Tommy Collison's Blog, page 3

Soundboard: some thoughts on college and the state of online writing

As I've mentioned before, I sometimes use Collision Course as a soundboard for ideas, or a rubber duck debugger for life. Right now, I'm thinking about college courses. 

Next week, I'll have to start thinking about what classes I want to take during the Fall 2014 semester. Set aside the scary fact that I'll no longer be a freshman (and will almost have the title of most collegially-educated Collison son...), I have to decide what courses I want to take. 

Given my recent interest in Edward Snowden, I think I want to take a law class. Reading through David Miranda's high court decision a couple weeks back, I realized I know nothing about law jargon but actively want to. Maybe a law class at NYU is the answer. I've to meet with my academic advisor this week, and he'll know better than I do.

All through high school, I said that I wanted to study journalism at university. I'm not so sure I want to be a journalist right now, but that's not a problem. I get the impression from people that you don't need to (or even shouldn't, perhaps) have a concrete idea of what you want to do. I can't see myself wanting to be a philosopher, and yet here I am doing a philosophy class this semester. You're supposed to do outlandish classes without any clear link to your interests at college -- especially since I have the chance to study in the US. From talking to university lecturers in Ireland, you're "frogmarched" through the education system. Want to be a lawyer? Here's your four-year plan.

Back to journalism -- I don't know if I want to be a journalist, but I think I mean "I don't want to be one in the traditional sense of the word". I know that I love writing, and if we look at the state of online writing, it's clear from the likes of John Gruber and Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows that it's possible to build up an online following without being a 9-to-5 print journalist. People subscribe to the Sullivan-esque subscription model because they believe (as I do) that his writing's worth $20 a year. In my view, it's a more gratifying monetization strategy because it changes the relationship between reader and writer. As a reader, I'm no longer treated as a pair of eyeballs being bombarded with ads -- I pay for Sullivan to be able to produce his site, The Dish. 

If we take the above as true (that great writers can be supported by their readers/other sponsors if the quality is high enough [1]), the question a college student who loves writing comes to this: what should I do with my time? Obviously, writing comes pretty high on that list -- it's a muscle like any other that gets stronger with practice. In terms of college courses, I definitely think taking a wide range of classes in things you find interesting (or just think you might -- a quarter of your semester's work isn't that big an investment) is the best way to go, which is why I'd love to take an introductory law class next semester. NYU doesn't let freshmen take journalism classes, and you start the journalism degree with a class called Investigating Journalism. I'm tempted not to take the class next semester -to delay starting a journalism degree at all- until Spring 2014 or even my junior year. It's becoming increasingly apparent that a journalism degree at an undergrad level isn't required to be a journalist -- maybe a graduate degree, but I can kick that can down the road for years yet.

In broad terms, I think I want a law class, another politics class, maybe a creative writing workshop, and something in computer science next semester. I'll narrow that down when I meet with my academic advisor, and update Collision Course once I'm registered.

====

[1] By my estimation, John Gruber makes $481,000 a year if he sells all 52 of Daring Fireball's weekly sponsorship slots.

Short Fiction: Memory

A while ago, I saw Love and Information at the Minetta Lane Theater, which presents a "kaleidoscope" of subplots which weave themselves through short vignettes in cool and crazy ways. I found myself trying to predict which way the scenes would go, and I decided to write a piece inspired by one of the scenes -- if you've seen the show, you'll probably know the scene I have in mind. Check the play out if you're in NYC; here's an NYT review.

I'm in Ireland for a few days right now, catching up on projects I didn't have time to get to during midterms. One of these projects was the following story. It's a first draft and not edited (and therefore not very good) but my intention was to capture the essence of the scene and also point the story in the direction in the way I predicted in the theater. As I said above, it's inspired by a scene in Love and Information, and any any similarities to people, living or dead... you know the deal.

PDF link.

Narratives

"I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, [...] What is going on in these pictures in my mind?" -- Joan Didion

When I'm describing what I want Collision Course to be, I usually point to Didion's quote. This blog is where I get to jot down thoughts about what's on my mind right now. 

At the moment, Edward Snowden and the current debate on internet privacy is on my mind. The debate over whether Orwell was right and computers will be a tool of oppression is still one that is very much up in the air. [1] Whether or not tech giants were complicit, the news that the NSA PRISM program tapped into the user data of tech giants such as Apple and Google puts a sour tinge on the iconic 1984 Apple Macintosh commercial, which explained why '1984 won't be like “1984"'. The entire PRISM program casts a shadow on the belief that computers and the internet are a force for justice and transparency. 

Tangentially related to this debate, and arguably its precipitation, are the Snowden leaks. Was what he did moral? Was what he did the best way to start the debate? Are there any good, well-nuanced arguments to say that what he did was wrong? How much surveillance is too much surveillance? Is any level of surveillance desirable? Put another way -- is our problem with the NSA that they overstepped their brief, or is it that their mandate existed at all? I find it hard to believe that many people believe that there should be no surveillance.

I feel that a lot of Snowden evangelists and detractors assume positions in response to these questions that are ultimately too simplistic. We know from behavioral analysis that people like being part of a group, and feel a stronger affinity towards that group when it's threatened by external forces ([2]) and I wonder to what extent this us-versus-them mentality is reducing the nuance of everyone's argument. Snowden probably isn't solely a traitor or the world's biggest patriot, and it's reductive to argue in favor of either definition.

I recently read Luke Harding's "The Snowden Files" and am in the process of formulating my own responses to the above questions. (Next job: read something as well-researched and comprehensive on the subject by someone who isn't a journalist at the paper that benefits (in terms of economics and prestige) from having a book trumpeting its successes. I'm not saying the Guardian didn't do some kick-ass work reporting on the Snowden revelations, it's just that NYC's made me cynical. :-)

Final interesting note, for now: It's interesting how much Harding's book, despite its flaws, reads like a modern-day All The President's Men. To what extent is the Snowden affair my generation's Watergate?

(Ed. note: An edited version of this post also appeared on Medium.com with the subtitle "Snowden isn’t entirely a traitor or the world’s biggest patriot, and it’s reductive to argue in favor of either definition.")

====

[1] I recently read Huxley's Brave New World because there's a lot of argument going on these days on whether Huxley or Orwell were more accurate in their predictions of dystopia. Personally, I think the world in 2014 is more Orwellian than Huxley-esque, but Huxley got uncomfortably close to aspects of everyday life. I'm in the process of writing a longer essay on this subject -- stay tuned.

[2] "While regarded in much of the psychological literature as a "universal" phenomenon, this biasing tendency of loyalty can be enhanced by events that cause tension or are perceived as threatening to one's view of one's own nation." Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective

College, the Great Unleveler

The demise of opportunity through higher education is, fundamentally, a political failure. Our landmark higher education policies have ceased to function effectively, and lawmakers — consumed by partisan polarization and plutocracy — have neglected to maintain and update them.

NYTimes.com: College, the Great Unleveler.

Free Information

I'm headed to my first ever Oscars-watching party later today, and I've a good bit of study to do before then, but I saw something online and felt I should share it. I've become interested in data security recently, and I've been reading everything I can get my hands on about the subject. Cory Doctorow is a copyright activist and journalist who writes a lot about digital rights and has an impressive amount of fiction under his belt, too. Here, he talks about a keynote address he gave at the 2014 Museums and the Web Conference. 

Via Craphound:

The information age is, in many ways, the beginning of history
It’s a moment at which every person is swiftly becoming an archivist of her own life, a curator of billions of blips of ephemeral communications and ruminations and interactions
As any archaeologist who’s ever rejoiced at finding a midden that reveals how normal people lived their lives in antiquity can tell you, this ephemera, so rare and badly preserved through most of our history, is of incalculable value
Which would you rather see: an oil painting of a Victorian monarch, a ramrod stiff photo of your great-grandmother in her confirmation smock, or a hundred transcripts of the conversations she shared with her peers and her family?
The tools by which we accomplish this archival business are, of course, computers
Carried in our bags and pockets, worn in and on our bodies
There is one group of people in the world who understand how archiving works, who understand the importance of the ephemeral en masse, who can steer us to personal and cultural practices of preservation, archiving, dissemination, and access — it’s you, the museum sector
Just as librarians — who have toiled for centuries at the coalface of information and authority, systematizing the process of figuring out which sources to trust and why — are more needed than ever now, when we are all of us required to sort the credible from the non-credible every time we type a keyword into a search box
So too are curators and archivists more needed than ever, now that we are all archiving and curating all the live-long day

Catch-Up

I find that "What's happening?" is one of the hardest questions to answer. How do you summarize what you're up to in a few lines? When I talk to a friend for the first time in a couple weeks, I always enjoy synopsizing my life in a short IM message -- often, they're the most succinct descriptions. Here's one I just wrote: 

Life's good, but extraordinarily busy. Beginning to feel like you, always running around to things. Classes are a lot busier this semester, probably because I was in some creative writing classes last semester where the week-to-week workload was less. I've pulled more nights working 'til 1am in the last 2 weeks than I did all last semester. Classes are fun, though, and the politics lecture I'm in is endlessly fascinating. I'm less involved with the student newspaper this semester, since I'm starting to concentrate on online stuff more -- cryptography and net neutrality. Writing for Medium and trying hard to write decent-length pieces each week. Family all well; was out in SF in January which was a lot of fun. Unsure what my summer plans are as of yet, but looking forward to being home for spring break at least. 

