I admit I usually sound negative, but it's for the paper's own good. I want the best possible Times to sail into the future. I'm rooting for the Times, the more better paper in the country.
So, I'm happy to say that coverage of the big story in the past day was great. That's the Mideast of course. The main event yesterday was in Iran and the main story, a roundup, provides a sketch of what's happening, and doesn't waste its ink on meaningless speculation or fortune telling.
I like it when reporters tell you they don't know something if that thing is impossible to figure out on the fly -- something like the number of protesters on the streets in Tehran. This piece was the live piece, updated through the day, doing what's it's supposed to for a 'round the clock report.
I can't tell if either one of the writers was actually in Tehran, but if they obfuscate, it may be to keep out of jail. On the other hand, reporting from a distance sometimes has advantages. Being on location is always necessary if you want film, but not if you're trying to make sense of the big picture.
Iran Beats Back Protesters as Unrest Spreads Across Mideast
The Times is often accused by right-wingers of leaning to the far left, but the charge is as silly as much of the yuppie-leaning stuff in the paper's local sections and the feature sections. Elitist, as a euphemism for snobbish, maybe, but not lefty.
The paper is by design temperate to a fault. Yesterday, it got to show its stuff. A paramilitary loony in Arizona was convicted of murder in a wild shooting-robbery. The accused, a woman who is in the Minutemen, was pursuing a crazy plan to stop illegal immigration.
I give you the Times's headline: "Arizona: Border Activist Is Convicted" which was atop a 113-word brief.
An activist?
There was a longer, mushy story a few days ago during the trial that was detailed, but weird. The headline says it all, "Murder Trial in Tucson Shows Rift in Minuteman Border Movement".
Just a few weeks ago, the Times and every other news outfit was in a silly frenzy over violent talk in politics with the backdrop of the Gifford shooting in the same Wild West state.
Don't misunderstand. There's no connection between Loughner and the Minutemen, other than sharing a culture of venerating guns and sometimes using them if you feel strongly about something. The Minutemen, whether they argue about tactics or not, also have a place in the anti-immigrant constellation.
National Briefing:Southwest
Newspaper editors have a quip: "If you know anything about the subject, the story is wrong."
Maybe that's the trouble, but the scruffy attempts to hype up artificial intelligence are just lame. There's a think piece in the Science section that's more plain fiction than science fiction.
It's not the time or place to go into the subject of A.I., but the story wends its way to talking about the big Jeopardy match this week between an IBM machine and a couple of human Jeopardy champs. I would argue that the TV quiz show is a game of perfect knowledge and the language of the game is largely formal. These two factors give the machine an edge in quirky tasks.
I also want to point out that IBM has a big stake in hyping the prowess of its A.I. software. It sells this stuff to business at very hefty prices. After it makes a sale, it's hard for us to say what happens. But just think of your last conversation with a mechanical voice when you call a company for customer support. Did it really understand you?
The writer, John Markoff, proclaims that machines have begun to understand human language. If you believe that, write me a note. I have a proposition for you.
Smarter Than You Think
A Fight to Win the Future: Computers vs. Humans
And to return to the Middle East for a second. The Times is still scratching away at Facebook's role in the Mideast. The writer suggests that the company should be crowing about its political role.
Besides the fact that this is all hype, the Times, here in the bastion of capitalism doesn't seem to understand that companies exist for one thing and one thing only: to make money. If Facebook is indeed worth $50 billion now, its owner is dedicated to making that $60 billion as fast as he can.
On a side issue, here's a quote from the story: "And Facebook does not want to alter its firm policy requiring users to sign up with their real identities." Huh? Not true. Facebook asks for your real name, and Facebook may be pointless without your real name, but it requires nothing of the sort. If you don't see that, I hereby revoke your right to try to sound intelligent in a discussion of gadgets and the Internet.
Facebook Officials Keep Quiet on Its Role in Revolts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment