In other news, a massive celebrity picks a random person to twitter about.  Joy ensues.  By the way, I am (ahem) on twitter.

Lest it need to be repeated, I care so incredibly little about twitter. It is like lint or leftover dental floss: it will distract you before you toss it aside.  (Which reminds me, I wrote a blogpost about why twitter sucks a few months ago which I forgot to finish. Hmmm, should I finish it?)

Update: We will be repeating this session on Monday at 11:00 AM in an honest-to-god SXSW room. For some reason, it’s not on the official schedule yet. Details forthcoming very soon!

I regularly attend South by Southwest Interactive every spring. I noticed that one of the proposed panels by Richard Nash was called the Novel in 2050. A description:

Description:
Research shows reading a book for as little as six minutes may cut stress levels in half. But have Twitter-length attention spans decreased demand for novels? What is the future of the “non-networked” book? This panel will debate the relevance of novels in a networked world.
Questions  Answered:

1. Will novels exist in 2050? What will they look like?
2. Have modern Twitter-length attention spans decreased interest in novels?
3. How might crowdsourcing and collaboration contribute to the creation of a novel?
4. What are some recent examples of networked books?
5. Are young people reading novels?
6. Does a novel communicate differently on a Kindle, iPhone, or other electronic device?
7. Is the Internet more of a threat to publishing than film or television were in the 20th century?
8. Why is technology mostly absent in the plots of contemporary novels?
9. How might novels use games and cross-platform storytelling?
10. What about novels should be preserved? What needs to change?

I thought it was a brilliant topic, and (as I predicted last summer), it was voted down.

However, I still thought the topic worth pursuing anyway, and in fact there’s no law forbidding writerly types from arranging an informal get together to discuss Novel in 2050/Future of the Novel/Future of Storytelling.

One ironic thing about SXSW is that even though the panels showcase web design, marketing, technology, gaming, etc, quite a number of writers end up showing up anyway to see what the fuss is about.   Sometimes they are blogging the conference or performing at Fray Cafe or pretending to be web designers or showing up at the publishing panel to complain about the publishing world or peddling spime.  A few years ago,  the Associated Writing Programs was having their annual conference at the same week and location as SXSW;  almost nobody who attended  AWP had ever heard of SXSWi (and vice versa).  That was sad.

One thing I liked about Richard Nash’s  proposed panel is that it was purely speculative and did not concern business plans or technology platforms or marketing analysis or how to monetize things.  It’s just about genre and literary possibilities.  I guess sci fi writers are better at prognostication than people like myself; nonetheless I think all literary types have ideas about what the future will bring and what storytelling forms will prevail and what will happen to the dear old writer in the meantime.

So then, I have decided to organize an informal panel about the topic anyway, with the blessing of Richard Nash (who will be presenting at another more practical panel  about marketing to subcultures on Sunday).  Mr. Nash probably won’t be able to make this informal panel, but that’s ok;  we’ll manage without him.  It won’t be a panel in the sense that there will be microphones and name plates. Instead it will be more like a core conversation where a Bunch of People Sit Around and Discuss Things (BOPSAADT).

Time: Update: We may repeat this as a semi-official panel on Monday at 11:00 . Awaiting details. Stay tuned.

Location: Main Convention Center,  3rd floor, large open area at the end of hallway and close to Room 10A and 10B . It’s close to the elevators and a set of double doors and could easily accommodate 2-20 people.  (See Update 4)

Contact Information: robertdotnagle @fastmailbox.net

RSVP: not necessary, but if you plan to attend, it would be nice to add a comment on this post. Also, if you have an ideas for how to steer this session, feel free to suggest it below.  Important Note: if you put you include your email on the comment form, I will drop you a line Saturday line when I have a definite room.

Finally, a quote from author Jack Matthews about the impact of technology on literature:

Will any conceivable sort of electronic gadgetry prove useful in understanding the subtleties of language and custom implicated in the works of Anthony Trollope or Henry James? Could anybody seriously argue that the availability of such electronic means would have enlarged or enriched their own clear and complex vision of life? … The electronic revolution has done nothing to invalidate the old truths, just as it has not provided any new means for exposing any of the old idiocies that have permeated and probably always will permeate the human condition.

Update 1: Richard Nash says he will be there. Check out Richard Nash’s insightful interview he gave to Oreilly last month.

Update 2: I dub the twitter hashtag  novel2050planb the official hashtag for this event.

Update 3 (Thur AM). Assuming that more than 2 or 3 people show up, I’ll make a recording of the event. I’ll also look into having a conference call if there is serious interest.

Update 4 ( Sat 3:00 PM). Apparently finding an empty room is harder than expected. (They are piping in keynotes into all the usual rooms and the one offsite place I know about was booked).  So I’ve found a very informal meeting space,  on 3rd floor very close to Room 10A or 10B.  (In the hallway, there is a wide open space by the double doors and the elevator).  It’s relatively quiet/isolated; we’d have to camp out on the floor, and there’s an outlet (and I can bring a power chord).  It’s a big space; it could easily accommodate a medium sized discussion group of 2-25 people.   I’ll put up signs.  Please note: although I don’t expect this location to change, you probably should check this or twitter for updates. (I’ll put up a sign on this informal area if it changes.

Update 5  (Sun 3:30) We may do a repeat of this session as a “official” panel in an actual SXSW room on Monday at 11:00 AM. Awaiting details.

I noticed that mediamatters is now  factchecking the statements made on  the Sunday talk shows. I don’t know how hard this is, but it’s extremely convenient to have this as a reference.  Up until recently, TV commentary was provided only on Sunday talk shows. Now with 24 hour cable, we have news commentary shows that appear in Prime Time.  The fact that political shows seem to be successful at prime time or late night on weeknights indicates how politicized a country we have become. 

Steve Benen comments on the shallowness of Sunday Talk shows:

ABC’s "This Week" held its usual roundtable discussion this morning, with Elizabeth Vargas hosting a panel of Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, George Will, and Paul Krugman.

The last topic of conversation was introduced by Vargas this way:

"[O]f course, this weekend, we have a brand-new White House social secretary appointed to replace Desiree Rogers, a close friend of the Obamas who is exiting after a bumpy tenure, I would say. Cokie, you spoke with her. She — she was highly criticized after the Obamas’ first state dinner in which she arrived, looking absolutely gorgeous, but in what some people later said was far too fancy a dress, but most importantly, that was the state dinner that was crashed by the Salahis, who walked in without an invitation when the social secretary’s office didn’t have people manning the security sites."

This led to a surprisingly long chat about Desiree Rogers.

Krugman sat silently while the discussion went on (and on), before eventually interjecting:

"Can I say that 20 million Americans unemployed, the fact that we’re worrying about the status of the White House social secretary….

Donaldson responded, "Paul, welcome to Washington."

Steve Benen comments:

But this panel discussion covered exactly four subjects this morning: health care reform, Charlie Rangel’s ethics problem, David Paterson’s latest troubles, and the fate of the former White House social secretary (and where she’s from, what her clothes looked like, what her next job is likely to be, etc.), which hardly seems relevant to anyone who doesn’t actually attend social events at the White House.

In this same discussion, there was nothing about the jobs bill that passed the Senate this week, nothing about the incredibly important Zazi guilty plea this week (and the fact that it makes Republican talking points look ridiculous), nothing about Jim Bunning single-handedly delaying unemployment insurance for those who need it.

 

(Wow, am I the only one who missed the fact that Zazi plead guilty!?

The people at Washington Monthly have funny observations about this exchange:

Donaldson responded, "Paul, welcome to Washington."

Longer Sam Donaldson: "Washington is a fundamentally unserious place, completely removed from and uncaring about the problems afflicting ordinary Americans. Deal with it."