Brain Dump

I've realized that a lot of posts on Collision Course have been of the longer essay type rather than the brain-dump here's-what's-going-on-in-my-life-right now types. I want this blog to be about more than Kansas and manic pixie dream girls, so here's a diary entry-type thing.

=====

Currently reading: Brave New World, by Huxley. Good, but 60% through it's not what I expected. There seems to be less focus on what the world has become and more on what shenanigans the characters get up to -- contrast this with 1984. (Caveat, it's been ~5 years since I read 1984.) I read it with the intention of writing a post on how Huxley's dystopia view is more plausible in 2014 than Orwell's is [1] and how there are probably 10 Facebook notifications you'd rather be checking than reading this post, but Yan already wrote it. I'll probably take the time to type up a few thoughts when I finish BNW, but I no longer think I urgently need to write about it all. 

[1] Hannah, a dear friend at NYU, recently made the point that the proliferation of the internet makes Orwell's dystopian view increasingly less likely. My $0.02: this is why net neutrality is so important and we have to fight tooth & nail for it.

I must be behind on my read-60-books-this-year goal, but I'm putting it down to new semester jitters. 

=====

Current favorite quote: One I can't actually find a link to right now about how the news shouldn't give equal weight to both sides of the debate. I originally had this thought in re: creationism v evolution, but the quote itself is, iirc, on the reporting of rape. Will update tomorrow.

=====

Classes are great! Longer introspective post coming soon, but in short: history of philosophical thought is great, essay-writing is straightforward enough, Spanish is a little better this semester since there's less focus on grammar & the classes are more fun as a result, and international politics is fantastic.

I find myself working a lot harder than I did last semester, probably because I'm no longer a noob first-semester freshman. Probably putting in close to 35 hours work each week.

=====

New York's experiencing an unseasonably cold winter atm, which is fine apart from the slush. We're forecast one last snow storm tomorrow and Thursday but I can't see it being majorly bad. I think NYU screwed the pooch two or three weeks ago not closing the school when the NYC mayor declared a state of emergency in the city.

=====

Theater I'm excited for: Love and Information, If/Then.

=====

Current music loves: KT Tunstall, The Boat People.

=====

A pro-Government-killing-trees lobby group exists. Ah, America.

=====

This Star Won't Go Out was recently released, a posthumous memoir written by Esther Earl, who died of thyroid cancer. Such is the nature of the internet, I knew of Esther's YouTube channel and writings without knowing her personally. Given that we were both 16 and aspiring writers, I felt a certain affinity for her. After her diagnosis, I read her parents' CaringBridge updates half a world away with a weird sense of adopted grief -- here was a girl dying of thyroid cancer who I had never met, and yet felt so much sadness. Her death, which came on August 25, 2010, is one of those deaths you remember where you were the minute you found out. 

It's hard to find words for how happy I am that her memoir, her journals and drawings interspersed with familial reflections, is out in the world, and that her dream of being a writer is coming true. An even better piece of news came when we [the collective internet community drawn together by our affinity for Esther] learned that TSWGO appeared on the New York Times bestseller list on February 16, 2014. 

The Future of TV on The Future of News

Everyone’s talking about the new season of House of Cards, which went live on Netflix on 2/14. As a journalism and politics college student, some of the most interesting scenes of the first season featured the hotshot internet news startup Slugline.

(House of Cards Season 1 spoilers.)

Zoe Barnes leaves a low-level job at the stuffy, old-school Washington Herald to work at the online Politico clone, excited at the prospect of working with journalists who understand how important it is to have an online presence, and who’ll give her the space and responsibility to report on the real issues.

As a freshman who has yet to take any journalism classes, I don’t feel I have much authority to talk about how credible a news source the fictional Slugline is. Mostly, I’m basing these opinions on how Slugline’s talked about in the show. To a large extent, how the site’s talked about by other characters says more about its modus operandi and its place in the world.

It can be frustrating at times. He makes you double and triple check things and you want to get the news out the moment you have it. And he makes you rewrite until it’s perfect. — Zoe Barnes speaking about the Herald.

So unreasonable, right? Right off the bat, this raises my amateur journalist heckles. News is all about facts, so they should be double- and triple-checked. Journalistic writing should be rewritten until it’s as close to ‘perfect’ as possible. Is Zoe suggesting that these are ideals journalists shouldn’t strive towards? Is any serious journalist going to side with her and say that we should do away with the editing process?

Speaking to the newspaper’s owner, the managing editor of the Herald lashes out at Zoe Barnes and citizen journalism. Ostensibly, he’s the bad guy in this subplot — the grinch who makes unreasonable demands on his journalists. He says:

Zoe Barnes, Twitter, blogs, enriched media — they’re all surface, they’re fads. They aren’t the foundation this paper was built on and they aren’t what will keep it alive. We have a core readership that thirsts for hard news. Those are the people I work 80 hours a week for. And I won’t be distracted by what’s fashionable.

