There never seems to be a shortage of bureaucrats eager to take away our freedom by invoking security. In most cases, their proposed actions do absolutely nothing to promote real security, but do a great deal to make it easier to control and oppress the public.

I cover security, but it takes a real expert to make a convincing case against the proponents of fake security. Bruce Schneier has made a powerful case in his latest Wired blog post. The most important point he makes — and this is critical — is that the "choice" so often offered between security and privacy is not a choice that need be made. In most cases, the acts and systems that provide security don’t impinge on freedom and privacy.

We haven’t seen candidates asked questions about this in any meaningful way, but perhaps it’s past time for that to change. The way the next administration views privacy and security will have a significant impact on our lives for years to come.

Categories: Security, Threats
2 Comments »

There’s been a recent surge in interest on the question of how journalists should be paid. Is it right, for example, to base all or part of a journalist’s compensation on the number of readers the journalist attracts? The passion is great on this one, and there are reasoned arguments to be made on both sides. I, of course, believe that one side is both reasonable and right, and I’m pleased to see some other folks coming around to the arguments I’ve made.

Back in the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web had become a platform available to more than a relative handful of researchers, I argued to publishers that columnists, writers, and on-line hosts (as we sometimes called the folks who kept the pot stirred in our on-line reader forums) should have at least a portion of their compensation based on the number of readers they attracted. I was actually a bit more crass than that: I said that a portion of ad revenue (based then, as now, on the number of eyeballs seeing the ads) should be paid to the content creators. This "commission" would give them incentive to do more and better work, and would be a fixed portion of revenue, so the publisher could create more accurate budgets. I thought then, and think now, that it’s a great idea for everyone concerned. Of a certainty, a baseline payment should be made "for professional services", but as the audience responds and the publisher flourishes, then the journalist/writer/columnist should flourish, too.

The most common counter-argument I heard from publishers was that my ideas wouldn’t work because journalists didn’t care about money. As a journalists who enjoys the warm feeling that comes from writing a non-bouncing check to the mortgage company, I disagreed. Journalists may well be motivated by factors that can’t be put into a bank savings account, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care about money. What I’ve come to understand in the decade and a half since I floated the original idea, is that there are some journalists who don’t like the idea of being measured or evaluated in any way. For these folks, the idea of having something as concrete as money attached to their work is horrifying. For many other journalists, the idea that practicing better journalism could result in a healthier bank account has a great deal of merit.

In the New Era of journalism, some folks "get it" and thrive by tying readership to compensation. Though a commentator more than a journalist, Glenn Reynolds has made the new model work for him when he calls attention to journalist’s compensation in a recent post. Other’s like Michael Yon, base their journalism almost entirely on direct support from readers.

I think that the principles of Nick Denton’s new compensation plan are spot on: a base salary for regular work with a bonus based on how many people read it. Journalists like Lucas Grindley see this pretty much the same way I do: it’s a model that leads to everyone on the publication team prospering through the success of the publication. Other journalists, like Jack D. Lail, see the issue through a similar lens — one that ties compensation to the journalist’s value to the publication.

Today, the arguments against this sort of compensation ultimately boil down to "It will lead to pandering." If, by "pandering", you mean telling stories that interest and benefit the reader in an active, compelling manner, then I’m all for it. If, on the other hand, you mean chewing over cold celebrity stories with rancid titillation thrown in for flavor, then I suggest that you’re part of journalism’s problem. The idea that the only two possibilities are "good for you" pieces that no one really wants to read or celebrity trash is poisonous to the health of real journalism. I believe that people are no less interested in solid, meaningful stories than they ever were — they’re just tired of having them wrapped in bad prose and preachy tones. Tell a good, honest story in a lively, engaging way and people will read it — and they’ll prefer it to the latest crap about who couldn’t find the underwear drawer on the way out of the house.

I hope the new model for compensation will take hold because I honestly believe it will encourage good writers to become good journalists. We need good journalists — it’s the same old way of doing things that we can do without.

I am kg4gwa on del.icio.us
Add me to your network

Categories: Media
3 Comments »