So, I've seen the first episode of The Newsroom - Aaron Sorkin's reboot of the West Wing, essentially.

I really want to like it. I do. I loved the West Wing, loved the fantasy of smart people who actually get to run the world (or part of it), of serious conversations, and fast-paced lives. The Newsroom is more of the same, but in an environment I know much better - a newsroom.

But still...

First of all, there are the women (and so far only the women) who veer erratically from brilliant and in control to incompetent mess (always predicated by emotional stuff) in a matter of seconds. It's belittling and infuriating, and in the second episode we got to see both women on the show doing exactly that. Plus, there's a woman with a PhD in economics and the only thing she's interested in is whether Will cheated on Mackenzie. Sure. So far, I don't believe the show actually passes the Bechdel test, since I can't recall Maggie and Mackenzie actually ever talking about anything other than her relationship, and Sloane and Mackenzie moved very quickly from work to relationships. Oh, and can I talk about names? Three women on the show: two ballbreakers with men's names, and one little girl who tries to dump her diminutive nickname for a serious one, and fails. Blech again.
And the Indian guy's the IT specialist/blogger. How rare and original.

Hate hate hate the Charlie Skinner as alcoholic thing (I can't call it a plot point, because it's not, yet). Alcoholism is the journalists' disease and lots of them succumb, but very very few ever make it to the head of news of a major network, not while drinking. It doesn't work that way now, and I doubt it ever did. I've worked with, and for, a number of drunks, and the only one in a senior position was part of a political triumvirate placed at the SABC by the ANC who remained there for reasons which have NOTHING to do with the job (and he's now on "special leave"). Alcoholics don't rise to senior positions and stay there because drinking is incompatible with doing the job. Charlie is shown drinking, but never drunk, and that is telling. It's simply not possible to have one character portray alcoholism and doing a senior management job realistically. As it is, Sorkin's opted for telling us he's a drunk rather than showing us, and it's just a cheap nod to prejudice about journalists (oooh, a show about a newsroom, one of them must be an alcoholic, we need at least two black people, an Indian and a few women - call central casting).

But now we come to the hollow hollow heart of the show. The idea that Mackenzie and Will want to create the kind of news they (or Aaron Sorkin) imagine Edward R Murrow made. This is breathtakingly dishonest. In the USA, the news has always been commercial, always been ratings-driven, and the idea that any channel would allow the kinds of changes they are proposing is so far-fetched that the whole show becomes as fantastical as Game of Thrones.
There is no way Mackenzie (and possibly Will, depending on whether he has producer status as well as anchor) would NOT be dragged into ratings meetings at least once a week, and the data would be sent out to them in any case. The whole fantasy of if you build it, they will come, is lovely, but completely misguided. The West Wing worked because Bartlett was President, and could do what he wanted, within the bounds of the political structure. I suspect the Newsroom won't work because Will and Mackenzie are much much smaller cogs in a massive mechanism, and can't act like free agents.

 The whole myth that if you make smart news, people will watch is rubbish, and although the critique of the current state of American broadcast news is pithy, the solution is not going to be simply "hire an American who sounds British and let her run things", believe me. It's not even whether people will watch, it's whether advertisers believe they will, and in a climate where more and more channels and media are scrambling for fewer and fewer advertising clients, the station managers would never wait to find out. After the first show, advertisers would be leaving in droves, and that would be it.

The corporate nature of news, the reliance on advertising revenue, the fact that the whole medium's raison d'etre is the making of profit for the shareholders, none of this can be ignored, or glossed over. The fact that Mackenzie speaks with a British accent, despite being American (and how American - Sorkin makes sure we know she's as American as Apple Pie and twice as patriotic),  is telling: she represents both the BBC and its publicly-funded, intelligent news that is not beholden to financial interests (or the fantasy thereof), although Sorkin can't say as much, because to imply to an American audience that other people do news better than they Americans would ensure that he never ate lunch in Hollywood again. So, she sounds British (although WTF? I have NEVER met an embassy brat who didn't sound like their parents, and in any case, her father would never have been Ambassador for her entire childhood - that's not how ambassadorships work), and she's been in Afghanistan, which explains why she appears to not know how to work technology (again, WTF? there is nobody more reliant on technology than a foreign correspondent, and therefore nobody who knows more about technology), and so she gets to be the foreigner who explains to the natives how it's really done (see approximately one third of the movies ever made). Except, she wouldn't. Because, see above re: corporate nature of news.

And also, because she was a correspondent, not an EP, and they are completely different jobs.(Now starts the technical nitpicking) Sure, people go from one to the other, but not that fast (and not to a panel show), and after years in the field she would have had no idea what she was doing in the gallery, who all those people are, or even much of the jargon. The  point at which I realised that a) she knows how to use a Blackberry (a device that outside of the US is only used by teenagers, and never in war zones, since RIM hasn't bothered to make them work in places without sufficient population density), but can't avoid sending an email to all staff, twice, in one episode; and b) she knows how to run a panel news show (at least I think it's a panel discussion, it's not at all clear what the show is, exactly), and how to run the gallery, what an SOT is, how to create and manage a rundown, during one, despite apparently never having done it before, that I realised she really is the equivalent of Dorothy flying in on a tornado to teach the munchkins how to overthrow the wizard.

On the other hand, she is pretty kickass, and despite talking about taking Maggie shopping and girl bonding over bad boyfriends, I don't think the show is going to have her weeping into tubs of Haagen-Dasz over Will, and for that, one must be grateful. So, I'll keep watching and recording, and will probably use chunks in lectures next year. It's still good, just not perfect.

User-generated content is frequently cited as both the death and the saviour of traditional journalism. For news organisations facing increasing competition for both readers and amateurs the thought of free content can be very tempting; for the professional journalists employed by that news organisation to see all this material being created by amateurs can be a worrying development. Ironically, it is the sheer volume of amateur content that makes the journalists’ job so important. It is possible to follow the hashtag of a news event on Twitter and get some idea of what is happening, but anyone who has done that knows that the sheer volume of tweets can be intimidating and overwhelming to anyone trying to find out the information that is relevant to them. Once you filter out the tweets that reference professional news content, you are left with a haphazard and chaotic collection of comment, observation and unverified eyewitness reports. The journalist is needed to make sense of that chaos, to select and verify information, to structure it into a cohesive whole, to link it with other research, other information provided by professional and institutional sources, and to make sense of it.

The journalist’s role has changed, yes, especially becoming more transparent, but the function within society, that of making sense of the events that happen, of selecting, sorting and making meaningful the chaos of life, that has not.

More from the book:

One of the main criticisms of amateur journalism from the mainstream media is that it is biased. This bias, whether perceived or real, forms much of the debate around amateur journalism sites, at least in the way it is presented in professional journalism contexts. There are considerable questions as to whether this matters at all to either the audience or the advertisers. Certainly, some of the most popular blogs, forums and information sites on the Internet are informed by very clear political aims and points of view (from all parts of the spectrum), and if anything, the readership is more loyal than that of more middle-of-the-road sites. It is apparent that despite the stated need of communities for unbiased information provided to the audience in a neutral space (a key tenet of democratisation, as reiterated in documents from the American Constitution to the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms), the desire of people is for news and information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. The popularity of news organisations that hold specific and unabashed political views, from Fox News in the USA to the more extreme of the British tabloids, shows that giving the people what they want often means giving them biased and prejudicial information.

The following is the text of a complaint I made to the BBC today, in response to last night's edition of Newsnight.

I am not opposed to airing the full range of political beliefs extant in the UK, and in principle, not opposed to the EDL being given an opportunity to respond to wide-spread allegations of their connection to Anders Breivik, but these kinds of issues must be handled carefully, something the BBC completely failed to do last night.

To start with, the opening package repeatedly expressed surprise that the attacks in Norway were not the work of Islamic extremists - as though far-right-wing terrorism was still an unheard-of phenomenon, but then Jeremy Paxman completely lost control of the interview. Lennon was effectively given ten minutes to spout his own theories about the attack, blaming Muslims and immigration for provoking the attack and ending with a threat that similar would happen in the UK if things didn't change. Paxman only responded to that some moments later, with a weak and ineffectual "is that a threat"?

Aside from Paxman's incompetence as an interviewer in this instance, which would be grounds for dismissal for someone not considered a luminary of the BBC (and you should re-examine his luminescence in the light of this interview), there is the issue of having someone from the EDL on unopposed, with no countervailing voice, no analysis, no context. The final effect gives the appearance that the BBC in some way condones the EDL's position, which is unacceptable.

The BBC should apologise for this fiasco, and issue a statement doing so. It should also consider some form of redress, some attempt to correct the extremely skewed position which was given last night.

The complaint was submitted here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

The interview can be seen here, for a limited time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012twgz/Newsnight_25_07_2011/

Another day, another middle-aged straight man pretending to be a lesbian on the Internet.

Anyone who has spent any time in an online community with a persistent membership, especially one with a substantial female cohort, has met a middle-aged man pretending to be a young lesbian. A very cute, out, sexually experimental, vociferous lesbian. Probably with a motorbike, a tormented relationship with her family and long, flowing hair. Looking back, I can remember about four of these guys over the years that I participated in discussion forums at university, usenet, listservs, Yahoo (then Google) groups, blogs, facebook, twitter. Wherever there is online community, there will be 'pseuds'; and along with 'dying of cancer', 'tormented young lesbian' seems to be a favourite story to adopt.

My most notable encounter of this ilk was with one Lisa Jain, on the late, great, estrolist mailing list. "Lisa" was, of course, young, rode a motorcycle, had long red hair and a tormented relationship with her family and an older girlfriend, and wrote (forgive me), convincly mediocre adolescent poetry under the name Starpoet. She also wrote for Scarleteen, whose editor, Heather Corinna, was likewise a member of estrolist. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it was Heather who discovered that "Lisa" was in fact a middle-aged man living in suburbia, with daughters the age "she" claimed to be. In fact, the pictures of herself that "Lisa" had shown the list were of a friend of "her" daughter's, which, when coupled with the fairly explicit discussions of sex on the mailing list, made many of us shudder. "Lisa" was summarily removed from the mailing list, and, although the internal discussion continued for some time, the whole incident was chalked up as yet another relatively harmless case of "boys will be, well, something other than boys".

Except that this behaviour is so common as to have become something of a trope, and that is a problem. It's not simply pretending to be something you're not - it's pretending to take on cultural and personal experience and significance that you have not earned. No matter how much research you may have done, you cannot fairly represent someone else's experience, and on the social internet, where personal experience is currency, you are stealing someone's currency, their voice.

Feminism has always been about claiming one's voice, the right to experience one's life and express that experience to others. Women speaking out about rape, about sex, about love, about life are the cultural lifeblood of feminism, from Charlotte Perkins Gilman to Eve Ensler. Any man who takes on the cloak of femininity or feminism usurps that voice and distorts the message for everyone listening. 

In pretending to be a lesbian, a heterosexual man is belittling the experience of, and denying a voice to, women and gay people: he is taking on a double-layer of deception and usurping two peoples' right to speak for themselves. Many straight men seem to think (as did Mr Lisa Jain), that by having sexual encounters with women (or watching a lot of girl-on-girl porn) they know what it is like to be a lesbian, as though sexual identity is limited to the expression of sexual behaviour, and as though female identity ends with the genitalia.

In pretending to be a Syrian (in this case), MacMaster has also taken on years of blackface, of offensive portrayals of "others" by white people, and of "orientalism". He is supposedly a graduate student in Middle-Eastern studies - I can't help but think he should fail his course on the grounds that he has failed to comprehend even three words of Edward Said's writings.

One can't help thinking, of course, that the fetishisation of lesbianism is the main reason for this kind of online deception, but I suspect that would be wrong. There are plenty of places online to play out one's purely sexual fantasy of being a young hot college co-ed getting it on with your dormmates (to use the most obvious stereotype of a porn movie), in words, or images. Why go to the hassle of creating a whole identity, stealing other people's pictures, writing backstory and engaging with other members of the community for a purely sexual fantasy? Estrolist was mostly populated by young-ish middle-aged educated feminists, talking about work, family, clothes, movies, children, politics, gender, books: that's a lot of chit-chat and theory to wade through to get to the sexy stuff. Likewise, although much has been made of Tom McMaster signing up for a dating site and flirting online with other lesbians (at least one of whom turned out tobe another middle-aged straight man - the final straw that guarantees McMaster will forever be reduced to a punchline), it is apparent that he spent most of his time online constructing the other aspects of Amina's life (and let's be clear, despite the chorus of "I always knew there was something wrong with her", he did a fair enough job of it to fool a number of people).



So why? Is the life of a middle-aged man so boring and desperate that it necessitates the construction of a whole new identity: one entirely different from the existing one, with one constant - sexual attraction to women? Is it for the same reasons that wealthy college kids in the eighties in the UK pretended to be poor, to take on some of the 'cool' aspects of working-class life as depicted in popular culture? There is no doubt that lesbianism (or the performance of lesbianism) is becoming more common in popular culture, from the L-Word to Katy Perry, but so is the depiction of crime in African-American communities, and you don't see stories about middle-aged white women pretending to be hardened "gangstas" on line.

I tend to see this behaviour as a kind of jealous temper-tantrum:  "people are paying attention to someone else, and I am going to take that attention away from them by pretending to be something more interesting and unusual than they are". It is juvenile and selfish, and, in that way, not dissimilar to people pretending to die of cancer online. In retrospect, looking at the listserv content, people could see that at a predictable interval of the discussion moving on to someone or something else, "Lisa" would suddenly pop up, in virtual tears, at some new torment in her life, and we would all gather round, patting her on the back and saying there-there.

However, I don't really care why McMaster, or "Lisa" did it. The co-opting of another's experience for personal gain, especially by a member of the dominant cultural or ethnic group is offensive, and disturbing. McMaster may be a joke, and that is all he deserves, the worry is that the next genuine person to tell their story on the Internet will also be dismissed as a joke, thanks to McMaster's indulgent, selfish little role playing game. He has had his fun, and cried wolf on behalf of a village he doesn't even live in, and now everyone else is less safe. 

From what I am writing now:

"This, of course, locates social media firmly within the realm of activism, as opposed to the simpler (or simplistic) idea of the news as ‘objectively’ reporting the facts. It is possibly this that creates the schism between some journalists and social media: fear of being coerced into taking sides, rather than simply being misled."

After all, foreign correspondents have willingly and gratefully been misled by the authorities for as long as there have been foreign correspondents. Fear of being lied to by someone on Twitter is so much greater than fear of being lied to by some tinpot dictator's flunkies. Why on earth is this the case? 

THis is, of course, just an aside in something much larger, but very interesting, no? 

 

There's something about trains that makes me feel like an adult. Combine a commuter train with a paper cup of coffee and I'm overwhelmed with a sense of being an important and accomplished person, on my way to do something meaningful and significant.

It's always winter in these kinds of situations, it seems. One of my first memories of really feeling like a grown-up is a purely evocative sense memory of getting off the Skytrain in Vancouver at Granville street, wearing a long navy blue blue wool coat (second-hand, naturally), carrying a shoulder bag and a cup of coffee, and being swept along with all the business people on their way to work. I'm not sure when this memory dates from, but it is pretty powerful.

I don't take trains very often, and I've only ever for one brief period of my life used a train as my daily commute. I wish I could take trains every day, actually (we are considering moving, so this may come true), but I always seem to end up living in other circumstances.

In South Africa and the Middle East, it was pretty much impossible to cope with daily life without a car. Obviously, lots of people do cope, using taxis, busses and informal public transport, as well as walking and bicycles. For someone with a white-collar job, though, it can be hard, and in Dubai, living in university-issue accommodation in a neighbourhood without busses, it was hard and expensive to not have a car. My colleagues without cars relied heavily on those of us with cars, which creates its own set of issues.

Since we've been in the UK, we haven't had a car, and in fact, neither of us is now legally allowed to drive. We only miss it sometimes. Getting across the country by train is a pain (up and down is a lot easier), and it would be nice to be able to rent a car and go camping somewhere. We are working on it (or Martin is), but we really don't want to own one. I look at cars now, and think, weird objects, why would you want one?

But I still want to ride a train.

I'm not sure how I feel about the #IamSpartacus campaign on Twitter.

On the one hand, freedom of speech is important, but on the other hand, threatening to blow up an airport - how stupid can you be? I don't actually think it's about Twitter, really, either. I know the campaigners believe that Twitter is being singled out, and this is some kind of blow for free speech on the Internet, but I'm sorry, I don't. If anything, this shows that Twitter is just like any other kind of speech, and there are some things you should think twice about saying.

Like threatening to blow up an airport.

Or asking to have someone murdered.

In his defense, Gareth Compton has called Twitter a "a forum for glib comment" and asked "Who could possibly think it was serious?" Except that plenty of the stuff on Twitter is serious, and should be taken seriously. The irony of a campaign on Twitter to defend the frivolity of tweeting cannot be lost on everyone, surely.

Going back to the original tweet, from Paul Chambers, I find it hard to be sympathetic. I mean, come on. Yes, we know security is ridiculous, yes we know the police overreact, so why the hell would you provoke them by posting something like that? And really, if you want to campaign to protest the expansion of police powers and the erosion of civil liberty in the name of the "war on terror" (and I sure as hell do) you could do far better than defending some tosser who was pissed at an airport for being closed by weather.

