7 Ways Blogging Can Help You Sharpen Your Thinking

1.  It provides opportunities for you to express thoughts in longer format than text or tweets.  You can elaborate on ideas, find nuances in them, and keep coming back to them until you get them right.
2.  It goes worldwide quickly, so it can provide valuable feedback from just about anyone, anywhere.  Almost all feedback is valuable.
3.  You need to communicate with people to truly test your ideas. If your ideas reach someone, are commented on, plus-one'd, liked, or go viral, then you have a chance to start a dialogue and really interact with people about your ideas, as opposed to talking about circumstances or small talk.
4.  It breaks down the public/private barrier.  Your blog can record your inner thoughts or your outward self, but it isn't totally private and it isn't totally public.  It's self-publishing that reaches people who really care about the topic you're writing about.
5.  It's better than a journal because it forces you to think about your audience.  Who is reading this post?  What do they think?
6.  It's better than a media outlet because it is relatively agenda-free.  Big-time blogs have built-in biases, just like news channels (think Huffington Post vs. Drudge Report or CNN vs. Fox News).  But until your blog reaches critical mass as a full-on media conglomerate, you're free to innovate and post whatever you would like.
7.  It allows you to see if your ideas are really world-changing or not. If by chance you don't build your blog into a media conglomerate, there is still room to reach people in a small or large way.  Blogging really is competing in the marketplace of ideas.  If you don't end up changing the world, it at least has the potential to change some people's thoughts. 

I'd love to know if you have other ideas on how blogging helps or hurts thinking.  Please leave a comment, and consider blogging yourself!

Fact vs. opinion

A recent article on Politico.com provides a great example of how useful it is to separate fact from opinion when reading news on the Internet. 

The journalist on Politico took the angle that Rick Santorum has been increasing attacks on the press as part of his campaign for Presidency.  The journalist put Santorum's quotes in context of the campaign, giving specific details of when Santorum said what exactly.  The quotes themselves do add up to an attack on the press or the media.  But there is also quite a bit of editorializing in the article.

For example, the journalist calls one quote "the latest in a bitter string," writes that Santorum "blasted the media," and writes that "the limelight hasn't necessarily been flattering" (an underhanded way of saying Santorum doesn't look good when you shine a bright light on him).  The journalist also calls the media treatment of him "serious" without describing it or linking to it and describes a Drudge report headline as "a major hit." 

At the end of the article, the reporter cites other reporters' frustration with the candidate's travel schedule to back up her claim that there is tension between Santorum and the press, and quotes a Time magazine columnist as saying his column moved Santorum "to tears."  I'm not sure if Santorum's campaign confirmed the columnist's claim, but it is reported as fact, so maybe they did.

There are also opinions in Santorum's quotes and quotes from his campaign spokesperson that are certainly debatable, but go without comment from the journalist.  The story of the media attacks may be true, but it doesn't need to be shaded as negatively as this journalist views it.  All the editorializing or opinion in the article, after all, confirms some of Santorum's more direct attacks.

Google+

I've been using Google+ for a little while now and have been waiting for them to merge blogger with Google+.  Well, that day has started to arrive, and I will now be posting to Google+ when I post blog posts.  Feel free to join the conversation at Google+ or on blogger.  Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this conversion.  My blog format and web address will not change (yet?), it's just that I may be sharing with more people as I post.  Thank you!

Brave New 1984 World

For all you readers out there, here's an interesting infographic on links between George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and modern society.  Interestingly, most of the Orwellian links come from dictatorships in the Middle East, while Huxley's links are based in the U.S.  I like the infographic itself for its clarity and usefulness as a teaching tool.  I found this link today through Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast.

A new monopoly in the Bible publishing world?

This small news item in Nashville caught my eye.  Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, which owns HarperCollins Publishers, the publishing giant, and Fox, Fox News and 20th Century Fox, recently purchased Thomas Nelson Inc.  It means that Rupert Murdoch's company now controls the two dominant Bible publishers in the U.S. -- Zondervan (which publishes the NIV) and Thomas Nelson (which publishes the New King James Version).  While no one wants to admit it, religious publishing is an industry like many others.  This takeover, while it was friendly, cannot be good news for the Bible publishing industry.  I expect the price of Bibles in the US will go up, and translation efforts for unreached people groups will continue to be the work of missionaries, not employees of Mr. Murdoch. CNN put it this way:

HarperCollins is a subsidiary of News Corporation, a multinational media company headed by Rupert Murdoch, the media magnate who earlier this year was plagued by hacking and phone-tapping allegations at some of his publications in the United Kingdom.

I hope the Bible publishing industry does not become just another feather in Mr. Murdoch's cap.

Please note, the accuracy of the image attached to this story has not been authenticated.  DirecTV is not part of News Corp, as is evidenced by their recent feud, so some of the other banners below News Corp may not be, either.  I included the image anyway as it gives the gist of what News Corp owns.

Instant news

Here's a glimpse at what passes for news in the 24-hour news cycle today. At this time of day, here are the "Top Stories" from Google news:


Amy Winehouse

Peyton Manning

Rick Perry

Dave Bing

Oregon Football

Soledad O'Brien

Death of Michael Jackson

Gamma ray

Breaking Dawn

Silvio Berlusconi

Notice how almost every one of these is a celebrity issue?  There are three politicians on the list (Rick Perry, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, and Silvio Berlusconi -- the Italian Prime Minister who was a celebrity first), one journalist (Soledad O'Brien), and one sports team (Oregon Football).  There is also one science story.  So it's a mixed bag.  Still, I challenge you to click on the links to see if any of these stories are relevant to your life or give you any "news you can use."

I'm just saying, we could have better news options in this country.

"Reality-Based Community" Suffers from Irony

I love the following correction to outgoing executive editor Bill Keller's argumentative take on candidates' faith offered on the New York Times' website: "Because of an editing error, an essay on Page 11 this weekend, about the religious beliefs of Republican presidential candidates, misstates the proportion of Americans who believe that extraterrestrials live among us. It is about a third, not a majority. The essay also erroneously includes Rick Santorum among politicians affiliated with evangelical Christianity. Mr. Santorum is Catholic." 

In writing an essay about faith in public life, Mr. Keller overstates his case and misidentifies one candidate's faith completely.  I find it ironic, at least, that Mr. Keller would miss some facts while arguing that he is part of the "reality-based community."

NYT Scoop -- "Apathy" is now a Frontrunner in Nevada

I love the headline on this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29nevada.html

It is too true.  I don't follow local politics much, but I haven't heard all that much about Congressional District 2 race, either.  I think Republicans are counting this one as a win.  I love the quotes at the end from Republicans who are frustrated with the economy.  A little more in-depth coverage would have been nice -- what is causing the unemployment rate to continue to be so high, after all?  Instead, it's more "horse race" and less substance.  Still, I like the fact that the reporter has an angle, and the headline says it all.

September, 2010

In September, 2010, we were in Hawaii.  We visited Volcano National Park on the Big Island.  It was a wonderful vacation, and I don't remember seeing a single news story on the anniversary of September 11 that year.  This year will be different, though, with it being 10 years and all.  I hope the media does a good job of covering that anniversary -- meaning that they don't just cover the fact that it's been 10 years -- we all know that!  Rather, they should cover a few angles that I think are worthwhile -- the effects on real people.  The heroism of firefighters and cops on an every day basis.  The deficit and other problems that resulted from 2 wars launched to defend us from terrorists.  We owe our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan so much, and yet they've committed atrocities in our names.  Those facts should be part of the coverage.  And, of course, the causes of the attack -- not so much demonizing bin Laden as explaining why he would think killing so many innocent people was just.  Our enemies continue to try to attack America.  It's a good thing that there hasn't been a repeat of the attack -- we have been lucky, but we've also been good.  It's time to recognize those people who have kept us safe for so long, and say thanks, but not to rest on our laurels, either.  Thank God for the overall safety of the USA.  Thank God there hasn't been another attack.  Thank God for everyday victories.  I know I'm probably jumping the gun here a little bit, but I feel safer now than I did ten years ago.  It's thanks to people who look out for us, the military, the police, the feds, and the other first responders that we are safe.  God has some things to say about keeping us safe, too.  I believe he wants to bless this anniversary date and every day with good things for his people.  It's all in how you define your neighbor, though, that makes the difference to God.  God wants his people to care for each other, too.  Probably too much rambling too early in the morning, but hey, it's my blog.

