atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
- From: "Matthew da Silva" <journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:48:05 +1000
Geoffrey - I have apologised for misleading you about the article. You
thought it dealt with server farms and energy use by big data centre
operators (which strikes me as a great idea for a story - wish I'd thought
of it before J ). What is not at issue is that the piece I linked to is
called - by any journalist in the world - a 'feature'. It might be
considered to be an opinion piece by some, so you are not incorrect in your
surmise (and, as I stated, opinion pieces are also a type of feature).
However, I did my best in that piece to be as impartial as possible, despite
the fact that the initial impetus to write it was my utter disgust at the
blinkered views of a vocal sector of the media.
I'm obviously not as bad as Bolt or Devine, and I don't aspire to write in
that way. As you so rightly point out, they select facts and force them to
serve rhetorical ends that are motivated by a clear ideology, and thus
degrade the profession by over-exploiting a rare resource - credibility. I
don't think that I fit into that scenario.
Cheers,
Matthew da Silva BA (Hons) MMediaPrac Syd
m 0434 536 772 | e <mailto:journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | w <http://www.matthewdasilva.com/>
matthewdasilva.com | t <http://twitter.com/matt_dasilva>
twitter.com/matt_dasilva
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 8:35 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
Matthew, this can't really be you at the keyboard!
If a piece by Andrew Bolt or Kenneth Davidson or Catherine Deveney or Gerard
Henderson or any of the other folk whose articles appear on the Opinion
pages of a newspaper actually "contains" quotes that purport to be "the
reported utterances of key stakeholders", then, according to you, what they
have written is not opinion. You've got to be joking.
Suppose that Andrew Bolt quotes, in some piece for The Herald Scum, a claim
by Rupert Murdoch that the ABC should not be allowed to provide news
free-to-air. Suppose further that Bolt then uses Murdoch's claim to support
a similar claim of his own. Are you really saying that because Bolt has
quoted someone else, and an obvious stakeholder, then his piece is not an
opinion piece? Give me a break. Just about every opinion piece ever
published quotes other interested parties, in which case you are saying that
most opinion pieces are not opinion pieces. I can see Virginia Trioli's
finger doing circles in the air ... in the old media.
So what is Bolt's piece then if it is not an opinion piece? It's obviously
not news. So, on your definition, Matthew, Bolt's piece is a "feature". Are
you serious? Is there anyone on the planet, even Boltophiles, who would call
his pieces "features"? What are they featuring ... other than the man's
opinions?
Finally, let's suppose that that is what journalism schools teach their
students these days, that if it's not news it's a feature, and if it quotes
someone else it is not opinion. So what? Some schools teach creationism.
That doesn't make creationism true. Some journalism schools teach would-be
journalists always to write one-sentence paragraphs. That doesn't make
one-sentence paragraphs all the more useful to readers. (Indeed, it
infuriates most readers.) You need more authoritative sources than what
journalism schools teach. (Crikey, my science teacher taught me that all
matter is composed of just three fundamental particles. Little did he know.)
Which brings me to my final point: you back up your arguments with a
reference to Wikipedia! I just hope that the bit of Wikipedia you were
looking at wasn't a bit that was wrong. (Yes, it might be eventually be
corrected, should someone bother to fix it up. But you might have looked at
it before it was fixed up: a problem for all the sorry sods who rely on
Wikipedia.)
In our mad rush to be modern, we mustn't throw out the baby with its bath
water.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew da Silva
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:26 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
Geoffrey - You may not agree with the findings of the story, but
unfortunately you cannot doubt that it is a feature. In journalistic
parlance, as you may know, a 'feature' is anything that is not 'news', which
is what they put prominently on news websites such as theage.com.au. In this
case, also, the feature is not 'opinion', but contains reported utterances
of key stakeholders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_story
I apologise for misleading you. The attitude displayed was so close to that
which I used to find in newspapers that - I just couldn't hold back ;)
Matthew da Silva BA (Hons) MMediaPrac Syd
m 0434 536 772 | e journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | w matthewdasilva.com
<http://www.matthewdasilva.com/> | t twitter.com/matt_dasilva
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 5:08 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
Matthew,
You have misled me. With excited anticipation I ploughed through your
so-called feature (reading the very first paragraph thrice and only
understanding it when I gave up and read your second paragraph) and did not
find my question answered at all. In fact, there was nothing in it at all
about server farms, the energy they use, nor the Google teams that go from
country to country negotiating for places (and special deals) to set up new
electricity generating plants in order to support their Fibonacci-exploding
server farms. The fact that some people find social media useful is neither
here nor there. I'm sure that loggers find forests useful, coal miners find
rich coal seams useful, and heroin addicts find teaspoons useful, but ...
In the grander scheme of things, perhaps it's time to break the surface of
the river.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew da Silva
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:48 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
Hi Geoffrey - it's a very valid question, and needs to be answered. You may
also be interested (or you may not) to read this feature I wrote precisely
on this topic recently:
http://anthillonline.com/facebook-defies-negative-spin/
Cheers,
Matthew da Silva BA (Hons) MMediaPrac Syd
m 0434 536 772 | e journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | w matthewdasilva.com
<http://www.matthewdasilva.com/> | t twitter.com/matt_dasilva
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 4:36 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
Thanks Matthew. You have reminded me to ask a question I've been meaning to
ask this list for some time. Are there any science-trained subscribers who
could put an empirically backed-up figure on the amount of energy needed to
run (and the amount of collateral carbon dioxide thereby produced in order
to run) the scores and scores of server farms that exist solely to host all
the self-centred, narcissistic, ego-aggrandised trivia that is disgorged
into the blogosphere and twittersphere every single day?
Methinks we have fallen too much in love with our reflection. Goodbye Homo
sapiens; hello Homo narcissi.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au> www.abelard.com.au
ABOUT ME: Oh, there is absolutely nothing that would interest more than a
handful of you, and if there were more: so what?.
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew da Silva
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:57 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: First impressions of Google Wave? Qualified 'tick'
http://happyantipodean.blogspot.com/2009/10/to-get-google-wave-account-all-i
-did.html
Cheers,
Matthew da Silva BA (Hons) MMediaPrac Syd
m 0434 536 772 | e journo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | w matthewdasilva.com
<http://www.matthewdasilva.com/> | t twitter.com/matt_dasilva
Other related posts:
