Sound Advice on Ebola in US from Fox News!?!

Unless you have lived in a cave (driven there by the news on Ebola) then you are away that the United States is currently host to all of two people that have contracted the virus from a third person that came into the States with it (and sadly since died). If you watch the news though, they seem to have one goal - to terrify you into thinking at any moment you or a loved one will die from Ebola. Cause 3 total equates to all 300 million being in danger. Even though we are going on a month now and that total is still just 3. Cause that is how fast moving, dangerous to all, OMG we could die any moment, epidemics work. So here is what I recommend - listen to the clip below from Fox News. Yeah I can't believe it either.

Shepard Smith must be getting torn a new one by upper management (or they ordered it now that their stock portfolios are getting hit) for saying out loud what the press already knows but doesn't want the public to figure out - that there is no danger from Ebola. As he points out, you have a better chance of dieing from the flu then from Ebola. Currently you have a better chance of winning the lottery then you have of getting Ebola. There is nothing to be afraid of.

Anyone currently trying to scare you is the enemy of truth and good. Trying to score points, be it ratings, attention or votes, by scaring people needlessly is just a form of evil. And when its a politician, who has easy access to experts and they in turn also try to magnify that fear, well if there isn't a special place in hell for them then there ought to be. There is nothing to be afraid of. If going be in fear of something, at least next time be informed enough to know if its justified. Also remember, the news no longer exists to inform you. That is counter to their money making through entertainment mandate. You have the internet, start using it to gain knowledge instead of using the lazy route of listening to people who benefit more from scaring you than informing you.

Links of the Week

Economy Does Better Under Democrats
For reasons that will probably never be explained, most corporations and people seem to think the economy thrives when Republicans are in charge. This isn't actually true as numbers repeatedly and always prove. There are really no exceptions in this. Consistently, Republicans are bad for the economy. The reason is fairly straight forward. The GOP believes in unrestrained greed. The problem with that is too much greed becomes destructive, which rarely leads to healthy companies. See Enron, HP, all of Wall Street, housing scandals, lead in toys and so much more. When you allow unrestrained greed, companies will often make decisions that make the short term look good but can lead to their death in the long term. On top of that, the GOP has a pretty straight forward belief that tax cuts to the rich fix everything. Except that isn't true either. The engine of the economy isn't the rich. It’s the middle and lower classes (who are 95% of the population). The rich are getting richer thanks to GOP tax cuts but everyone else is either getting poorer or holding steady. Even raises have been stagnant now for around 10 years. The result is less disposable income which leads to a sputtering engine. People do not make spending decisions on tax cuts. They make them based on available disposable income and job security. Eight years of tax cuts under Bush has proved it doesn't work, despite the GOP promising more of the same (while not trying to pay for it). Any case read the link for more charts on why your savings and investments are better off during Democrat administrations.

New StarCraft II Trailer
Blizzard has released a new trailer that hints at some of the story that will drive the single player campaign in the game. I participated in beta and found the game to be a whole lot of fun; however my computer is old and barely could run the game. To get the full experience, you should consider playing the game with a computer that meets the recommended specs. In this case that means one that is two years old or newer (my computer is five years old).

iPhone 4 and Other Links

iPhone 4 Officially IntroducedToday Steve Jobs officially introduced the new iPhone at the WWDC 2010 keynote which will be available starting June 24th. The price will be $299 (32GB), $199 (16GB), and $99 (3GS 8GB). A comparison of the 3GS and iPhone 4 shows a faster processor (same as one in the iPad), a higher pixel density of 960 x 640 (almost same resolution as iPad) or what Apple calls Retina Display, HD video recording (720p at 30fps), a front and back camera, the main being 5 megapixel with flash, and slightly improved battery life. So far the phone seems to continue to be tied into the crapiness that is AT&T so an upgrade will jail you to them for two more years. Main new apps for the device include iBook (with pdf support), Netflix, and iMovie. The phone will also support video conferencing (aka FaceTime Video Chat) but only over a Wi-Fi connection. Hands-On description and video here. Top link is a definitive guide that breaks down all the details for the new phone.

Helen Thomas Forced into Retirement
If you want to know why conservatives always go into attack mode even when it does nothing to actually help, this is why. Helen Thomas voiced an opinion that Jews (aka Israel) should get out of Palestine. Since America has this warped opinion that Israel can do no wrong, it was twisted into an anti-Semitic remark by the right with the cowardly press corps diving into the dog pile as they figured it would help ratings (cause god forbid it actually start an intellectual conversation about the Gaza Strip, the politics of the regions and more).

