16 Aug

newsmediainternet

The New York Times is for real

(In which I write a few too many uptight paragraphs about journalistic style on the internet, in the form of a “Letter to the Editor”—which I will ironically post on my blog, but never send.)

* * *

Dear Breaking News Alert editors at the New York Times,

When did you start being so colloquial? Over the past several days, I’ve noticed quite a bit of inconsistency in your tone—far more casual in some cases than it ever used to be.

Earlier this evening, for example, while informing me via email about Francisco Rodriguez’s altercation with his father-in-law, you mentioned that it resulted in “a ton of bad publicity” for the Mets. A ton? Like two-thousand pounds of negative press?

I don’t think that all the bits in all the bytes of all the press he received since last night would amount to even half of that. Using “ton” in this sense is pretty informal and colloquial (depending on your dictionary) for a publication whose standards editor prohibits common-use neologisms like “tweet,” don’t you think?

Honestly, I wouldn’t have said anything, if yesterday you hadn’t fudged another Breaking News Alert on something arguably more important. At 8:49 p.m., reporting on China’s “spectacular growth” in the second fiscal quarter, you wrote the following (emphasis mine):

The milestone, though anticipated for some time, is the most striking evidence yet that China’s ascendance is for real and that the rest of the world will have to reckon with a new economic superpower.

What! What do you mean China’s rise to power is “for real”? Of course China is becoming a substantial economic force. So just say that instead.

I’m not disillusioned yet; and I still love you, Gray Lady. I understand that most of this text is taken verbatim from the opening paragraphs of the breaking articles themselves. However, your job is to edit the news for an audience who appreciates straightforward language and uncluttered facts. Or we’ll take matters into our own hands.

A little more substance and a little less sensationalism is welcome in a time when newspapers can become the sources of record on the internet, too. After all, just because it’s not on paper doesn’t mean it can sound like Tumblr.

Sincerely yours,

Trevor Filter

21 Feb

chatroulettepeopleinternetcommunication

Just spent an hour and a half on Chatroulette

(Whoops.)

Actually, Chatroulette is just so mind-numbingly addictive that we were able to pull away only after my laptop’s battery had died. But, in that ninety-minute span, Justin and I met people from Paris, France; Munich, Germany; Kent, UK; and even Norway (twice)! Notably, we didn’t have a single worthwhile conversation with another American. On the other hand, it did seem like everyone we talked to was online at around 9 or 10 p.m. in their local time zone, so maybe the “friendly” demographic changes around the clock.

That said, I’m now completely convinced that there are so many potential cultural studies just begging to be leveraged from within Chatroulette. Make no mistake: this is a Very Big Thing; the sort of Big Thing that only comes around every couple internet years. The parade of choked chickens aside, I do believe that there’s a legitimate premise in video conferencing with random strangers around the world.

By far the most interesting aspect of Chatroulette is that every conversation is truncated. Because clicking “Next” to advance to another chat partner is so forcibly ingrained in the user’s behavior, there’s no opportunity to have any sort of meaningful exchange of words or ideas. In other words, by the time you get past “Where are you from?” and “What time is it there?” and finally, “What’s your name?,” one of you is usually already saying “Nice talking!” or “Take care” and hovering over the Next button. As soon as you reach the point in a typical conversation where any substance would normally be introduced, the conversation is over. Near-instantaneously.

The direct implication is that eventually every conversation is perceived as meaningless from the outset, and instead, each encounter becomes a study in attention. For me, this is a fascinating example of how the attention-deficit disorder we are beginning to associate with the internet could be transcribed onto a face-to-face encounter with another human being. Historically, web cams have been used to facilitate meaningful communication between close friends and family members where distance is prohibitive. Now—with Chatroulette—web cams are being used to facilitate surface conversations between complete strangers, in an un-patrolled realm of the internet where anything goes.

I’m really excited to see Chatroulette evolve: what academics are able to discover, what lawsuits are filed, what governments get involved, and what people end up taking away from it. It’s a fascinating place with lots of possibilities.

All that said, I still haven’t gathered the nerve to go on alone.