Cerebral Bypass

The Internet Archive, an organization devoted (in their words) to “offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format” and currently offering access to billions of discrete pieces of information via the Wayback Machine, has announced a new and somewhat anachronistic endeavor: the preservation of all printed material.

Why am I terming this anachronistic? Primarily because they have decided to store physical, rather than digital, copies of the information. And, while I am an unabashed fan of both the written word and the traditional printed and bound publishing format, I find the decision to store tens of thousands of archival quality manuscripts, in archival environmental conditions, difficult to justify. Even if I agreed with the reasoning provided by the archival team, it would still strike me as environmentally wasteful. Why not store the information digitally, along with multiple redundant systems able to access the material? So far as I can see, this would be a savings in terms of both space and materials, as well as putting additional pressure on publishers, libraries and research institutions to develop digital copies of materials currently available only in print form, adding to the globally, as opposed to locally, shared knowledge base.

Sorry for the drop in posts there folks! Summer hit (bringing with it my first ever ACL repair) and I decided to take a break. But I’m finally back and working on new material. I know, this just made your day.

Even if this wasn’t an interesting article, I’d still have to talk about it just to bring a Terry Pratchett quote into the blog: “A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.”
(Yes, I know this originally came from Twain, but I like Pratchett more, so that’s who I’m citing.)

To anyone who has tried to follow an ongoing political or social event on twitter or through other social media sources, the lede to the article should say it all: “When people can learn what others think, the wisdom of crowds may veer towards ignorance.” As information hits a group, particularly a highly invested group, it proliferates through the group with little to no filter regardless of the factual content. Indeed, having observed the recent protests and Supreme Court election (and subsequent recount) in Wisconsin, I can speak to this directly. During the evening of the election, Twitter was constantly abuzz with tweets, re-tweets, and group-think. In fact, based on my personal and anecdotal experience, the more incorrect the information the faster it spread.

And here’s why: The lies are more interesting. Lies are either crafted to tell us exactly what we want to hear (i.e. #Kloppenburg up by 5000!!!) or exactly what we fear (i.e. #Walker declares martial law, sub-contracts police force to #Koch bros). Either way, we feel the need to share the information to others as either a celebratory or warning act. And once we share it, it continues to be shared throughout the community, drawing support from the reputation of those who spread the information and reinforcing the validity. And with the immediate mass-blast communication available through social networking, this process becomes nearly instantaneous. The crowd becomes larger, the information paths shorter, and the overall misinformation potential even greater.

Or, as Pratchett put it: “The intelligence of the creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it.”

Ok, so this post may not be as timely as it should have been, but that’s what happens when summer finally arrives. So, as a refresher, let me sum up the major news story to come out of bin Laden’s death: HE HAD PORN!!!

When I first saw this story, it was through the lens of Fox News (not my choice: I was in a waiting room). And the fact that there was pornography somewhere in the compound was presented as cause enough for sending in the Seal team. Really?!? He was the mastermind behind thousands of deaths and acts of terror, and you think that the presence of porn makes him somehow worse? Why is this even news?

Now, looking at a more neutral and trustworthy news source, the New York Times also ran this story which presents the possession of pornography as discordant with the image of an extremist terrorist mastermind and his male confidants. And, buried in the article, the NYT does provide a semi-plausible explanation, stating that “the disclosure could fuel accusations of hypocrisy against the founder of Al Qaeda, who was 54 and lived with three wives at the time of his death, and will be welcomed by counterterrorism officials because it could tarnish his legacy and erode the appeal of his brand of religious extremism.”

Yes, that’s right. The fact that the U.S. says bin Laden, or someone in the compound, had pornography will dissuade others from continuing to follow his teachings. Because, you know, his followers don’t hate the U.S. and automatically disbelieve anything we say. The release of this information will do nothing to tarnish his image, except in the eyes of those who already oppose his legacy and, somewhat ironically, have the same opinion towards pornography that he espoused. By focusing on these minute and irrelevant details, the U.S. media does nothing to help the cause of counter-terrorism (they may even harm it). Rather, they shift the focus from the evils perpetrated by this man, and the lives which have been lost due to his actions, to the extremist puritanical views of a small, but vocal, portion of the populace.

So, for those out there who think this story deserved any coverage, let me break this down for you:

1. Men like to look at naked women. If they can’t see them in person, they will often resort to mass produced images and video.
2. The Internet is for Porn.

So, having met with the coordinator for the course, I have a few closing comments on this matter:

• First, this is only an example. As noted in this Chronicle of Higher Ed. article, there is a concerted push across the nation to incorporate video and multimedia technology into college courses, but little planning or training to accompany the assignments. Professors, TA’s, students, and instructors all recognize the importance of video as a communicative tool, but many have little to no experience evaluating, constructing, or defining these assignments. As I explained it to a friend, it would be equivalent to my requiring my students to compose a symphony. I can recognize the power of music, can tell you what I like and don’t, but I can’t tell you how to construct music, how to perform music, and I certainly can’t provide any constructive criticism.
• Second, a key to innovation is evaluation. In talking with the coordinator, it became clear that there is no formal evaluation process in place for the video project. Rather, the coordinator is relying on the open-ended response section of the course evaluation for feedback, which has the potential to provide biased or less than informative feedback. As I have stated before, innovation is only worthwhile if it actively and effectively improves the existing process. When the topic of evaluation of the project arose in regards to my friends sections (as she planned to, and did, construct an online survey specifically targeting this project), the coordinator actively resisted doing the same across the board. This, in my opinion, represents a fundamental resistance to improvement, rendering the implementation of any innovative method null. What makes this truly inexcusable (at least in my opinion) is that this coordinator was hired in part to integrate and innovate with technology in the classroom, and is failing at a fundamental level. Indeed, more than once she mentioned that this “wasn’t a video project,” with no explanation as to what type of assignment it was or why the video was included.
• Third, while the coordinator agreed with many of my suggestions, one of the reasons provided for not devoting more time or training to the process was the lack of funds available within the department. As mentioned in the first post of this series, the entire time investment was approximately 7 hours. If the process proposed here was followed across all sections of the course, it would require a 1-2 hour meeting to train the TA’s, not a huge time commitment by any means. The monetary investment is also minimal: charging my normal freelance rate and working with all sections to construct the materials, train the TA’s, monitor all classroom training sessions, and provide occasional technical support for unforeseen questions I would estimate a cost of roughly $750-$1250. Obviously this can and would cost more for more elaborate innovative scenarios (i.e. including evaluation and reporting in the process).

Needless to say, the coordinator and I did not see eye to eye on this project.

So, the end of another school year is here, and with it comes a changing of the guard and the burning of bridges. And nowhere is this more apparent than at the Badger Herald, UW-Madison’s “premiere independent student newspaper,” where the Editorial Board has decided to yet again raise the level of discourse and discussion by publishing a series of petulant, inflammatory, degrading, and ad hominem attacks disguised as editorials. Railing against the WI-14, local alderpersons, the mayor, state representatives, and the TAA, the shadowy and undefined editorial board (and yes, I’m being serious here: the page listing the Editorial Board comes back with a 404 – Not Found Error) has made their last acts of the year a series of unsupported attacks with no way for those attacked to respond. Yes, the victims of the attacks and their supporters have the opportunity to reply through the “Comments” section of the page, but is that truly the same as publishing a response in a subsequent issue (as would be possible during the semester)? Obviously the answer, in my opinion is “No.”

But leaving aside the nature and timing of the attacks, there is a larger issue at stake here: Professionalism. As college students, journalists (and I use the term guardedly) walk a strange line. On one hand they are protected by their status as students, while on the other they need to build a portfolio and be “public.” The Herald Editorial Board is obviously acting as children and students, not as adults and professionals, as they are used to (and to some degree expect) being given a “pass” on uncouth behavior. But you know what? This isn’t a paper you’ve turned in to your TA or professor, this is a publicly available record of their work, one which any employer has easy access to.

Maybe that explains why the page listing who is responsible for this drivel is blank…

(Oh, and here’s my credentials, just to keep things open and above board.)

Wow, I have to admit I never expected to take three posts to discuss this topic.

Ok, so having covered the technology issues and solutions here and some of the pedagogical issues here, it’s time to provide some pedagogical solutions:

1. Stop wasting time. Two weeks to watch videos is just ridiculous. Once a student has presented their video (and yes, the assignment requires the students to introduce and explain the video, which is redundant and unnecessary to the extreme) what motivation do they have for continuing to attend class, or participate if they do attend? Rather, the final written assignment and the due date for the videos should be re-structured to fill out the remainder of the semester and allow for the implementation of the following steps. The time allocated for final exams (which is currently not being used) can then be used to watch the final projects and cap off the semester.
2. Follow the structure established throughout the entire course. As stated previously, students in the course have the opportunity to receive feedback from the instructor and other students on their writing assignments, so why not on this? Indeed, the fact that they are utilizing a new medium and have to adjust their style and thought process accordingly makes the peer and instructor review even more vital. Provide them with an opportunity to receive feedback on both the script, including its relation to the formative experience and the study abroad opportunity, as well as requiring them to construct a storyboard.
3. Up the required production value of the project. Yes, that’s right: In order to make this a truly valuable learning experience you need to require an actual video production, not just a talking head. Why? Because in order to justify innovation you have to benefit from the change, otherwise it’s all just window dressing. Teaching students to accent their narrative with music, images, video and animation results in a more creative, well-rounded student. Having them talk into the camera for 5 minutes results in them giving yet another speech which, while possibly useful in developing public speaking skills and confidence, is a disservice to the final product and learning experience. This is a composition course. Producing a final video should teach the appropriate multimedia composition skills.
4. Following closely on the heels of the above: Teach the instructors both how to create and evaluate multimedia compositions. Innovation should not and cannot be a one-way street. Just like teaching, the learning process exists on both sides of the desk. The instructors of these sections should leave empowered and excited to use their new skills in future classes, not frustrated and confused. Sessions need to be arranged to provide them with rudimentary tools of multimedia production thought and analysis.
5. Increase the value of the assignment. Whether the above steps are followed or not, 5% is truly disproportionate to the amount of work involved in the project, even for a simple talking-head video. Leaving the value so low devalues the students work and actively dissuades them from investing the time into the project to make it worthwhile.

I’m sure that those more closely involved in the process have additional changes that they would like to see, and may even disagree with what I’ve said thus far, so I’ll leave this particular topic here and wait for your thoughts in the comments below.

ADDENDUM- Having met with the coordinator of the course, I will have another short blog post to follow this one.

Watching the breaking news last night, I was stunned by the public reactions being broadcast by the media. And in my traditional morning crawl of Facebook and the Web (my replacement for the morning paper during breakfast), that shock quickly shifted to sadness. This is not a time for revelry and celebration. People died, and that is never a reason to celebrate. Yes, Osama bin Laden was responsible for acts of terrorism, mass murder, and hatred on a level most people can’t begin to comprehend, but his death is no reason to celebrate. What has his death truly accomplished? The “War on Terror” continues, al-Queda and it’s ilk are still active and a threat, and not a single heart or mind was positively swayed by this occurrence.

Taking pride in our country and in the sacrifices of the Armed Forces is proper. Remembering those who lost their lives on Sept. 11th, 2001, and in the ongoing conflict is necessary. Celebrating the death of an individual is un-American, immoral, and petty.

And it has consequences. As I watched Obama’s speech last night, U.S. Embassies around the world were in a state of heightened alert for potential attacks, and as I write this now my news feed is informing me that California airports are on a state of heightened alert. Just as America reacted after 9/11, the radical terrorist movement will react to this.

So, President Obama has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the FCC’s failed indecency policy. Really Obama? Has there been a sudden spike in the number of indecent acts on broadcast television? Or is this just a political stunt at the beginning of the 2012 Presidential Campaign?

For those of you who haven’t heard about this yet, here is the article I’m drawing on. And yes, the author obviously has no idea what he’s talking about… but that’s part of the problem with this issue. Leaving aside the court case referenced in the article, which my Comm. Law friends have derided as incorrect, it is telling that the examples of indecency the author relies on are either from live events, which are completely outside of the broadcasters control, or from cable television, which IS NOT subject to the FCC.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think that children should be sheltered from at least some of the Seven Words, although a number of them have most definitely lost their taboo status. But the FCC has already lost this fight. Hell, they lost it back when “I Love Lucy” was on the air. (What, you expected a post dealing with indecency to be indecency free?) How? Well, as I learned at the recent PCA/ACA Conference during a keynote speech by Gustavo Perez Firmat, Ricky Ricardo has a very dirty mouth. Just not in English (see his work “Life on the Hyphen” for more). All those times he would get mad and start yelling in spanish, those were real swear words. Need more proof? Check out the definition of a “minced oath” and scroll down to Bart Simpson. Quite the catch phrase for such a small boy. Or how about an incomplete list of translations from the Chinese phrases used in “Firefly.” Actually, one of those oaths describes the FCC indecency policy, as well as the quest to censor what doesn’t need to be censored, perfectly: “fahng-tzong fung-kwong duh jeh” (a knot of self indulgent lunacy). There is no returning to the magical days of yore wherein everything was clean and pretty. Those days never actually existed. There are now hundreds of channel choices, not just three, and many are devoted to children’s programming. So why fight a battle to stifle speech on a few holdovers of the broadcast age when there is no need?

The only answer I can see is to pander and politic. And that’s just a big frakkin’ pile of gos se.

Yeah, that headline just happened. This is going to be a quick post to deal with a truly stupid issue: The release of Obama’s Birth Certificate. An while I’d love to tear into the Donald and the “birthers” on this issue, my friend Jessie, HuffPo and the Onion already beat me too it. So I’ll focus my ire at a different source: The Media.

SERIOUSLY?!?! How is this still being given any airtime? What do you think you’re doing? Have you all gone stupid, or just lost all journalistic integrity?!?

*huff* *huff*… Ok, now that I’ve calmed down, let me explain this as simply as possible: There ARE NOT two sides to every story. If a lunatic repeatedly makes claims that are false, you don’t have to listen to him or disseminate the insanity, even in the hopes of “correcting” it. Why? Because in order to tell people that he’s wrong, you’re first telling them what he said. Why not just stop at the source and just ignore the stupid? Yes, I know you’re interested in ratings, and that’s ok, but don’t let people take advantage of your addiction. You’re better than that. I hope.