If there’s one thing I love about living in 2010, it’s the internet. Specifically, I love the number of experts that you can find on any conceivable subject. If you want to find a new site devoted to some obscure technological artefact, it’s probably out there. If it isn’t, you can start it.

Of course, when you’re on the internet, your bullshit detector is set to full. You don’t believe everything you read. It’s just a bunch of people talking. You don’t believe everything a random collection of people say, and that’s true of the web.

Plus, when someone you recognise is constantly wrong, you can correct them in the comments–the internet likes to pretend to be interactive in at least the most perfunctory manner–or just ignore them completely.

This is one area traditional media can’t compete. In fact when you’re used to the internet way, the traditional media model seems not just obsolete but downright silly. These people positioned as guards at the gateway of information: Who are they? Who appointed them? Why do they get to be there? (Sidebar: The further inside the media establishment you look, the less you’ll respect it. There are few institutions that deserve the position of gatekeeper.)

For instance, you know something about technology. Yet you read an article in the newspaper about some technological artefact and you realise neither the reporter nor the editor understands it. They don’t get the most basic stuff about it. So you dismiss the article and turn the page and read someone going on about politics and never think that if they can’t understand something as simple as technology, how in the world could they understand something so complex as politics?

We all have this sort of blindness, a kind of amnesia. When you read Wikipedia, the editors are ruthless. If a statement is unsourced, they delete it or add a [citation needed] tag. Either way you know that the phrase is suspect. There’s also a strict rule against weasel words and things like that. Yet reading a newspaper is an exercise in find a phrase with a citation, or finding an article without weasel words. Traditional journalism is pathetic. You practically have to read between the lines to get an accurate idea of what’s actually happening.

Internet news sites get down to business. Items can’t be long, for both attention deficit and bandwidth reasons. If something is complete bullshit, someone will say something. Probably lots of people. Some are saying? Well… who? Links help build context. If you really need context–if you’ve come out of a coma recently–you can follow the links or quickly google the subject at hand.

So why do we treat internet news sources as inferior to traditional new sources? Why do we assume a higher standard of truth–after all, journalistic convention is about better truth, right? I can’t see many downsides here. And I think traditional news media are scared of the internet not simply because it’s a different medium. The news media adjusted well enough to radio and television, after all. It’s because it’s a totally different way of interacting with news. I don’t need a 500 word article that contains context, quotes, and supposedly neutral blather. I need a basic summary, some links, and a well-thought-out commenting forum.

That’s going to be a shock for most short and long form journalists, and their editors. There will always be a place for investigative journalism and long human interest stories. But news? Nah.

When cops are arrested, the police can do two things: open up for an investigation and try to be as transparent as possible, or circle the wagons and try to keep their own from the fire.

The first option is the best, of course, and the police force has gone to great pains to make sure we all know there isn’t a double standard here. But there is a double standard, of course. While the rest of us would rot in jail (or rot on bail) with no method of support, the cops are suspended with pay.

There’s your double standard.

To Kevin and Sarah, who have managed to birth a child. Clearly, the grace of God has been with them thus far, and I hope it will continue with them in the future. See, it’s a boy. It’s Kevin’s boy. They’ll need it.

Finally, we have internet at home. So feel free to email away and do all those internet-enabled things you always wanted to. We’ll probably be out anyways.

• I’m listening to the Beach Boys right at this very moment. Check my Last.fm page for more detailed information. I plan to follow Pet Sounds up with Brian Wilson’s SMiLE, though I might break down and find some more recent music first.
• The US government should split into divisions and IPO each one. You know, make it splashy. Why not? If America really values wealth more than anything else, should not those with the most wealth be able to participate more fully in the government?
• I had a hard time getting to sleep last night and then woke up early this morning. Not a good combination. Needs coffee.
• Why is it that when people see a problem with an obvious solution, they decide not to enact that obvious solution? I mean… I just don’t get it.
• Boston Legal is a pretty awesome show. David E. Kelley is a pretty awesome creator of shows.
• I’m especially boring today. That’s it, folks!

Later:

• As it turns out, my cousin Bethany has had a baby girl, and named her Mackenzie (not sure of the spelling!) Hope. Congratulations!
• I’m listening to Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’ now. I sense a disturbing trend here.

So, I’m married. I just thought the entire world should be aware of that, as my blog screams into the abyss that is the internet at large, a place where all small voices are lost to but an attentive few.

Every once in a while I hear a bit of news that disturbs me greatly. I guess this means that current American administration has decided to simply not care about appearing corrupt?

What I think we need to watch for now is a pardon at the end of Bush’s term; Scooter’s jail time was commuted now so he doesn’t have to serve, but that doesn’t carry with it an implication of guilt, as a pardon would. This allows Libby to fight the sentence without setting foot in jail. If, however, things aren’t going well with that fight, look for a pardon right before Bush leaves office. Even if it does imply guilt (though from what I’ve read any judge or jury with half a mind would convict him not only for perjury, but also for treason).

Two things that really disturb me about this are:

1. The wording of the president’s statement sounded like something that might issue from a judge’s seat. Scarily similar, in fact. I don’t know if this is normal for pardons and commutations, but with the powers the executive branch of the US government has given itself of late, any move on its part — even posturing — to begin to usurp judicial control begins to sound creepy. Like the beginning of a monarchy, or fascism, or something.
2. Republicans will find a way to make this about the good of America. They’ll justify it. While these same people hounded for Clinton’s head (pardon the pun), and though he didn’t even perjure himself, he was still impeached! Partisan politics is good and it’s bad, and this is it’s worst: when they do it, it’s evil and must be punished. When we do it, it’s good, and in the defence of freedom, or at the very worst a mistake that can be remedied with a fine, a bit of shame, and some commuted jail time. For an act of treason.

I’m getting married. For those of you who are into caring about that sort of thing. The rest of you, carry on, carry on.

On my way to work, 680 News reported that disgruntled Sopranos fans had “hacked” into Wikipedia and changed a line in the creator of the show’s biography page to read that he had destroyed the show. According to 680 News, after these brave individuals “hacked” into the page, Wikipedia “disabled” the profile.

I understand that this was a fluff piece, about 30 seconds of news time that will probably only ever get repeated a couple of times. But seriously; how hard is it to get even the most simple of facts right? How hard is it to be precisely right instead of vaguely wrong? I know what they were trying to say, of course, because I know Wikipedia, but imagine what sort of impression that might make on those who don’t.

For instance, you don’t “hack” Wikipedia. You edit it. Anyone can do it, and vandalism is a pretty frequent occurrence, especially in Political, Religious, and Pop Culture pages.

Second, Wikipedia didn’t “disable” the “profile”, they simply locked the biography page down so unregistered and newly registered can’t edit it.

Third, fans? Plural? You think a group of people conspired to do this? I’m pretty sure it was just one guy. Unless they have multi-user keyboard and Wikivandal parties now.