The Internet

Podcasting:

For several weeks I’ve been thinking about podcasting.  The idea was put in my head by my nephew during a Skype call.  During that call, I basically said “Yeah, right.  Who would listen or care?”  At the time, the answer was: No one.

But the idea has still been in the back of my head.  It simply won’t go away.  Last night I convinced myself that it basically doesn’t matter if anyone listens, I think I’m going to put one up anyway.  Heck, how will if I know if anyone is listening until I put something up to listen to?

So I’ve been brainstorming about what to do the podcast on.  I mean every topic that I can think of has been done before.  But I’ve convinced myself that doing something that has been done before will still work – I just need to do it my own way.  And that’s exactly what I’m going to do – on at least one front for sure, and maybe two.  Depending on whether or not my Xbox clan teammates decide to participate.  If they do, then there will be two podcasts.  Time will tell there.

Stay tuned for more on that over the next few weeks.

Journalism:

By now, everyone who might read this blog has heard about the iPhone 4.0/Gizmodo story and the fallout and subsequent “investigation” of  Jason Chen.  I’m not going to rehash all of the hype, news, and discussions on the subject.  Instead I want to talk about a couple of other aspect of this issue.

First up is our incredible appetite for information.  If we, as a society, had any patience at all, sites like Gizmodo and Engadgetsimply wouldn’t be in existence.  (Let’s not even talk about services like Twitter, OK.)  But in this day and age it appears as though if you’re the second person to know something, then you’re out of touch with reality.  I mean Engadget’s banner includes a collection of stories that are prefixed with how long they’ve been available.

I mean do we really need to know things this quickly?  What happened to finding things out on the news at night?  (For the record, I don’t regularly watch the news anymore.)  I can remember something called the “newspaper” that told you things that happened yesterday.  GASP!  Having to wait 24 hours for information?  I think we’d all explode if we had to wait that long.

I think our desire for information in such a quick manner has lead Mr. Chen to the place he is today.  I also feel that it has landed Gizmodo in a criminal case that it can not win.  And what’s worse, is that money got Gizmodo into the problem and it’s likely to get Gizmodo out of the problem as well.  I’m willing to bet that the case is settled with little more than a slap on the wrist and Gizmodo will not even stutter in its ways.

Which bring me to my second issue:  Trust.  While I truly believe that Mr. Chen had the next generation iPhone, I don’t like the way he obtained it.  And because of that dislike, I’m probably no longer going to be a patron of Gizmodo.  Why?   Until this fiasco, I didn’t know who owned Gizmodo.  (It’s Gawker Media, what appears to be an online tabloid group.)  Until this fiasco, I didn’t know how Gizmodo gained the information that it did.  Basically, until this fiasco, I trusted them.  I didn’t understand that the reporters and thier bosses would stoop to particiapte in a crime to get a story.  I can not sanction (bring them money by visiting their site) their methods.  Avoiding their sites is simply all I can do.

I’ll make my last point in summary.  Are online “scoop” sites like Gizmodo and Engadget worthy of the same level of protection as say the New York Times under “shield laws”?  That depends.  In my humble opinion (and I’m no lawyer), I feel that sheild laws are in place to protect the source of a story, not protect the journalist when he or she commits a crime.  Obviously, in this case, receiving stolen property is a crime.  Mr. Chen and Gizmodo/Gawker Media should be forced to pay the price if found guilty.  (And I do believe this is a crime that needs to be tried.  Meaning I feel the “investigation” should move forward.)

Now, if the story had not involved the purchase of the device, I can see where the shield law would take affect and protect all parties involved.  The fact that Gizmodo purchased the device is the key to the case and what makes the shield laws moot.  Which, from what I understand, is why Engadget and another party (which I forget at the moment) shy away from the story.

Gizmodo’s conduct should not be praised or tolerated.

This site:

So how does all of this affect this site?

In a couple of ways.  First, you’ll note the site design, template and layout have been changed.  This was done to accomadate the new way that I want to deliver my information.  I feel it’s more modern and professional.  This layout puts me in the “information presentation” mode and not the “soapbox” mode that I seem to have been using mostly. 

Which brings me to the second way I changing this site – its content.  I’m hoping to present information that provides entertainment (in the form of podcasts and videos), knowledge (in the form of “how to” guides) and metanews (in the podcasts, but also in reviews).

While I’ll never be a journalist, I’m hoping to hold myself to a high standard of content deilvery.  Not all things here will be researched fact, but that’s why it’s a blog and not a magazine or newspaper.  A lot of what you’ll see here is for the pure fun of it (like my videos) but the rest will be deeper stories told with in my opinion.

I’m looking forward to this path.  I’m really hoping that I can provide you, my readers and friends, with the information that will make you to recommend this site to your friends.