***

The Sunday morning talk show is the Washington Beltway Establishment on parade. In no other place can you expect to see a party now controlled by its radical fringes, where elected Republican lawmakers are no longer in charge of their party must instead take orders from their far right factions, cable news broadcasters and talk radio demagogues. And yet they are still treated as royalty on these shows, fully the equal with Democrats who have won the past two elections.

There is an unspoken code on these shows, and one of them is not to notice that Republicans have completely lost their minds. Watching insiders like David Gregory and George Stephanopolous preside over these farces you really start to believe that Washington has become another Court of Versailles.

***

"Hey Krugman! Here’s a Nobel Prize in Shut Yer Mouth!"

***

This is just standard high school stuff. The popular kids let one of the brainy nerds (Krugman, Maddow) sit at their table, but the eggheads always wanna talk about boring ol’ policy instead of wailing on the unpopular girl’s clothes and hair. "Welcome to Washington" = Like, what-ever.

***

"Paul, welcome to Washington."

Google Translate:

"Paul, most of us can’t even get our kids into Princeton, much less teach there. We rise through sycophancy and ingratiation, and we assume that, being trivial ourselves, that the rest of the world is not. We don’t consciously try to create a tableau vivant from the pages of Laclos–or unconsciously either; for people like us, "Dangerous Liaisons" is that movie where Uma Thurman takes her top off. So go back to New Jersey and worry about the little people, while we go off to Sally’s brunch."

***

"I wonder, who was the target audience for the discussion of Desiree Rogers…"

The same as the audience for the Rangel and Paterson stories–namely, people who enjoy hearing about black people screwing up.

I no longer watch the Sunday talk shows. (Wolf Blitzer does a good job – if you can stand the commercials). Fareed Zakaria’s GPS is by far the most cerebral shows out there. I just love how occasionally CNN will give a prime spot to someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

Let me see. What is my multimedia news diet these days?

• PBS Newshour (occasionally, but especially Friday with Shields & Brooks)
• Washington Week in Review (smart reporters give the inside scoop on everything)
• Bill Moyers (still the best; see also NOW on PBS).
• Best of the Left podcast… Takes snippets from the political satire and commentary shows.
• Fareed Zakaria’s GPS
• McLaughlin Report. This retro program features blowhards from all political sides. What I like about it is 1)it lets me hear the loony rightwing talking point of the week (which I would otherwise miss). I sometimes learn a lot of things about political culture – for example that lots of conservatives still deny global warming as a reality. 2)Jim McLaughlin is good at identifying the next big hot issues. I always learn a few new things each time I watch, and it’s not only the extent of right-wing foolishness.
• Paul Solman Economic Reports on PBS News hour. He’s the best, and frankly, he is good at bridging the gap between academic discussion and concerns of the common man.
• Red, White & Blue, a Texas political talk show.
• From Our Own Correspondent, a BBC behind-the-scenes 1st person narrative about the major and not-so-major news stories.

I will be attending SXSW Interactive this year. Here is a tentative schedule of talks I plan to attend. Let me emphasize that I float among many rooms, so there’s no guarantee I’ll be at these places.

Also, I go out of my way to attend things with a visual or multimedia component and to miss the lectures which can just as easily be absorbed via SXSW podcast.

Ok, I’ve had enough. Can someone please declare a moratorium on the use of creepy O Fortuna music on all political ads & car commercials &  sports events & video games & comedy skits & movie promos!

If I never hear this melody again, I shall die a happy man.

I am so weary of it that I don’t think even a parody of it (or even another parody) could ever be enjoyable.

Wow, I don’t normally go for Dumb Blonde jokes, but I gotta say. This one has become my all-time favorite.

Two photos I loved.

Lady Gaga with a nutty outfit.  I love her two bodyguards. 

Canadians celebrating the hockey gold medal (and the Canadian health care system).

