The best obtainable version of the truth

     Investigative journalism reached a pinnacle with the stories about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in The Washington Post on June 18, 1972.

     Over the course the next months the reporters revealed a tangled tale rife with political corruption, dirty ‘hush money’, blind ambition, protected sources, and their work resulted in the unraveling of the top echelon of the United States government.

     Through the hard work of investigative journalism, the ‘Watergate Caper’, as Walter Cronkite called it on the CBS Evening News, was etched into history and eventually led to the resignation of a sitting president, Richard Nixon.

     
     On the 40^th anniversary of that monumental publishing event, another Post writer, Leonard Downie Jr., penned an opinion piece about the current state of investigative journalism and how Watergate shaped its evolution. “Woodward and Bernstein’s techniques were hardly original," Downie wrote. "But, propagated by “All the President’s Men,” they became central to the ethos of investigative reporting: Become an expert on your subject. Knock on doors to talk to sources in person. Protect the confidentiality of sources when necessary. Never rely on a single source. Find documents. Follow the money. Pile one hard-won detail on top of another until a pattern becomes discernible.”

     After seven years of declining revenue, in an effort to maintain the integrity of their newspaper, this week The Graham family agreed to sell The Washington Post to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.

     Most newspapers do not have the resources, money, or time that The Post has to spend on important investigative news. Yet they are sometimes able to get the job done. So, is it resources that really drive important stories? As a daily news reporter, the silent stories that remained in my files on the day I walked away still irritate my conscience.

     On that small scale, investigative reporters like The Patriot-News’s Sarah Ganim – who dogged the legal system for more than 18 months to bring the name Jerry Sandusky, a serial pedophile, to the forefront. If she had not gone to court, followed postponed hearing after hearing, and finally published the Grand Jury indictment, would Penn State have been able to bury the scandal? The answer is yes – because they had already done so for many years.

     Ganim won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism for her work.

     Last week Sandusky was denied a new trial after being convicted in June 2012 on 45 counts of sexually abusing 10 boys.

     Bernstein, in this April 24, 2012 interview, talks about the state of mainstream media today and the continued responsibility of investigative journalists. In discussing the shift in responsibility to stockholders, in a popular culture which values celebrity, Bernstein sees degradation of information and thereby society.

“Newspapers are not willing, increasingly, to devote those resources to that kind of reporting. … When you don’t have dominant journalistic institutions whose standards really prevail and influence the standards of other journalistic institutions … when you have a culture in which hard, complex truth is no longer the coin of the realm, or is devalued, … when we determine that Marla Maples is bigger news than Nelson Mandela … that is a triumph of idiot culture.”

     Maybe the pairing of the largest booksellers with one of the best newspapers published holds some hope for the future of investigative journalism.

If you can't say something nice ...

Taking college classes online has become an important part of getting a degree. A 2011 survey by Babson College revealed at that six million people, “nearly one-third of all students in higher education are taking at least one online course.”

That’s a lot of people. And a lot of money. But that’s not what I want to talk about today. What I am really concerned with is the quality of learning achieved through the online platform.

First, let me say I am biased because I believe in education. I believe a person who is able to think at a higher level has an obligation to expand their knowledge to its greatest possible potential. 

Why? Because not everyone thinks at the same level as everyone else. A simple example: Albert Einstein. What if he just decided to stick with the patent office job? He could have, and no one would have noticed. But he didn’t. He pushed himself and for that the world learned a new way to understand time and space. 

See what I mean? Not everyone could, but he did, and we all benefit.

Now, not everyone can be self-taught like Einstein. Still, some of us want to expand our knowledge to a greater degree. Skilled craftsmen along with institutions of higher education make this possible. Teachers, professors and skilled masters have the power to convey understanding and knowledge so an individual can become more than most would be on their own. University is where I would learn about logic, reasoning, how to use my mind to its greatest capacity and learn critical thinking.

OK, that’s the set up. Now here’s the rant: from my experience, online learning is a farce. One of the key skills you are supposed to learn and hone in college - critical thinking and the ability to thoughtfully debate a point - is completely missing from most of the online classes I have taken (and passed.)

One component of online learning is the message board. It is the place where ideas should be shared and discussed. In my psychology class the professor posts weekly questions and each student must post three responses during the week. Last week he asked, “Which do you believe is the most important sense? Do you believe in subliminal perception and/or extra sensory perception?  If someone came to you and said, I have ghosts in my house, what would you think?”

By midweek, the “discussion” devolved into a surreal chat session about why my classmates believe in ghosts. Not one shred of evidence was ever introduced, only statements like, “I do believe in ghosts. I have heard many stories of them. I used to work in a nursing home the night shift, and you could actually hear conversations but when you go to where you hear the voices nothing there and my patients were sound asleep,” and “If someone came to me and said, they have ghosts in their house, I would probably think that they do. I have experienced the presence of a ghost. I hear things, see things and find my jewelry in spots other than in my jewelry box. I have seen orbs in photos that I have taken.”

It went on like that for more than four days and the professor did not interject once. As a matter of fact, six weeks into the course and there was not one redirect, reinforcement or reprimand from him at all.

Now, I wouldn't be nearly as torqued as I am, except in the next “discussion” it started again. The question went to sleep disorders. It’s amazing how many people claim to have narcolepsy – it seems at least three of my classmates do. I was still a little disheartened by the previous week’s campfire ghost tales, so I (gently!) asked them to share some details about their diagnosis.

Meanwhile, when I pointed out to two of my fellow classmates that commercial websites in the business of sleep disorders might be biased and I would be skeptical of their information THAT is when the professor decided it was time to intervene.

My post:

Hi S…,Thank you for the interesting link to The Sleep Foundation website. One problem I have with using it as a source is found on its 'about us' page:"Funding Sources and Editorial IndependenceThe National Sleep Foundation furthers its mission by supporting public education, sleep-related research and advocacy. The NSF is supported by a number of sources, including individual donors, memberships, sales of educational materials, advertising, investment income and grants.”When advertising is listed as a funding source it makes me a bit skeptical of the content.
~reb

Here is the professor’s response – in the public discussion forum – directly to me personally:

“Hi (Reb),One of the processes we incorporate in this class is listing source material. As always whether we agree or disagree based on sponsoring organizations is a moot point. The goal here is not to pick apart a post so much as counter your answer with facts that support your viewpoint. Skepticism is truly a good thing, but we also need to be supportive of our classmates' use of source material.One way of supporting you (sic) colleagues here is to offer a diffrent (sic) viewpoint rather than criticze (sic) her/his source material.We can always find some other material to contradict another person's viewpoint. Or instead of laying out your skepticism, you could offer a different website in support of your colleague's post. This is a learning environment that requires personal insight and the use of diferent (sic) resources that can be better utilized through finding supporting data or finding data that doesn't support the post's viewpoint.We are all skeptics, its (sic) backing skepticism with facts which leads to a more proactive interaction. I do offer this as a suggestion to assist all of our interactions with our classmates.Professor …”

Ugh. 

So basically, it’s my job to find a way to make a ridiculous and unfounded point of view right? 

How about some ‘agreeance’ that my post was a good one, or are we only supposed to agree with the absolutely absurd and uninformed popular opinion? 

Ugh. 

In a traditional classroom, at least in my mind, this whole discussion would have been a very different one. Arrggghhh. 

Ugh.

Next time maybe I should just post that my ghosts have narcolepsy.

Gold ticket and a shower

Dear blue-ticket holders who didn’t get in to see President Barack Obama speak last week,

What is wrong with your self-esteem? I don’t mean your politics. I mean the idolatry of politicians has to stop.

That’s what I want to talk about today.

You’re right. Having any president, sitting or former, stop by to use a local community venue as his bully pulpit is an honor. Obama's message last week to increase opportunities for college bound students was important.