Good Local and National Editorials; Good Reporting on the CIA and the Legislature

Despite the paywall, the New York Times still has me hooked.  I read this article on the CIA's involvement in Libya earlier this evening, along with this editorial that brought into focus the misplaced priorities of the Fed in regulating banks.  I'm probably going to hit the 20-article threshold pretty soon at this rate, meaning I will have to pay to access their content online.  As I said before, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of paying for online content, but I probably will.

The reason I keep going to the Times is that they really do have stories no one else does, and they offer perspective in their editorials and columns that helps shape my opinions primarily through reasoned arguments and facts, rather than a strict adherence to some liberal ideology.  One of the columns I read most frequently is David Brooks', and he is a moderate conservative, not a liberal. 

Not that being a liberal is a bad thing.  Here's an editorial by an unabashed liberal on the state of things in Nevada that ought to wake people up to what's really going on in our state.  It really is incredible that education is about to get kicked in the teeth in this state, in the middle of a down economy that ought to be a wake-up call in which the state learns to invest in growing the economy from within, all because of a "no new taxes" mantra that's going on 9 years old and shows no sign of weakening.  The editorial explains that Nevada's legislators need to be scared into doing the right thing, because they aren't showing the will to lead us in the right direction.  It makes me want to write my legislator an email or do something to end the massive problems with our politics. 

On the bright side, I did see this article a few days back about a protest in Carson City that brought record numbers of students to the state capitol building.  I hope this really is the beginning of a movement, not just a one-time deal, as one of the organizers says at the end.

Me and public radio part 2

Having been persuaded to donate to public radio after all, I now find myself rushing to its defense in the controversy du jour in conservative circles at least, Juan Williams' firing.  Williams, it seems, was fired from NPR due to comments he made on Fox News.  He is considered a liberal by some, but his mere appearance on Fox News  indicates that he is more conservative than some liberals.  Fox News and the conservative right are trying to make this issue about free speech.  But please note, this is not some government edict, nor is it an abridgment of Juan Williams' right to say whatever he wants.  He has a $2 million contract with Fox News to do just that.  The issue is whether Mr. Williams should be free from consequences for remarks that were made on air on another network.  Free speech does not mean that people in the U.S. are completely free to say whatever they want without consequences.  Mr. Williams may feel justifiably angry for being fired for something like this, but it simply is not a free speech issue.  The war on public radio that is now being launched from the right is not justified by any free speech mantra that they may spew out.  It is an attempt by one media organization to influence a news organization in a competitive marketplace.  Public radio does not have the same audience numbers as Fox News, and Fox News knows it.  They are trying to squeeze out the competition on the "left," so to speak.  As I said before, NPR may lean left due to its focus on issues, but this structural bias is NOT THE SAME as Fox News' INTENTIONAL, IDEOLOGICAL bias.  Let's look at Mr. Williams' firing from a less ideological standpoint -- it doesn't even matter what Mr. Williams said that got him fired.  If you focus on the substance of his remarks, they do reflect a bias against Muslims.  But those remarks may have just been the final straw.  NPR is fully within its rights as a news organization to fire Mr. Williams, whose opinions may be biased but who also contributes to a competitor in the media marketplace.

Me and public radio

My blog has been focused on politics and things that interest me, rather than my personal life, mostly by design.  I didn't want to be one of those bloggers who focused on their shoe size or some other irrelevant detail that no one else really cares about, so I have avoided personal topics on purpose.  So, as a result, I have focused on things that no one else really cares about, but not personal ones.  It's honestly hard for me to write about my personal life because I'm not sure what I should share to the whole world, or even to a loyal reader.  But I will be trying to be more personal on my blog in the future, because talking to myself about issues only I care about only goes so far.  I need that personal connection to an audience out there.

So, here goes...

On an average day, I probably spend 2-3 hours online looking at things.  I come home for lunch and log on to facebook, and at night I'll have the computer on my lap while watching TV.  I don't know exactly what I'm looking for, but I usually bounce around among a few news sites, facebook, and my blog.  I re-read my blog to get a sense for what I've said that I've forgotten and also to look for comments or other evidence that someone else is reading what I'm writing.  I recently discovered a thread of comments on an old post that was entirely ads -- spam.  It was really depressing to know that virtually the only visitors on my blog are people who are trying to scam others, usually with very poor grammar and sometimes even in another language.