Other random things: 50 Cents vs. Jozin z Bazin ; Hitler responds to the iPad (oh, this joke never gets old).  (If you haven’t seen the MadTV Ipad parody, don’t delay!).  Speaking of old jokes, here’s the literal version of Eurythmics Sweet Dreams.  See Mad TV Taco Hell comedy skit. See this Old Spice advertisement – totally hilarious! (It occurs to me that the Old Spice ad may very well be in regular rotation on TV – except that I never watch TV!)

Sam Greenspan shares the 11 worst dates of his life and 11 Supersexy Products for your dog.

See, I do have a sense of humor.

Update: My fiendish plan to have Bill White face Rick Perry in the Texas governor’s election seems to have worked.

“An artist should ruthlessly destroy his manuscripts after publication, lest they mislead academic mediocrities into thinking that it is possible to unravel the mysteries of genius by studying cancelled readings. In art, purpose and plan are nothing; only the results count.” Nabokov . See also Marc Slocum’s brilliant idea to use fragments from Nabokov’s unfinished manuscript for a mashup. (Too bad no one followed up on it).

“If I had to live my life again, I’d do everything the same, except that I wouldn’t see The Magus.” Woody Allen.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein.  (More quotes).

Here’s an interesting article from the Financial Times about the Greek financial problems:

…the Greek Finance Ministry had warned of “complete collapse” if the whole system…was not rethought…”Prices and value move in an atmosphere of imminent catastrophe,” he wrote.  “In Greece for a while now all the foundations of a healthy economy have been overturned.  There can be no stability, neither in economic equilibrium nor in monetary or financial affairs.”

…While the Italians…were genuinely worried by Greece’s financial crisis, it was the Germans who needed to be persuaded.  Initially, Altenburg’s advocacy of the Greek position was not well received even in his own Ministry.  But then the political stakes were suddenly raised…

…In Athens people expected the Finance Minister to win substantial concessions from the Germans.  In actual fact he was in a very weak position.

…It was not that the Greek financial crisis could be ignored; nor that the Greek Finance Minister lacked the wit or intelligence to present his case.  It was simply that no Greek politician carried enough weight to be heard seriously in Berlin.

Actually, this is not from the Financial Times at all, but from this  book (click the link!) (Thanks, Marginal Revolution).

A while back I wrote a short reaction to discovering the short story writer Jack Matthews.

Since that time, I am in the middle of publishing a 5 part interview with Jack Matthews about his life and work (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5).

Here is some critical material I wrote about  Jack Matthews: 

• Jack Matthews: Author which the Internet Forgot
• Jack Matthews: The Art and Sport of Book Collecting
• (more to come; hopefully, the next two essays will be more about art and culture and less about economics.)

Also, here’s a brief essay by Jack Matthews about the art of giving names to literary characters.

As an aside, I was tempted in my book collecting essay to “bet on” the books by Jack Matthews by spending 100$ to buy extra copies of his books (which are available for only pennies).  For the heck of it, I’ve decided to track the prices of Matthews’ book, starting with the day his interview came out.

I was doing it just to prove a point, but I’m afraid readers might view it as a conflict of interest. Of  course, it’s a conflict of interest; that is the point! Finally, I decided against it because 1)I am at heart a cheapskate and 2)it just would distract the reader too much from the essay itself.

Although I find many of Jack Matthew’s ideas fascinating,  the economic/capitalistic parts strike me as rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. To put it in another way: because everyone worries and writes  about money and profitability, there is little value for me to write about it.  (These kinds of thought pieces go out of date quickly anyway). On the other hand,  opinions about the Great Depression or the craft of writing or how to assign names to literary characters strike me as instrinsically interesting to the contemporary reader.

I’ll post more later (and might even post things directly on this blog). But for now I just wanted readers to know what I am doing elsewhere.

Prices on Jack Matthews books (February 25, 2010)

Collecting Rare Books for Pleasure and Profit
.75 cents

Crazy Women
$1.00

Dubious Persuasions: Short Stories
$1.99

Ghostly Populations
$0.75

Storyhood As We Know It: And Other Tales
$0.75

Tales of the Ohio Land
$2.64

Dirty Tricks: Short Stories
$1

Sassafras by Jack Matthews
$.75

Jay Rosen comments about how a NYT profile of the Tea Party loonies avoid acknowledging the obvious fact that their ideology is bananas:

Why is this phrase, impending tyranny, just sitting there, as if Barstow had no way of knowing whether it was crazed and manipulated or verifiable and reasonable? If we credit the observation that a great many Americans drawn to the Tea Party live in fear that the United States is about to turn into a tyranny, with rigged elections, loss of civil liberties, no more free press, a police state… can we also credit the professional attitude that refuses to say whether this fear is reality-based? I don’t see how we can.

Now we can predict, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what the reply would be from the reporter, his editors (who are equally involved here, as the Times is a very editor-driven newspaper) and his peers in the press. The reply is the reply that is given by the common sense of pro journalism as it is practiced in the United States. “This was a news story, an attempt to report what’s happening out there, as accurately and fairly as possible. Which is not the place for the author’s opinion.” Or: “I was trying to describe the Tea Party movement, and to understand it, which is hard enough; I’ll let others judge what to make of it.”

Sounds good, right? But this distinction, between fact and opinion, description and assessment, is not what my question is about. It may appear to be responsive, but it really isn’t. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but… as a matter of reported fact, is the United States actually on the verge of tyranny? That is my question. Would an honest depiction of the American political scene by the Washington bureau and investigative staff of the New York Times lend support to the “impending tyranny” narrative that Barstow observed as a unifying theme in the Tea Party movement?

It’s a key point, so let me state it again: Based not on a subjective assessment of the Tea Party’s viability or his opinion of its desirability but only on facts he knows about the state of politics and government since Obama’s election, is there any substantial likelihood of a tyranny replacing the American republic in the near future?

In an earlier article, Rosen explores how major media label alternate viewpoints as the “sphere of deviance” and thus doesn’t need to be covered.

Rosen explains the justification:

Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.

In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

Which is how I got to my three word formula for understanding the Internet’s effects in politics and media: “audience atomization overcome.”

Ironically I saw a similar graph which makes the same point on a Texas ecoblog.. Reprinted from Austin-based environmental blogger Michael Tobis. (Wow, these Texas climate change people are coming out of the woodworks!)

(Read more about media’s mis-coverage of climate change).

Here is a good example of what I mean.

The Houston Chronicle has a very competent business reporter named Tom Fowler who covers the energy sector in Houston (and that is a big responsibility in a  Houston paper).  Here is an article about a report from a pro-business lobbying group about the cost of climate change legislation.  (more here and here). This is a typical example of the kind of articles which show bias-by-omission.

In the article and blog post Fowler  never identifies the funding source for this report (or for that matter the organization cited). Merely because something is bankrolled by O&G doesn’t invalidate the findings; I suspect the report authors are capable economists (though subject to the usual tendency of industry analysts to exaggerate the hypothetical market-disruptive effects of future regulation). But it is not merely an academic question if (as I suspect) O&G money funded this report. It points to the fact that the amount of money available to fund pro-industry reports far exceeds the amount of money available to those proposing alternatives or studying environmental effects. It is relevant for readers to know why similar reports that might contradict this finding are unlikely to be funded.

A reporter’s responsibility extends beyond publicizing partisan reports but trying to help consumers evaluate its importance and credibility.

The internet version of this article is titled, "Study says climate law could cost Texas lots of jobs."

Here are some alternate suggestions for what the headline could be for the same basic story:

• "Group claims that over-dependence on fossil fuels will bring economic hardship to Texas."
• "Industry Report implies that losing industry jobs in Texas is more important than preventing climate change catastrophe."
• "Industry-funded report warns that lawmakers consider the economic future of fossil fuel industries before taking positive steps to reduce greenhouse emissions."
• "Known pro-business political group argues for relaxing environmental rules despite a scientific consensus that doing so would harm the planet."
• "Texas leads the US in greenhouse gas emissions; industry report implies that Texans should be more concerned about the viability of industries responsible for the problem."