But to those of you who were there hoping for a glimpse or the opportunity to shake his hand I would like to address something about his stop in Central New York that has me a little bit concerned: the way his staff treated the people outside and the reverence you have for him because he is the president.

Please, don’t get me wrong. I firmly hold that any sitting president deserves the respect of every United States citizen. He was elected to serve us all, even if we did not cast a winning ballot. Likewise, all of our elected officials work for us and deserve our respect for their willingness to hold public office. But they must return that respect for We the People. And we do not owe each other awe or veneration.

According to local news reports, when the tickets to attend Obama’s remarks were meted out, some of you, the blue-ticket holders, queued overnight on Monday Aug. 20, just for a chance to get a ticket. 

You blue-ticket holders waited again for several hours on Thursday Aug. 22, just for the opportunity to get inside the high school auditorium. And when the skies opened up with a typical late-summer rain and its torrents drenched the people outside, not one of them had an umbrella. 

The sacred pass forbade them from carrying one. 

And then it was you, the wet, tired blue-ticket holders who were turned away at the door when the seats were filled.

Meanwhile, the elite red tickets were handed out in offices across the region to other politicians, local officials, and high ranking community members. A red ticket allowed its holder to pass through a shorter ‘express’ line where it has been reported in social media that bottled water and granola bars were served.

My questions here for you, the blue-ticket holders, is this: would you treat anyone in your life the way you were treated? And, why would you let your government - which is supposed to be working for you – treat you this way?

The Syracuse Post Standard reported that among those turned away was Susan Fahey Glisson, the president of Parents for Public Schools. You would think that she would be an important person to have in the room during a discussion about education. Where was her red ticket?

In a report the following day, reporter Tim Knauss, wrote:

“Glisson got all dressed up, as did most of the people who went, including lots of young children, she said. For an hour, they all stood in the rain while the line did not move, Glisson said. The metal detectors could not be deployed in the rain. Then came word from inside the school: Nobody else would be allowed in.

“Glisson's shoes -- bone leather pumps -- were ruined, she said this afternoon. Her iPhone no longer worked, despite sitting for a day in a cup of rice to remove the water. … Glisson said she believes Obama would be concerned if he knew how badly some of his fans in Syracuse had been disappointed.”

Wait, what? Fans? As in, an enthusiastic devotee, follower and admirer of the famous?

Ugh.

Obama’s staffers owe each of you blue-ticket outcasts an apology for making you wait in line all night, not arranging to have adequate shelter when their ticket asked you to leave your umbrellas home and for not telling you that the auditorium was overbooked as soon as they knew.

The president owes you an apology for being so isolated that his staff felt they could treat you all this way. He also owes you the gratification of knowing what ramifications they suffered for treating We the People so badly. Because he is a lame-duck, your vote no longer has any power over him.

Meanwhile, you should have checked the weather before you left home, worn something drip-dry, the old veneer pumps and put your iPhone in a plastic bag. 

Best always,

Reb

'Feel good?' Criminals applying conscience selectively does not restore my faith in humanity

A sexual assault services office in San Bernardino County was burglarized July 31, causing thousands of dollars in damage and with thousands of dollars in office equipment stolen.

According to this ABC News story, “Inside, (the center’s director) said, the building’s telephone wires had been cut, its Internet connection was down and six computer towers, a laptop, speakers for the laptop, children’s story books and 100 bags of small candy had been stolen.”

Hours after the break-in the center’s director found a shopping cart outside the building containing the stolen items.

Now legions of news reporters - from NPR and Huffington Post to The Christian Post and FOX News are telling me this story is supposed to restore my faith in humanity due to the following note left inside one of the stolen laptops:

“We HAD

NO IDEA

what we were

takeing. Here

your stuff Back

we hope that

you guys can

continue to make

A DiffeRerence

in peoples Live

GOD Bless.”

Sorry folks, it ain't workin' for me. I get no warm fuzzies here.

What would restore my faith in humanity?