AJC: Citizen Journalism Too Risky

Citizen Journalism is a term being used to describe the online proliferation of bloggers and other sources of news that bypasses the standard media outlets. The growth over the years has reached a point where those same media sources are starting to feel threatened as more and more the news is reported first by the "citizen journalist" before taken up by the major media outlets.

Often times this is mostly noticed in the realms of politics and star watching but more and more its spreading to all forms of news. The result is the media outlets must grudging use bloggers as a source of news. They don't like it, but they do it. Its rarely a week goes by where I read a story on the front page of CNN or Fox News that I had read on a blogger a few days before.

David Hazinski, a professor at the University of Georgia and former NBC correspondent, has decided that this represents a danger to media in the form of inaccuracies and deceptions, in article he wrote for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The citizen journalist is not really a journalist as they lack the "education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip." He feels to prevent this, media organizations must create standards involving citizen sources, clarify and reinforce their own standards, and universities must "certify" citizen journalists "much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified."

Obviously I disagree with these notions. The idea that delivery of news requires special training seems ludicrous to me. News is news, regardless of source. We have all seen what "real" journalists with "education, skill and standards" leads to: all day reports about Michael Jackson going to court, D-list actress overdosing, and little or no reporting on complicated issues such as the Iraq War or what the previous records (versus words) of candidates for President may have on our future.

If it can't be summed up in a sound byte, it must not be news. At least that seems to be the current standard. The rise of the citizen journalist resulted in a vacuum created when the traditional sources of news and information abdicated their authority when they decided the the sensational (infotainment) was more important.

Bloggers and the like can be a source of inaccurate information but one hopes that when "professional" journalists pick up the information, they don't just regurgitate but follow the same standards they have already developed for any source. That ultimately is what citizen journalism is - another tip, another source of news that needs the same confirmation of accuracy that would be necessary if it came in via a phone call or email rather then a blog. New standards are not needed, just the same standards applied to new sources.

I think Professor David Hazinski could better use his time not teaching his students to fear the citizen journalist but instead embrace them as new sources of information and news that can help them, not hinder them, in doing their job of spreading truth, on conducting investigations, and on restoring faith in a journalistic system that few believes in any longer.

Colbert For President No Questions Asked

MediaMatters.com posted an excellent commentary that examines the media's reaction to the announced run for President (at least in South Carolina) by Stephen Colbert. This is where the site shines, showing the failures of the media (now if only would expand that to cover all media, regardless of political leanings).

In this commentary, writer Eric Boehlert notes the joy that the political commentators and media have had over Stephen Colbert. They laugh at the joke, sometimes participate in it, and generally just have a high old time without asking the critical questions you would expect from the media. Like is it legal (finally asked here). Is this joke good for the country (not sure yet on that one). Basically, he wonders why they are not doing their job.

I wonder the same thing, especially based on this recent report from Journalism.org that noticed the overall lack of information gathered by the media about the Presidential candidates. Some have focused on the subjective "positive" vs "negative" nature of the articles to paint a liberal media bias which I think is a false question. When reporting that John McCain didn't raise as much money as projected or falling behind other candidates, is that a negative or positive story? Is the expectation not to report it all?

That seems to be the problem though, the press is reporting on the "sexy" news, not the relevant news. Based on their study, "In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found."

Only 16% of all stories covers what truly matters; what the candidate says they will do as President and what their previous records indicates they will actually do. Only 16% covers this area. With primaries around the corner, how does a voter make a informed decision? How does the strategy to win help make this decision? How does knowing the potential first wives are hot help? What does the usually nonsense about being the son of a farmer blah blah blah have to do with their ability to lead the country?

The problem, as the commentary pointed out, is the media's decision to treat the candidates as celebrities rather then future leaders of the free world. Basically they are treated no different then Britney Spears despite the fact they are different, dramatically different. Britney's decisions effect herself and her kids. The President's decisions can quite literally effect the entire world. The reporting should reflect the difference in scale but doesn't.

As is often the case nowadays, it seems laziness and money is driving how the reporting is done. Research is difficult, collating research even more difficult, but commenting about a haircut, that is easy. Read a blob blurb about it and the reporters are good to go. No effort needed.

Money is driven by readership and viewership and sadly the average American has demonstrated they want the sensational over the factual. They complain otherwise but their actions disprove the words. Of course the media tries to fill that need (hence talk of haircuts). The news though should strive to be more then infotainment. They should strive to inform, even when people don't want it.

The press is often called the fourth branch of government. The ones that watch the watchers. They failed us in the build up to Iraq. Will they fail us again in the quest to entertain?