Wiston Papers

Better living through science...2013 edition

“What in the world?” I asked.

“Better living through science, my friend,” John announced proudly while sniffing his cellphone, and nodding his head rhythmically.

“Didn’t we do this earlier?” I tried to remember.

“That was so last year...2013 is much, much better,” boasted John.

“Speaking of better,” our waitress Beverly declared,” I’m pouring you guys our special Panama Boquete that arrived just this morning.”

“Let me check,” John stated and continued sniffing his cellphone and nodding his head. “Yeah, that smells great.”

“Do I really want to know?” Beverly inquired reluctantly.

“It’s my new Smell-O-Vision app.  Now I can call up any image I want on my smartphone, see what it smells like, then decide whether I want it.  It works great.  Here test the bouquet,” John extended his phone to both of us.

“Uh...I think I’ll just drink the real thing,” I shrank back.

“Two cups of Panama Boquete coming up,” Beverly shook her head and walked away.

“Yeah,” John began to explain as he started squeezing a rubber ball clinched in his right fist. “It’s just one of several new advances in science and technology that I’m adopting.”

“And the rubber ball you’re...uh...caressing?” I smiled.

“Oh, that.” John placed the ball on the table and scratched his left arm slightly.  “New research says that squeezing a ball can help you learn and remember information.”

“Really?” I marveled as I took a robust swallow of my Panama Boquete. “And you’re trying to memorize that song...or whatever you’re listening to?”

“What?  It’s hard to hear you when listening to Pink Powers sing ‘Just Give Me A Reason.’”

“I can tell,” I raised my voice and almost shouted.  “Why are you listening to her?  I didn’t think you liked her music.”

“True, she’s not my cup of tea...or rather...Panama Boquete.  But research says that new music can stimulate your mind.”

“It seems to be stimulating your skin, too.  Perhaps Pink can ‘Give you a reason’ to call the doctor about that  itch on your arm?” I made the “quote signs” with my fingers.

“Itch? No, no,” John chuckled, “That’s my new skin printing tattoo.”

“Tattoo...it looks more like a bar code.”

“Of course.  It allows me to monitor my overall health by scanning it with a sensor that reads the condition of my skin.”

“John, you’ve certainly done your research I’ll give you that.”

“Yup.  It takes a lot time, you know, looking up all this stuff on my cellphone.”

“You must have a very expensive data plan,” I guessed.

“Nope.  I hardly spend a cent.  I just tap into other people’s accounts.”

“What!”  I coughed almost spewing Panama Boquete all over John.

“Sure.  It’s a new bandwidth application I have. But it leaves me a little depressed I admit.”

“I can imagine.  After all you’re stealing from other folks.”

“But what choice do I have?” John pondered.  “I’m afraid that if I spend a lot of time on Facebook using my own account,  there will be too much personal information circulating about me.”

“Personal information like what?” I was curious.

“Well,” John began to blush, “like my shopping habits.  Once everyone knows that stuff...or can guess...I’ll get tons of spam.”

“I’ll have to take note of that,” I considered softly.

“Speaking of notes,” John brightened. “What do you think of my new pen?”

“Truthfully...it’s fat and ugly,” I ventured.

“Maybe.  But it’s a 3D pen!”

“A what...?

“A 3D pen.  Here, look.” John began to draw on his napkin then raised the pen to complete a rough 3D image of a box rising from the table.”

“I’m at a loss for words,” I admitted.

“That’s really something, John,” Beverly agreed.  “I have a great idea.”

“What’s that?” John responded expecting praise.

“How about squeezing that rubber ball again to remember to draw a 3D big tip when you leave. Now that’s the type of scientific breakthrough I can live with.”

Steve Coon

April 28, 2013

Wiston Papers

What happened to the brothers Tsarnaev?

What happened to Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?  The brothers suspected of placing and detonating the bombs that killed three persons and injured more than 250 others at the Boston Marathon this year.

Their violence was horrible and the impact of their evil has scarred the bodies and souls of scores of spectators and runners for a lifetime.  Why did the young men, ages 26 and 19, do this?  

That question bothers me deeply.   Once the Tsarnaevs were identified as suspects, initial interviews with people who knew them indicated that the men had once “embraced” America.  Dzhokhar especially seemed to be well liked and popular in high school according to former classmates, coaches and teachers.  He was more involved in American life than his brother and had a larger circle of U.S. acquaintances.  Nevertheless, there were early warning signs and they were ignored.

The elder sibling, Tamerlan, seems to have struggled more with life in the United States despite his early success as an amateur boxer here and dreams of competing for America on the Olympic team..  “I don’t have a single American friend,” he would assert later. “I don’t understand them.”  He also had scrapes with the law in America and even was questioned by the FBI at one point about his possible involvement in foreign politics and radicalism.

Did Tamerlan’s increasing isolation and troubles cause him to draw the apparently happier young brother into his darker word?  LIfe after high school did not go smoothly for Dzhokhar;  although he started college he was failing classes as recently as last year.  Did this contribute to his vulnerability?

Scholar Thomas de Waal notes that the Tsarnaevs experienced the same sense of violence and deportation as others of the Chechan diaspora.  Although considered a safe haven by many refugees, America did not hold that same allure for the brothers.  Why?

Increasing suspicion and misunderstanding of Islam by many Americans following 9/11 certainly may have increased their alienation from U.S. society. That experience quite likely exacerbated Tamerlan’s deepening Muslim radicalism and  most certainly had an impact on the younger Dzhokhar who, by some accounts, looked up to Tamerlan.

Likewise their paternal Uncle living in America who called them “losers” rejected the two men. And the separation from their parents who had returned to Chechnya, could have left the brothers susceptible to further disintegration of their social, cultural and psychological foundation.

Still none of this points to inevitable acts of terror or even less violent expressions.  Many Chechens with similar struggles have adapted to American life.  But for the Tsarnaevs there was a tipping point during their years here.  And it manifested itself in the terrible bombings of April 15.

What intervention could have prevented this?  Would stronger more cohesive family ties mitigated against the sense of alienation and isolation?   Did the brothers correctly perceive that too many Americans consider Islam and religious-based fanaticism and terrorism as synonyms?  Did they withdraw from America or did America push them way?

The younger Dzhokhar appears to have enjoyed a wider, potentially stronger tie to mainstream America than did Tamerlan?  How then did Dzhokhar fall under the evil spell of his older sibling?

Unfortunately, I have many questions but far too few answers.  I am certain this could have been prevented.  I’ve written previously about the need for early detection of and treatment for signs of mental illness.   

I don’t think this was inevitable. But no one spotted the warnings until it was too late and no one sought help. Either the Tsarnaev brothers or Americans who knew them  And who is at fault for that?  We or they?

I suspect there is enough blame to be spread widely.  

Steve Coon

April 23, 2013

Wiston Papers

We have a suspect...wait a minute.   No we don't.

CNN and Fox News blew it...again.  Not surprising given their recent...almost daily...abysmal record of inaccurate reporting.  Now add the Associated Press (AP) to the list of news organizations that just can’t get it right.  Pathetic.

I’m writing about the erroneous stories alleging that a suspect had been arrested in the Boston Marathon bombings.  Not true.

AP, Fox News and CNN all based their dispatches on what they claim were sources in a position to know.  When these knowledgeable sources proved not to be privy to correct information, the three media backtracked.

Here’s how to avoid this in the future.

MEMO TO CNN, FOX AND AP NEWS DIVISIONS:

“When reporting breaking news there are basic journalistic steps to follow.  To date, regretfully, we have failed to observe these fundamentals.

“We have rushed to publish information that has proved to be erroneous.  We have based our stories on unreliable sources.  We have not taken the necessary time to separate truth from speculation, to distil fact from rumor, to extract accuracy from innuendo.  In a phrase, we have chosen to believe when skepticism was the wiser decision.

“Effective immediately all news personnel are to do the following when covering breaking news:

“1--Check who in our news divisions either is from or has worked in the city, state or area where the story takes place.  Assign that person to the story.  We want people on the scene who know the territory.

“2--Our journalists, producers and photojournalists assigned to the story must work closely with local reporters who are already familiar with the principal players and have developed reliable sources.  We are not to initiate our own investigations until we have collaborated closely with local media.

“3--There will be no blogs, tweets or other social media postings until all information has been tripled checked both by our news teams on location as well as our news staff here  at CNN, Fox News and AP headquarters.

“5--All our dispatches must clearly identify by name and title the sources of our information  and what steps we followed to obtain that information.  If in an exclusive interview, say so.  If a news conference, say so.  But unequivocal disclosure is our goal.

“6--All initial reports must be heavily qualified so that our audience is aware of the preliminary nature of our stories. That our nformation is based solely on what local, clearly identified authorities are saying and that their information, too, may be based on incomplete details.

“7--In the case of shootings, bombings or other acts of violence, no member of the news division shall speculate as to the reason for the event.  There shall be no mention of possible terrorism, there shall be no linkage to other similar events unless specifically stated by officials who initiate such speculation.  

“8--Avoid quoting eyewitnesses in all initial stories. Eyewitnesses are not trained observers.  Their reactions are more often emotional than factual.  Their statements may distort rather than clarify the truth and reality we seek.  

“We are in the news business; we do not guess, we do not speculate, we do not spread rumors.  

“9--Avoid words and images that tend to sensationalize the event.  Be sensitive to the nature of the unfolding story, the emotions of the persons affected, and the often chaotic nature of fact-gathering by investigators and the critical work of medical and rescue personnel to treat and find victims and survivors.

“10--We will file our stories, blogs, tweets, and social media posts only after we have exhausted every possible method for confirming the accuracy of our reports.

“Finally, everyone must accept the basic fact of our business to inform the public truthfully, accurately, in a fair, balanced and objective manner.

“It is better for us to be second or third to report details of breaking news as long as those details are correct.

“There is no virtue in being first then having to backtrack and apologize for our mistakes.

“The public deserves and demands better from us.  Let’s fulfil that expectation.”

Steve Coon

April 18, 2013

Wiston Papers

Hey!  Those are my genes.

“Order up everyone.  I’m picking up the tab today,”  John said triumphantly as he sat down confidently for our weekly coffee.

“Well, big spender,” our waitress Beverly said with a broad smile as she rubbed his shoulders.  “You’re certainly in high spirits.  What’s the occasion?”

“I’m going to be rich, rich, rich.  Yup.  You’re looking at a wealthy man,” John’s already broad smile widened more.

“All right.  Dota and La Minita Tarrazu from Costa Rica coming right up,” Beverly promised as she walked briskly back to the kitchen.

“Rich you say,” I ventured suspiciously.

“Yes, indeed,” John leaned back arrogantly and waved at the other customers.  “I’ve taken out a patent on numbers and the alphabet.”

“Excuse me,” I stared as I almost spit my first sip of Dota.

“The Supreme Court inspired me,” John leaned forward still smiling broadly.  “They’re about to rule on patents for genetic engineering and I thought I’d better get mine first.”

“There must be something in this coffee, but you lost me.”

“It’s simple,” John began slowly, “the men and women in robes are about to decide whether companies can patent the building blocks of life...genes.  And I’ve just extended that logic.”

“But I read some stories that indicated the court expressed doubt that anyone has the rights to individual genes,” I argued as I tried to take another swallow.

“That’s just the liberal media reporting,” John countered.  “It’s obvious that if you can patent individual genes then I can patent individual letters and numbers.”

“Wait a minute.  I can see getting a patent for how you combine the genes.  That’s a new product you created,” I professed, “but you didn’t create the genes themselves.”

“Nope, you’re wrong.  It’s like this cup of Minita Tarrazu. I wouldn’t be drinking this patented java unless I owned the rights to the beans,”  John savored both the coffee and his argument.

“So you’re saying that I can’t claim a copyright for anything I write or a new formula I create because you already own the rights to the letters and numbers?” I questioned incredibly.

“Bingo, you got it,” John chuckled and motioned to Beverly for a refill.  “And you’ll have to pay me to use my letters and digits.”

“In other words, if I send you an email...”

“I have to be compensated.”

“...or text...”

“Ku-ching”

“...or...”

“Any combination at all.  Doesn’t matter.  The building blocks of the words and formulas belong to me.  Just as soon as the Supreme Court rules in my favor, I’ll be rolling in cash.”

“John, it’s great you have the money.  You owe me $537.53 cents for everybody’s food and drink today,” Beverly informed.

“Wait a minute...” John tried to protest.  “I didn’t expect to pay that much!”

“It’s all here in writing and figures on this bill...words and totals made from your patented letters and numbers,” Beverly challenged with her hands on her hips.

“But...”

“Great idea, Beverly, just add my share to that tab,” I joined.  “Congratulations, John.”

“Oh...” I leaned close to John, “And I’m sure the Supreme Court will be real happy with you once they learn they’ll have to pay you for the letters in their opinion on genetic engineering.”

Steve Coon

April 16, 2013

Wiston Papers

The not so sociable media

A new survey reveals that rudeness among social media users is rising.  The study by VitalSmarts reports that nearly 80 percent of respondents say there is "rising incivility online" and nearly half of those who took the survey admit that they have ended social media exchanges with someone due to an online spat.

To anyone who spends even a few hours online these findings are not surprising.

Almost 3,000 persons were surveyed and an overwhelming majority (around 80 percent) claim they have witnessed an online argument and believe that people online are less polite than in person.

The authors cite several anecdotes to underscore their findings.  And one of the researchers offers five suggestions for improving civility and respect to social media intercourse.

Unsanswered, however, is why this is happening?

I believe anonymity is the principal explanation.   We learn early in life to "play well with others" and "be nice to Jane."  This socialization dictates how we interact physically and face-to-face with individuals.

Generally we loathe confrontation.  Some persons are more averse than others.  Even to the degree of passive-aggressive behavior.

But when your communication is faceless, it's easy to remove the cultural impediments in personal interaction and let our emotions flow freely.  Unchecked these feelings often result in revealing more about ourselves than would otherwise be true...both good and bad.

We presume there are fewer negative repercussions from rudeness when we do not have to face our antagonist and assume responsibility for our statements or actions.   The separation from our conversation partner by cyberspace affords us a degree of protection.