• If the burglar(s) had taken the note, the stolen items and him or her self(s) to the local police department and offered to do whatever necessary to make reparations for the damage caused, regardless of the type of services offered by the agency. Or even just turned themselves in to the agency.
• If these savvy burglar(s) – smart enough to break in through a utility area and not get electrocuted – enrolled in a local literacy program and worked toward learning how to read and write.
• If they hadn't closed with "God Bless." Really? A group of people dedicated to helping victims of sexual assault have now been blessed by the criminals who've taken resources away from the victims (in cost of repairing the damage to property and sense of security) and made their jobs that much harder?
• If there was no need for rape crisis centers.
• Or, even if any of the news agencies that reproduced the note in the text of their articles had done so accurately.
• How about if he/she/they didn't break into the office to begin with? That would have worked.

Criminals don't get a bye, especially not when their conscience is plaguing them. It means they knew that what they were doing was wrong in the first place.

Something's wrong, captain

Saturday August 10, 2013 update: 

Officials in the town of Deer Trail were split in a 3-3 vote Tuesday on a law that would allow drone hunting within its borders. The matter will now go to a public vote, according to this
Amanda Kost, ABC7 News update.

And:

On July 25, Sara Morrison of The Wrap reported that three producers at KTVU in Oakland were fired over a racist error announced live during a newscast about the Asiana crash landing that left three dead.

"Reached by TheWrap via email, investigative projects producer Roland De Wolk wrote : "My hard-earned reputation is intack (sic). There are lawyers, so eager as I am to anser (sic) all questions, I must refrain."

TheWrap presumes the spelling errors were unintentional."

I think that The Wrap is being far too kind to Mr. DeWolk.

The other producers named in Morrison's article are Brad Belstock and Cristina Gastelu. Although, as of this writing, Gastelu still lists KTVU as her employer.

You can read Morrison's article here:

Fired KTVU Producer in Asiana Gaffe: 'My Hard-Earned Reputation is Intack' 

_ _ _
Original blog post July 20:

There were two things in TV news this week that coursed through the Internets’s series of tubes and caught my attention: one was the removal of the heart of a story about government spying, the other was a brainless (and racist) error. Both stories involved careless reporting.

That’s what I want to talk about today.

Heartless spin

The mayor of the town of Deer Trail, Colo., is trying to send an important message about government surveillance of Americans by drafting a measure to allow bounty hunting of unmanned drones in the town's airspace. With recent revelations provided by whistle-blower Ed Snowden about the National Security Agency and its questionable tactics collecting information and spying on Americans, this is an important conversation the country needs to remain engaged in until we have come to a constitutional resolution.

Or not.

In the online version of her story, in an interview with the town’s mayor, ABC7NEWS Reporter Amanda Kost said she asked the town official if he had ever seen a drone flying over.

"No," Mayor Phillip Steel responded. "This is a very symbolic ordinance. Basically, I do not believe in the idea of a surveillance society, and I believe we are heading that way."

Unfortunately, that quote never made the on-air news cast. 

Instead, the story became a silly fluff piece focused on the kind of money that could be made during a “drone days” festival, the sale of licenses and the fact that you can’t actually shoot down a drone with a shotgun.

If I were Steel I would have felt like my heart was ripped out.

It’s no wonder people are afraid to talk with reporters about anything important and that they take delight in the errors that supposedly trained journalists make - sometimes even provoking them.

Holy Fook

When an airplane crashes and people are killed, maimed and injured it is hard news and newsrooms across the country and around the world are rightfully compelled to report such occurrences. The ‘media’ has the responsibility of being the source of public record.

While each story is different and there is no protocol for covering tragic breaking news, from this former daily newspaper reporter’s perspective, covering developing news was the same each time: get to the scene; collect personal observations; talk to eyewitnesses and experts; source and fact check everything; then inform the public.

Asiana Flight 214, where three teen-aged girls lost their lives and dozens of people were injured, was that kind of tragic breaking news.

But days after the deadly crash, in a frenzy of trying to continue to be first on air with more ‘breaking news’ (despite that it was several days after) San Francisco television station KTVU ‘presenter’ Tori Campbell read the names of four people the news station claimed to be pilots of the plane. Because the preliminary cause of the crash pointed to pilot error (although I do not know the origin of this information), it was certainly relevant to the story.

After Campbell read the names aloud, “Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi To Lo, Ho Lee (Fook) and Bang Ding Ow,” she added, “We are working to see what role each of them played.”

{Here Reb gently rests face in palm.}

Really? Maybe that would have been a good thing to do before taking this on air.

The news station offered an immediate, tepid and unapologetic apology and then later a formal written one that blamed an unnamed National Transportation Safety Board summer intern as the source who confirmed the bad information.

So it’s OK that no one on the staff seemed to notice what the copy actually SAID regardless of the source? OK to just blame the source and not acknowledge the producer’s and anchor’s actions are unacceptable? Were they all unpaid summer interns?

Couldn't she hear herself speaking?

Was the crew even listening?

Despite being a tactless, racist prank, many people found it to be hilariously funny. (OK, if you are now lost, I urge you to go back and re-read the pilots names in order, a little faster, or watch the video if it’s still available …) 

The television agency has not yet explained publicly who was responsible. It is my belief that the news station’s errors compel disclosure as a matter of public record.

I will try to fix you

Maybe we can get KTVU’s Tori Campbell to host the ABC7News coverage of Drone Days.

Or maybe it’s time to raise the bar folks.

We’re too low.

Bang, ding, ow.

My first e-published book

Available for 99 cents at Amazon.com ... click here now.

"Il bacio", by Francesco Hayez, 1859

Tears stream down your face when you lose something you can't replace

"When you love someone but it goes to waste..."

An acid filled lake and the lack of TV

I don't have TV and haven't for more than five years. That's not what this post is about though.

Now living alone and in the purposeful absence of the distraction of television, one thing I found I missed was a human-voice-told story.

I missed listening.

To fulfill that desire, I turned to things like Internet radio shows. One of my favorites is Radiolab. 

The show is supported in part by The National Science and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations and is about curiosity "where sound illuminates ideas and the boundaries blur between science, philosophy and human experience," according to its about web page.

I felt like it was designed for me.

Hosts Jad Abumrad, Robert Krulwich, a crew of producers with a slew of experts and common people have been able to create eleven seasons (and counting) of clever, unusual, enlightening and sometimes extraordinary stories for Radiolab. Broadcast on public radio, it is also available - for free - to stream or download. Of course donations are always welcome.

This week's episode, called "Oops," talks about mistakes and begins with a news organization that changed a 2008 AP story about an Olympic contender from Gay to homosexual, not such a big deal except the man's last name is Gay. The next segment tells a darker truth about the Unibomber; then comes the Cupertino effect - idiotic errors caused by over reliance on spellcheckers; and then on to the 1964 death of the oldest living tree ever.

There is a segment on the death of a man during an attempt by the Forest Service to protect a bird and its worth compared to his worth. I stayed on the fence for that one, believed the man died for something he felt passionately about ... until the reporter interviewed his family. His mother put my perspective straight.

Finally, a copper industry mining operation in Montana, abandoned in the 1980s left exposed slopes of pyrite embedded rock. When combined with naturally occurring water and air, the result was an ever growing lake - 40 billion gallons of water - turned to acid. A pit of death for anything that touches it ... or not.

"Oops" gives us a glimpse of how some of our actions, in hindsight, look right now. Ironically in the end it shows how an acid lake of death supports life.

I enjoyed listening to these human stories and still don't miss TV. 

And one thing has nothing to do with the other ... or not.

No Vision, No Tipping Point

The Golden Circle of Why*

Every business owner on the planet knows what they do, what product or service is offered as the result of their work. Some know how they do it – through proposition, process, maybe as provider, but few organizations are clear about why they do what they do.

