Natali’s Tech Letdowns for 2009

• MobileMe. The service is mostly fine except for the fact that it doesn’t sync shared calendars from iCal. So if I want to sync my Google Calendar to my iPhone, I am SOL. Yes I know there are other solutions to work around that so please don’t email me about them. I shouldn’t have to find a workaround. I pay $100 per year for MobileMe. I want fully-functional synced calendars on my iPhone gosh darnit!
• Google Wave. Seriously, WTF? I can’t figure out the purpose of this program other than for people to bug me in a new way. Pass.
• Mobile chargers. The European Union now has a law that mandates standard mobile chargers. Why can’t we have that? I’m sick to death of carrying different chargers. We have czars that are in charge of our electronic lives now. Can’t one of them fix this?
• AT&T Wireless. Their crappy coverage is the bane of my existence. It makes me want to shout profanities into the universe for minutes on end. It makes me behave unladylike. I #$%&ing hate you, AT&T!
• Earbuds. Why can’t they be retractable and indestructible. Is that too much to ask for?
• iTunes. Actually, I don’t have a problem with it as much as my mother does and I cannot offer her advice or support from across the country over the phone. When I get a call from her asking about iTunes, I blame the dropped connection on AT&T.
• Windows Mobile. I want to like these devices, I really do. But why does it take me 53 clicks/pushes/steps to accomplish what the iPhone can do in one swipe? Way more complicated than is has to be.
• Facebook. Over it. Sick of it. Can’t add any new friends anyway so I’m on information overload. Need to take a break from caring. Facebook and I may get back together in the new year.
• The Barnes and Noble Nook. What a letdown. Such great promise, such bad execution.
• Apple rumors. This is the thing that I hate the most about my job: pretending that I care about Apple speculation and having to postulate an opinion. “What do I think about a tablet? Oh I think…(insert BS here).” I hate that. I have better things to do with my mental CPU.

That’s all I’ve got now that I’ve sufficiently worked myself up into a frenzy. Tomorrow, I’ll throw off the grumps and get back to the holiday spirit but this has been a fun and much-needed vacation from that. Air your grievances in the comments if you have them!

Thank you for watching, sharing, and doing anything you can to help other people.

Namasté.

So what are the tools that do evolve our communication? I have been reading a lot about the democratization of information through “new media,” which I assert is quickly becoming a throw-away term. Some academics believe that the Internet does not at all level the playing field like we expect it could/should. Matthew Hindman argues that the Internet actually preserves the patterns of concentrated control that have existed in the media for decades in his book, “The Myth of  Digital Democracy.” All of this literature is starting to dull my enthusiasm for the power of social media, or at least make me want to play a little hard to get with technological determinism.

Hindman acknowledges that there is a lot of talk on the Internet by the Average Joe. But Average Joe is not being linked to, commented on, or otherwise memed. So is Joe yelling into a tunnel? If Joe blogs in a forest, does he make an impact?

Of course I am approaching this from the standpoint of a news reporter. The word “news” implies that information is new or novel. That is very seldom the case in news reporting. I am under no illusion that the news I bring to my viewers is 100% something that they have not heard of before. Broadcast simply can’t compete with the Internet in that way. So in this time of communication evolution, we must ask ourselves which technologies will be deterministic and which will be filed away in the history books as no more than an artifice.

Barry Glassner argues that the media’s love affair with any given phemenon is cyclical. He writes about this in “The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things,” a book which I helped research in its second edition. I am afraid that this applies to the Internet’s love affair with new-ness. We get excited about anything novel but our burning love cools all too quickly as we look for the “next Facebook.” It is as if we are in a constant state of digital anomie.

I wish I could wrap up this blog post with some declarative theoretical assertion but unfortunately these thoughts are still in progress. But it has been WAY too long since I blogged here and I figured unfinished thoughts would be better than no thoughts at all. So consider this media theory ad lib. Feel free to fill in the blanks with your opinions in the comment section.

Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values “creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention.” Can’t argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist’s voice carry?

Admittedly, I’ve made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.

I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: “Life experiences have to influence you. We’re not robots.”

I’ve suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin’s resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?

Jarvis calls for “personal political openness.” He writes: “I’d like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy.”

But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is “unbiased” a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.

Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn’t.

I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.

Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don’t play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I’m looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?

In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don’t want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn’t this what you want from your network? I don’t mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday’s episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don’t have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.

First, the broadcast was delayed because of my need to upgrade my hardware. I used a MacBook during the first pilot a month ago. On Friday I decided to use a 13″ MacBook Pro but the hardware is slightly different. The VGA adapter is not the same. Since the newsroom only had the Mini DisplayPort to VGA Adapter, we had to think outside the box. We took a camera and literally filmed the laptop instead of pulling a video feed directly from it. That was embarrassing. And my bad.

Then our Ustream chat went down.

Then I conducted half of an interview with music writer Rashaun Hall when we were not broadcasting. Again, my bad.

We will get this eventually! If you showed up and participated, thank you! I don’t mind letting viewers watch this project in its awkward phase. I am happy to crowdsource the idea, even if it means you see me in several deer-in-headlights moments. You’ve seen it before. Meanwhile, keep your feedback coming. Even if I haven’t responded to you personally, I am digesting everything you have to say.

We are planning another pilot on Tuesday, June 30 at 5:30 p.m. Eastern. I hope you can watch, participate, and provide feedback. And if it is rough again, so be it. I read a book today called “Ignore Everybody” that made me feel a little better about it all. Here is one of my favorite quotes:

Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece on the back of a deli menu would not surprise me. Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece with a silver Cartier fountain pen on an antique writing table in an airy SoHo loft would seriously surprise me.

I am lucky to be working with the proverbial Cartier fountain pen in the way of CBSNews.com. But this is Web and resources are tight and the broadcast is a brand new idea that I am still developing, which makes it more like my own proverbial deli menu. So in the immortal words of Michael Jackson from the Bad video, “That’s the way it goes down.”

I received SO many emails, blog comments, Tweets, and Facebook messages about my last post. I am encouraged that the news delivery model is changing and that viewers/readers/listeners want to be a part of it. Your comments were insightful, well thought-out, and helpful. If I haven’t thanked you personally, I really meant to. So thank you!

For the next few weeks, I am going to be testing a news pilot on CBSNews.com. We ran one a few weeks ago but I have been traveling like a crazy person lately so I have not been able to do many more. We are going to do it tomorrow and hopefully again a few times next week. Last time I asked viewers to join me on Google Video Chat. I will do the same tomorrow, Friday, June 26 at 5:30 p.m. EST. I will Twitter a link to the pilot and I hope you can join in.

The basic principle of the show will be as follows: I will read and discuss the day’s news. The show will include reports and opinions from CBS News reporters and correspondents from all over the world. They will not only discuss their reporting, they will also interact live with viewers over Google Video Chat. We will also incorporate a live chat room, a live UStream feed, and Twitter conversations. Remember this is a test pilot. It will be choppy and rough. Think of it as pre-alpha.

The challenge is aggregating social media in a meaningful way. I want viewers’ voices to be heard without boring other viewers. I want the topics to be relevant, without being redundant. I don’t want to be limited by commercial breaks and other broadcast constraints that keep great reporting off the air because of the parameters of time. I want viewers to feel engaged, without feeling captured and here is why: People don’t pick one news medium and give it their undivided attention anymore. We read an article, watch a bit of TV, click a video, read a Tweet, and all of that contributes to our general knowledge of the world. Meanwhile, we are emailing, text messaging, checking our Facebook pages, chatting over instant message, and perhaps even talking to someone in person. That is a-ok with me. I want to figure out how to be a meaningful part of all of that. Not a disruption. A suppliment. I don’t want my viewer’s undivided attention. I want a fraction of the attention that you already spread around the Web and I want YOU to decide how much you engage and when. I want you to watch CBSNews.com, leave it running, and then go off and do all 543 things that you are doing simultaneously online, the way you are right now.

Of course this means that a broadcast at a pre-determined time will be a challenge. It would be better if you had a 24/7 live stream of this format of news but that is not possible due to resources. YET!

Stay with me on this! This is a fluid broadcast and you can help decide how it shapes up. Keep emailing/commenting/Twittering. I am listening. Even if I don’t respond personally, I have read your comments and given them serious reflection. I think about this all the time. Obsessively so!