Isn’t unbiased reporting a pillar of journalistic integrity? Isn’t hard news always the basis of journalism? Don’t we all deride the likes of Buzzfeed for articles like The 21 Most Awkward Situations In History?

House of Cards creates a false dichotomy: while blogs and enriched media do encourage and facilitate journalists and writers playing fast and loose with the facts, it’s not the only alternative to traditional print journalism. Online journalism might lend itself to the most dramatic angle rather than the most newsworthy angle, but there is no shortage of hard news online. Again, I’m speaking without much experience, but I don’t believe mainstream news is going anywhere fast.

It’s also worth noting that online news has a lot of advantages print journalism doesn’t enjoy. As my brother Patrick wrote, individuals can now cast a spotlight on government action, and local aberrations stick out more.

This is why the comments of the Slugline founder are so jarring to me:

You don’t have to send me things before you post. The goal here is for everyone to post things faster than I have a chance to read ‘em. If you’re satisfied with the article, just put it up. […] Whatever hoops the Herald made you jump through, let them go.

‘Hoops’? To me, Slugline’s role in House of Cards is to be the antithesis to old news outlets, the boring behemoths who are being dragged, hollering and crying, into the 21st century. At Slugline, they’re conflating news with opinion, which seems fine and dandy to me so long as they’re marked as op-eds. Slugline is too vague an institution to draw the distinction.

I’m apparently not alone in thinking this — TVWorthWatching.com:

But the message is clear: the next phase of the free press — the fourth estate and essential guardian of democracy — will no longer be troubled with the standards that left Op/Ed partitioned from the news for a couple of centuries. Or, it seems, office furniture.

Definitions

My current college note-taking strategy for international politics is taking notes on Notability with an iPad and stylus. On weekends like today, I type up the notes, using the lecture slides and textbook to fill out the notes or take out whatever shorthand I use. It's got a couple of advantages, mainly that I get to go over my notes a second time in a few days (reinforcing the concepts) and writing notes allows me to copy diagrams, quickly draw arrows, or scribble out. In my experience, typing notes isn't yet as fast as handwriting them. 

One of the things I've noticed about international politics is that we have to take specific definitions of concepts -- often using words in a slightly different context than we're used to. The democratic peace is a concept I recently came across, which is the observation that few, if any wars are fought between mature democratic states. 

To me, it's a good example of words having specific meanings where we'd often use them more generally. It's a definition with caveats, certainly. In the definition above, I've italicized what I see as the problematic words. (It's important to note that the definition isn't saying that wars involving democratic states are less common -- just that inter-democracy wars are less common.) 

"Few" is obviously a very general statement, [1] "war" is also a term that's used widely in the media but has a specific definition, including the criteria of sustained combat with 1,000 battle deaths per calendar year, and "mature" is also a word annoyingly open to interpretation.

If I've learned nothing in college so far, it's that words in different contexts can have very specific definitions. I've found it a good habit to try and assimilate the 'new' definitions. 

[1] If I get time this weekend, I'll do some research on the percentage of wars in the last 400 years fought between two or more identified democracies, and then come back and edit this post. Off the top of my head, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, and (depending on whether you think pre-1914 Germany was a democracy) World War I are exceptions I can think of. Right now, I should get back to work.

A Worrying Precedent

A worrying precedent was set on Wednesday morning when David Miranda, the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, lost his court challenge that he was detained unlawfully under the Terrorism Act, 2000. [1] The act has come under criticism in recent years for being a catch-all law which has been misused by the police. [2] [3]

The Guardian quoted the Home Office this morning as saying that:

"The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning." [4]

As was noted in the Guardian article, the direct challenge to critics seems to be part of a new tack the UK Home Office is taking -- they seem to be going on a heavy-handed offensive, taking a much tougher and more conservative stance on press freedom and immigration. @UKHomeOffice, in a tweet from July 3, 2013:

"There will be no hiding place for illegal immigrants with the new #ImmigrationBill." [5]

The pseudo-joke always used be that we had to worry about the US being a despotic regime hellbent on curtailing our individual freedoms. I'm starting to think we got the country wrong.

[1] David Miranda loses 'illegal detention' fight. The Telegraph, February 19, 2014

[2] Innocent photographer or terrorist? BBC News, April 17, 2008. 

[3] No terror arrests in 100,000 police counter-terror searches, figures show. The Guardian, October 28, 2010.

[4] Miranda had 'highly sensitive stolen information', Home Office suggests. The Guardian, August 20, 2013.

[5] @UKHomeOffice tweet, July 3, 2013.