'Why' does not mean 'profit' – that’s a result. Why means the purpose, the cause, your belief: why do you get out of bed in the morning? Enthropologist Simon Sinek calls the map of that process - why businesses do  to what they do "The Golden Circle of Why."

For example, Apple Computers, as an UN-inspired organization might look like this:

What:    We make great computers.

How:     They’re beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.

So far, sounds like every other computer manufacturer out there.

"Wanna buy one?"

“Meh.”

Here is the reason, according to Sinek, that Apple is different than other computer companies, that Martin Luther King was a great orator, and The Wright Brothers were able to fly. Apple, King and The Wright’s were inspired. By applying The Golden Circle of Why, starting with the ‘Why’ and working out to the 'How' changes everything.

What, How and Why

Sinek mapped Apple's Golden Circle of Why this way:

Why:      Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently.

How:     They’re beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.

What:    We make great computers.

"Wanna buy one now?"

People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.

The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have, the goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Once you attract those people you have your lead to tap into the whole market place.

The Golden Circle is like the human brain, the outer layer, the neocortex, corresponds on the ‘what’ level – rational and analytical thought, and language; the limbic brain, responsible for feelings, behavior, decision making and language.

 Telling the ‘what’ communicates, but telling the ‘why’ and ‘how’ activates people and market.
The Law of Diffusion of Innovation

Created by Everett Rogers in 1962, the model shows in a bell curve of market share that if you want mass market success, you have to first jump the 16% to 18% mark. That is the tipping point between the early adopters interested in an innovation to the early majority willing to try it.

The curve looks like this:

The first 2.5% of population are the innovators;

next 13.5-15% the early adopters – they do things first because they agree with the why;

then 34%, the early majority;

34% late majority;

and the final 16% - the laggards.

The early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. It is in that 34% where mass market success is achieved.

How to move from the die-hards who were looking for your product to begin with and the early majority?

Tell people why you believe in your product. If what you believe and believe agree, they will want your product.

Sinek noted that Martin Luther King delivered the “I have a dream,” not, “I have a plan” speech. People came to his rallies by the hundreds of thousands because they agreed with his dream.

We follow leaders for ourselves, not for them. If you inspire people with the ‘why’ they will want what you have.

 *from Simon Sinek's TED Talk: "First why and then trust"

The Bed Song

In her intense and personal TED talk called 'The Art of Asking' Amanda Palmer explains what it means to see someone - really see them. Formerly 'the 8-foot bride' working toward success as a musician, after receiving more than $1 million from a Kickstarter crowd-source funding campaign - because she asked - it seems she's earned herself a bigger milk crate (you'll have to watch the TED talk to understand.)

I was married for 30 years and looking back I don't know if anyone really saw me, or if I ever asked them to.

Really it was 27 years, with the last three spent trying to untangle a web of co-founded businesses and co-created debt before filing for a self-proclaimed divorce. ... But, as usual, I digress. ...

After watching her TED talk, I found this - her February 2013 video 'The Bed Song' on the Amanda Fucking Palmer website. With this song she poetically sums up what 30 years of marriage can look like:



The good news is, unlike the couple in her video, I'm not dead and have found someone who has amazing amber eyes sparked with tiny flecks of gold, and together we see everything.

YAY ANOTHER NEW BLOG IN THE UNIVERSE!

YAY!!! NEW BLOG!!! REBEOR.BLOGSPOT.COM!!!

test post

I have no idea what this will look like, but that's why we do tests.
I was going to label it 'first test post' but that implies there will be another, or there were more, which there aren't and hope there are not. So I renamed it test post. Ha.
I seem to be using Pacific Daylight Time. I'm not sure why, or how to change it, but it isn't really all that important because time is time. Although if it were important - like you need to know what time something happens in relation to something else - then you would need to be more specific. Since it's not likely there will be any synchronization of anything going on based on my blog entries, I'm going to leave it as it.

At least for now.