Each of these headlines is a little biased but basically accurate. You see how easy it is to shape opinions by only reporting one news source.

This was  a newsworthy story and worthy of coverage. But Fowler chose to make this a separate article rather than try to address  the question about the importance/relevance of this claim.  Sure, Fowler included a tepid  quote from  an environmental expert,  but this was basically pro-industry coverage.

In fact, these projections of future harm from climate change is a highly contentious  issue (see this as an example).   But in my opinion it is irrelevant.  Why does Texas continues to be  so dependent on fossil fuels?  How does a policymaker do a cost-benefit analysis?  What are the long term effects on the economic and social system  when a region is dependent on an industry whose business model depends on harming the ecosystem? Why should Texas address the concerns of an incumbent industry when it appears that another generation of businesses will likely overtake it in size and growth? 

As a Texan, I worry about a lot of things. Climate change is a big worry. But I also worry about the long term effects of tying  the Texas and Houston economy to industries which are unlikely to be around in the next 10 or  20 years.  How can lawmakers justify that? How can lawmakers justify timid mass transit plans when it appears that the cost of gas-powered car ownership will continue to increase over time (not to mention highways!) If you decide to live in Houston, there is the very real risk that instead of learning future-based skills, you will instead be learning  specialized job skills only relevant to the Oil & Gas sector.  In the short term, that is good; in the long term, that can make you virtually unemployable.  (That is another reason why the Texas Public Policy Foundation report is so irrelevant; they talk about jobs – but only jobs that their industry can provide. It says nothing about whether work in this industries will provide long-term marketable skills for Houston workers).

Now let’s turn to another blogpost  (also by Tom Fowler) about the fact that natural gas prices will increse a Houstonian’s electric bills. Now I realize that natural gas is a baseline fuel for companies like Centerpoint, so it is semi-important for consumers overall. But the blogpost mentions nothing about renewable fuels (which in Houston are as cheap  as nonrenewable plans)  Because I use 100% renewable energy to power my home,  this news isn’t exactly relevant to me, but this option never even is mentioned.

As I said, Fowler is only doing his job, (and by the way, he runs a very good albeit fossil-fuel obsessed blog and wrote some good coverage about the fracking controversy). There are two problems here. First, a newspaper reporter rarely has  time to write in-depth stories about a topic. Instead they write piecemeal articles that appear in a daily and give the impression that they convey the whole story. That means that press releases usually drive the coverage.

Second Fowler et al make certain assumptions about the reader which may or may not be true.  Fowler is writing for those in the Houston energy sector and not necessarily the typical consumer. (After all, he writes for the business section). Therefore, he assumes that the typical reader is less interested in climate change science and more interested in new exploration and the impact of regulation on an industry.

Compare this to grist.org or the more business-oriented Triple-pundit.  What assumptions do they make about their readers?

• they are very concerned about climate change and sustainability issues and try to stay informed about it.
• They are not interested in the fossil-fuel industry (except for egregious examples of behavior and the need for regulation).
• They are interested in energy production, but only as it affects them as consumers and as people who must breathe air and drink water.
• They are very interested in how to run businesses in an environmentally proactive way.
• They are very interested in having information to make pro-environmental lifestyle choices
• They are very interested in long term thinking, total cost of ownership and ecological metrics by which to make sound business decisions.
• They are very interested in green entrepreneurial opportunities.
• They are very interested in how new green tools and services could save them money

These radically different assumptions drive the news coverage.  Sure, a business reporter like Fowler covers a lot of  these topics, but with different assumptions about the reader (and thus with a different perspective). This raises the question: does the reporter’s choice of what to cover  and how to cover it derive from his own biases or from the biases of readers or advertisers?