I also rely on our local public radio station for news.  I listen to them frequently, but right now they are in the middle of a fund-raising campaign, so I turn to them less frequently than at other times of the year.  I do feel a little guilty for listening without donating, but then I haven't donated to a dozen worthy causes already so far this fall.  I'm not sure if I should donate to public radio yet, but last year I did, so I should probably renew my membership this year.  I just don't like the guilt trip over the airwaves.  I will probably donate online after the membership drive ends, just so that I can say I wasn't influenced by guilt.  Does anyone else out there feel the same way or resist the pull of public radio this way?  I do enjoy getting news while driving around town (I drive fairly often for my job), but I don't want to feel like a heel every six months just because I haven't donated to something that they give away for free most of the time.  If it's mostly free, why not make it all the way free?  The other station I listen to without donating to is the Christian radio.  I know I'm probably the only person in town who has those two radio stations as their primary pre-sets in the car, but there you are.  I'm a little weird that way.  I can't stand the news on the Christian radio, though -- I literally turn off the station every time their little jingle for news comes on.  It is so slanted I can't stand it.  And, for those of you who haven't been reading this blog for very long, there is a difference in the DEGREE of bias on things like Christian radio and Fox news and legitimate, responsible news sources.  So, yes, public radio has a liberal slant, if only because it focuses on issues as opposed to ideologically-driven stories.  But there is a difference between structural bias like that and out and out PURPOSEFUL bias in Christian radio and Fox news.  So I'm torn between two worlds when it comes to my radio habits.  But I enjoy the music on Christian radio.  To put an end to this long post, just let me say that I appreciate any comments at all on these thoughts, and I wish you all good night and good news!

An Elegant Article, But Wrong

This article from the New York Times faults President Obama for losing control of "the narrative" of his Presidency.  I don't think it's so much the President's fault as it is the fault of the times in which we live.  The last quote in the story is particularly telling:

“If you look at the way the media has been transformed and the way the White House is covered,” Mr. Smith said, “the bully pulpit itself is in danger of being drowned out by talk radio, cable and now Twitter.”

I couldn't agree more with that quote, particularly with respect to Fox News.  I know they're not the only source of news that is biased, but they are particularly biased against this Presidency and "the liberal agenda" in general, and they are now "the most trusted name in TV news," according to some poll or other.  If most Americans still get their news from TV (and I believe most do), that is troubling indeed.  That Fox News boycott I'm working on is still only a one-person boycott, as far as I know, but I'd like to believe that someone out there can recognize when they're being handed a negative story that is patently untrue or designed to mislead voters, and that that person will join the boycott.  AIDS activists used to have a sign that said SILENCE = DEATH, and I'm tempted to believe that in this case, silence is not an option. 

Another correction worth noting

From the Washington Post:

-- A Jan. 27 Page One article misstated the nature of the charges recently filed against four men including James O'Keefe, the conservative activist who gained notice last year with undercover videos that he and an associate recorded at regional offices of the group ACORN. The men are accused of plotting to tamper with a telephone in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), not of plotting to wiretap or bug that office. The error was repeated in the article's headlines and photo caption.

James O'Keefe, the man in question, is at least partially responsible for the outrage against ACORN, where he posed as a pimp and videotaped himself getting advice on how to report his income on taxes.  I think some journalists got a little overexcited at the possibility of a comeuppance for this kid.

Health care being ignored?

The last two days have been disappointing in terms of coverage of the health care debate. The poll numbers got big play, being reported on virtually every news outlet I turn to, but the underlying issues got relatively little attention.

Here's a very sober report on access to health care. It states that reform may not help because people will still use emergency rooms as a point of entry, among other things. While I agree that systematic change is needed, let's start with reforming the way we pay for health care on the back end and see what changes in incentives we can build into the system to improve access on the front end.

