vinegar of your choice, and some dried or fresh herbs that suits both you and the meat upon which it will be used. Once all is blended and tastes good, I put it on plastic wrap and roll it up, and then re-refrigerate so that I can serve nice round slices when plating.

On this trip, I did two such butters. One was herbed with pepper, fresh dill, fresh shallots, and I forget what else went into it. I made use of what I got (this is a reference to a cooking show, BTW). The other was made with saffron, and was intended for the scallops, but that is a post for another day. To augment things, I also did up a beurre blanc with the other half of the package of saffron. That was used both with the fresh scallops and the next day with the eggs over medium. In fact, it went well with a lot of things. Alas, it does not store or travel well, so what was left had to go out. The butters I froze and brought home.

For the record, both roasts turned out very nice, very moist, and delicious.

Jim, hope you enjoyed, and hope this makes you go roast more meat.

-30-

Once again, we must look back to the time of the Founding Fathers, and even before, to get a better view of the situation. Commercial broadsheets began primarily as shipping schedules, then began to carry more information as people requested it. As technology advanced and markets grew, carrying news of the month/week/day became the key, and the shipping schedules and other information became secondary.

It is worth noting that copyright truly became an issue around this time, because of the need to fill space. Publishers looked for poems, stories, and other items to fill holes (hence the term filler) so that no space was wasted. Poets and others, understandably, wanted to be paid for the use of their work, so copyright became an important issue.

Early on, publishers were also usually the writers of many stories. The demands on their time, however, were such that they gradually turned over writing duties to others. During the days of the American Revolution, however, the broadsheets made full use of writings by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, much of the ideological battle between the various members and camps were fought in pamphlets and the broadsheets. Publishers loved this because they rarely had to pay for such text, and because a pamphlet or broadsheet by a major figure was bound to sell quite well.

As others began to take on writing duties, a new class of writer emerged: the reporter. Early on, writers were a specialized breed and highly regarded. They wrote books and papers of scientific or other import, and often were part of the nobility or upper classes. Reporters were (and sometimes still are) people who aspired to higher literary callings, but had no patrons and needed some form of income whilst they worked on their “real” writings. With a few notable exceptions, most reporters in the 1800s were quite fanciful and would cheerfully fudge the facts if it made for better literature. They shamelessly pandered to the public, and sought to become popular so that they could get better pay and other publishing deals.

The fact is, most reporters then (and many today) were woefully underpaid. The byline and the “fame” of being a reporter were the largest coin of payment for many. This is a fact that can remain true to this day, and is one of the many pitfalls awaiting the novice writer. Then, as now, the reporters who most often get paid a decent salary usually work at one of the major dailies. Smaller papers, particularly weeklies, still tend to pay very low salaries. Well after I got started, around the time I was getting my Master’s degree, the average starting reporter at a weekly was making about $8,500.00 a year.

While newspapers did provide a way station on “real” writers on their way through, those that stayed in the field were often not of high social standing. They were not well regarded by the public, who would not let them in the front door, or by the publishers. Their treatment was often rough. The image of the hard-drinking, often low-living, reporter that was a staple into the 1950s was often not far off the mark. It was not unusual for reporters to take bribes (or what are now considered same) or otherwise be “bought” by various interests.

This began to change by the late 1800s/early 1900s as technology changed. New press technology allowed papers to be produced in mass quantities, with the result of higher readership, which translated directly to higher profits from both readership sales and advertising sales. Some of that profit did get put back into staff, and into better writing. Social change also became a mainstay of the times, and that translated into the press of the day. What really changed things, however, was when social change merged with the new technology of the press.

This came about with the meatpacking scandals. Suddenly, it was not just the publishers who held power, it was reporters. The meat scandal was in many ways the first of modern investigative reporting, and it set several trends. Reporters went undercover to expose hazards to the health and well-being of the public. Papers trumpeted the results to an astonished (and sickened) world, and things changed. Federal and State governments took action because voters demanded it. Social engineering and the press discovered each other, and it was a marriage that rocked the world.

Suddenly, there were new avenues for exploration, corrupt politicians and judiciary to be exposed, and a public to be saved. Social engineers saw the power of the media to expose problems and affect change. Reporters saw that they had power now too, and that they could do much more. The result was an explosion of stories pointing out a number of very real problems and suggesting solutions to same. Where there were not enough real problems, others could be made and from this effort comes the derogatory term “muckraker.”

Reporters, and those that wanted to be reporters, now saw it as a profession with standing and power. It provided a chance to make changes in the world, and to gain some reward at the same time. Thus was born the concept of advocacy journalism. While some consider that an artifact of recent times, it traces its roots back to the meatpacking scandal. The fact is, however, that most people who want to change the world are also somewhat revolutionary in their thinking.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Founding Fathers, after all, were both revolutionary and radical by the standards of their time. As time marched on, however, revolution and radical thought took on a very different hue. As the power of the media continued to grow with the advent of new media, it continued to attract those who wanted to change the world. As more of these people rose in the ranks, there was a tendency to hire in similar-minded folk. The net result is that over the last 100 years, the media has both grown in power and has moved well into the radical compared with the so-called average person.

Part of the problem is that this is not recognized within the Old Media. When you surround yourself with those who think as you do, and such constitute the bulk of your friends as well, there is a tendency to see yourself as the norm. What has occurred is not fully a conspiracy of the willing, but an unconscious bias of philosophy. The problem is, however, that there are no self-correcting mechanisms in place and the Old Media has no reason to face the issue. Indeed, there is a strong incentive not to face it, for to do so threatens the power of the Old Media.

-30-

Part IV

To briefly recap, the original idea of freedom of the press was not aimed at a self-anointed class, but rather at the technology: literally, the press. The press is a marvelous instrument that changed civilization in profound ways. No longer was knowledge confined to select locations, nor were copies of important works to be transcribed by hands with risks of errors or deliberate distortions. Instead of depending on authorities, religious or civil, to dispense their interpretations of things, a much larger group of individuals were now capable of doing that for themselves.

With larger numbers of books, literacy moved out from the religious orders and portions of the nobility into the general population. Indeed, it can be argued that the rise of the merchants/middle-class and the success of the Reformation are dependent upon the press. By making it possible for individuals to learn and interpret things for themselves has transformed our world, and the philosophical and theological implications are still strongly reverberating to this day.

This was not lost upon the various ruling elites, civil and religious. In much of Europe, strong restrictions were placed “on the press” so that only acceptable things were printed. While various versions of the Bible were allowed, other religious tracts often were not. In matters civil, the restrictions were even more onerous so as to prevent disaffection.

The implications for the power of the press were not lost on many philosophers, and most especially on the Founding Fathers.