A similar phenomenon occurs on our streets and highways.  Road rage is more easily expressed through shouted obsenities and horn honking when we don't have to physically confront our perceive tormentor.   Maybe that's why we don't have the term for our impatience when standing in line too long at a grocery store.  Most of us just accept it.

Another explanation may be the degree of festering, unresolved, emotional conflicts we keep locked up.  Social media allow us to share our feelings and opinions much like an emotional release valve.  Letting off steam online is easier than when someone is present to witness our ranting.

Whatever the reasons, there seem to be fewer persons either able or willing to observe what has been coined "netiquette."  Perhaps this is symptomatic of our larger society that is increasingly impersonal.

Steve Coon
April 11, 2013

Wiston Papers

Here's what I learned in Burma/Myanmar*

*The U.S. government refers to Myanmar as Burma rather than the new name adopted by that nation.  I chose to use both terms  here because my workshop was sponsored by the the United States. However, I used Myanmar when working with the reporters.

I spent March in Burma/Myanmar conducting broadcast journalism training at the invitation of the American Embassy in Rangoon/Yangon.  The first two weeks I worked with television journalists at a private network called SkyNet.  It’s a satellite-delivered multi-channel service similar to DirecTV and Dish, but with local newscasts.

Week two I was upcountry in Tatkone, site of the government-owned radio and television operation MRTV.  My workshop participants were a mixture of radio reporters and TV video editors.

The experience was both informative and gratifying.  It reminded me again of what I have learned during nearly three decades of media training around the world…freedom of expression and of the press is a luxury that should never be taken for granted.  And the struggle against challenges to hard-fought journalism rights to inform the public is a daily battle that requires constant vigil. 

Burma/Myanmar is rapidly opening its borders to the international community.  President Thein Sein has instituted a number of reforms that have liberalized several segments of society.  Among these are a relaxation of the onerous press restrictions in place during the harshest days of the previous military dictatorship. 

The journalists I spoke with seem genuinely optimistic about their ability to report meaningful stories about issues that were forbidden only a few years ago.  One Rangoon/Yangon journalist in his 60s one day brought me the English-language edition of the weekly Myanmar Times.  He pointed to every front page story of that day and explained, “None of these stories would have been allowed in print in the past.  That’s a good sign,” he added.

Even some exiled journalists and media organizations have begun to return to Burma/Myanmar encouraged, apparently, by the aforementioned prospect of relaxed media restrictions.

On April first, the first daily newspapers began publication.  The government has granted licenses to the operation of several publications and others are sure to follow.  Inevitably some newspapers will fail due to stiff competition, audience indifference, and lack of financial support for long-term sustainability.  But a few will succeed. 

Of course, there will be reversals in the movement toward greater press freedom in Burma/Myanmar.  Despite the government’s pledge for more openness and cooperation with the media, a proposed new press law was introduced in Parliament only weeks ago that would reinstate some of the more repressive prohibitions of the past.  Although that proposal was not enacted in the Parliamentary session that ended in March, the issue most certainly will generate robust discussion and debate as the media struggle to keep their new-found freedoms and lobby for more relaxation in the future.

The quality of broadcast journalism in Burma/Myanmar is far behind most developed nations.  There are virtually no journalism programs at the university level.  Almost all radio and television editors and reporters have print backgrounds and no experience in writing and reporting for broadcast.

Those entry-level journalists who enter the field after graduating from universities have degrees in history, economics, business and other non-media disciplines.  Although the knowledge these young reporters bring to the newsroom from their university classrooms is valuable, it in no way prepares them for the skills required to identify sources, gather information, and disseminate news in a meaningful, articulate manner to an increasingly sophisticated and demanding audience.

If Burma/Myanmar, her media and journalists are to compete successfully for audiences and revenue, they must produce much higher quality news products that currently is the case.

Burma/Myanmar is seeking international partners with businesses that can invest in the nation’s rich economic potential.  An equally important investment is the nation's need to engage in permanent relations with media organizations and trainers to elevate the quality of its information sector.

The media training I conducted should be just one of several initiatives pursued by both the American Embassy as well as Burma/Myanmar universities and media organizations.

Americans often complain about how the news media cover stories.  I often join the chorus of criticism when I see sloppy, inaccurate reporting or even worse...instances of plagiarism, distortion and one-sided coverage.

For all our warts, we enjoy one of the rarest privileges of a democratic society.  A robust, enthusiastic, assertive—and yes—often infuriating free media.  

My trip to Burma/Myanmar reminded me that I’d rather have the opportunity to voice my dissatisfaction with the quality of radio, television, newspaper, magazine and online journalism than to be completely in the dark.

The light of news and information is beginning to shine brighter in Burma/Myranmar.  That is welcome sunshine indeed.

Steve Coon

April 05, 2013