Annals of Cable News

The New Yorker used to have articles devoted to the "annals of..." various subjects. This report from the New York Times ought to be filed in the history books under the category "annals of anchormen behaving like children, causing their 'parent' companies to force them to stop." It's an interesting tale, showing how outsized egos and corporate ties among the news media elite can make for a controversy that causes both sides pain. I don't know that the solution is a negotiated settlement, as described here. I'd prefer that the "fair and balanced" investigation of claims on both sides be made, and that an alternative news source would arise to challenge both MSNBC and Fox News -- or CNN, for that matter. These corporate news channels may be fun to watch for some time, but you've got to grow weary of the obvious slanting of both sides' "news" over time. CNN has tread the middle ground so far, but the deal between Time Inc. and Turner Cable hasn't exactly worked in CNN's favor, either. I prefer to watch NBC (not MSNBC) now.

On Public Morality

While an essay on public morality would probably be appropriate at this time, given the latest scandal involving a politician with a sordid love affair, I think I will refrain from offering any profound insights (if I were to have any). Instead, I offer this photo from the AP of Mark Sanford breaking down, as he did a couple of times during his news conference. I think it offers a sober reminder that YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THIS KIND OF STUFF, just in case anyone was wondering.

Just the Facts

The R-J has published an embarrassing story, both to itself and to its "principled" Senator from Nevada, John Ensign. The story concludes with the quotes/facts below. Suffice to say that the facts aren't pretty. What bugs me, though, is the lede:

Calling it "absolutely the worst thing that I've ever done in my life," U.S. Sen. John Ensign admitted Tuesday that he had an affair with a campaign staffer last year.

It sounds like a mea culpa, but in fact, Ensign has provided just enough information to pin the blame on other people. Read the facts below, and see who you think is to blame. Ensign would have you believe it's the aggrieved husband of the woman with whom he had an affair, who allegedly, according to unnamed sources, tried to get money from Mr. Ensign.

Wearing a grim expression, standing alone at an unadorned podium, Ensign spoke for just over two minutes at Tuesday's news conference at the Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse in downtown Las Vegas, where his local Senate office is housed.

He had flown home from Washington, D.C., earlier in the day to make the announcement, as word began to trickle out about the affair, missing a vote on a bill important to the travel industry.

"I came back home to Nevada to come forward and explain to the citizens of our state something that I was involved in about a year ago," said Ensign, tieless and wearing a blue dress shirt. "Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage."

Ensign said he takes full responsibility for his actions and apologized to those he had hurt and disappointed: "my wife, Darlene, my children, my family, my friends, my staff and all of those who believed in me."

He and his wife went to counseling last year, he said, and have "rebuilt our marriage to where now it is even stronger than ever."

The senator offered a partial explanation of how the affair happened: Two couples, all very close friends, with one there to lend an ear when the other was having a tough time at home.

John and Darlene Ensign were separated from April to July 2008, the senator's spokesman, Tory Mazzola, confirmed Tuesday evening.

That would indicate the affair began five months before the couple separated and ended a month after they got back together.

"Our families were very close," Ensign said. "That closeness put me into situations during a very difficult time in my marriage which led to my inappropriate behavior. We've caused deep pain to both families, and for that I am truly sorry."

After reading his statement, Ensign said, "I will not be taking any questions," and exited through a side door.

Darlene Ensign, who did not attend the news conference, also put out a statement Tuesday, which was released by Ensign's staff.

"Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation," her statement said. "This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger. I love my husband."

Married in November 1987, the Ensigns have three children.

The staging and all the subdued details lead me to believe that Mr. Ensign is trying his best to subdue the press coverage. The R-J is definitely helping in this. But what about the husband? Will he come out looking like the bad guy in all this? I feel bad for him.

Here's a quote from CQ Politics from an "image consultant" that just about puts the icing on the cake: "It’s helpful if you’re attractive, poised, classy-looking, and he is," Dumont said. "If he looks classy, we’re more likely to say, Let’s see what happens."

A Final Indignity

Pres. Bush was attacked by a shoe-throwing "journalist" in Iraq today. I'm sure the news will focus on this incident instead of the substance of the visit. This picture was posted on the New York Times website within minutes of the incident. Here's the story. It's up to the minute reporting, but the President deserves more respect than he got, both from the "reporter" and from the rest of the media. Sure, it's news, and here I am spreading it, but is it news that we need? Not really.

The Real News Network

This is something I found on a search for independent local news. If you're interested, check it out.