How about campaigning for the rights of the more than 100 000 people stopped by the police under stop and search laws last year? Of whom only 504 were arrested, and none of them for terrorism-related offences, which is what the stop and search law was created to prevent. How about walking into every police station inteh country, ringing the little bell, and saying "I am Spartacus". If nothing else, it would be a lot more interesting to see than thousands of tweets threatening to blow up airports.

This morning, well before 9am, I was on my way to the shops to buy essential breakfast supplies when I passed a guy, in his twenties or so, swigging from a can of lager. This is not at all a remarkable event in this neighbourhood. I routinely see guys (and it is always men) drinking beer at the bus stop in the mornings. It's always one of the extra-strength lagers, in the dark blue can, or the one in the black can. They're don't seem to be particularly drunk, any of them, or worried that anyone can see what they're drinking so early in the morning. I really have to think that this is routine, that there are men in my neighbourhood for whom the morning can of Tennant's is as routine as my morning cup of tea is for me.

It is probably this that is the most alien experience of England for me (well, that and the inexplicable popularity of mushy peas). I don't have much of a relationship with alcohol myself, neither a good one nor a bad one. I tell people I don't drink, but that's not really true. I do occasionally drink, but I seldom think to. My first thought in a restaurant when asked what I want to drink is usually water, or maybe lemonade. It hardly ever occurs to me to order alcohol, and I tend only to drink it when it is very visible, and everyone else clearly is (which means I have drunk more alcohol in the last two years in the UK than I did in the previous ten in South Africa and the UAE). I only ever buy alcohol for cooking purposes.

This is a university town, and one kind of expects that there will be a lot of drinking, and the area around campus definitely shows the evidence of that, but I live far enough away from campus that there are few students around. Despite that, of the little two block strip of shops near me, there is a pub, and two small grocery shops, of which at least one third of their shelf space is taken up by alcohol, and four takeaways.

Alcohol consumption is high in the UK, and it carries a heavy social cost. It's a point of some contention, carrying with it aspects of class discrimination and snobbery, as well as social opprobrium. The problem is, it's hard to not sound like a moralising harpy when criticising people for their drinking habits; no matter how much you try to make the conversation about health, or social disorder, it always seems to come back to a kind of puritanical list of " shoulds and shouldn'ts". On the other hand, it would be hard to really defend the level of alcohol consumption that is prevalent here. Seeing the guys at the bus stop in the mornings, and knowing that there is no local industry that runs a night shift (ie, there is no reasonable possibility that this is the end of their day, and they are heading home to bed), I can't help concluding that these are people showing up for work in the morning already slightly drunk. At the risk of sounding flippant: this can't be good.

Of course, as someone who doesn't drink, and never really has (I've been drunk three times in my life, all in my late twenties, and all because I decided I needed to get drunk to see what all the fuss is about), I feel as though I shouldn't really comment. I don't know why I don't drink, honestly. Alcohol was neither prevalent nor taboo in the house - I saw my parents drink on special occasions, we were allowed wine or sherry from a pretty young age. I grew up in a pretty typical Canadian way, friends got drunk at parties from around 16 or so, although I never did, I know a few kids who died as a result of drunkenness, but nobody really close to me was affected. I did spend a fair chunk of my university life being the only sober one in any given [likely vomit and blood-spattered] room, which is never fun, but I also avoided the most drunken environments after a while. The fact is, I don't like the sensation of being drunk, and it doesn't make me enjoy social occasions more: the contrary, in fact - alcohol makes me sleepy and weepy. In fact, the only time I ever seek out alcohol is when I'm wound up with insomnia and desperately need to sleep, and have nothing else available (don't get me started on my relationship with zolpidem - now that's a drug I would probably buy on street corners if I had to).

Which is why I found this research interesting. I know it's not new, I know it's not really an "alcoholism gene", but the idea that I metabolise alcohol differently from the guy at the bus stop this morning is extremely seductive, if for no other reason than it doesn't leave me with nothing but moral s fall back on. I don't like smugness, especially not in myself.

On being Canadian.

The fact that I'm Canadian always seems to catch me by surprise. Other people as well. You see, I'm not REALLY Canadian, I'm one of those hyphenated Canadians, semi-Canadian, a Canadian of convenience. As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.

I sometimes feel kind of guilty when I use my Canadian passport. It's such a good calling card, nobody hates the Canadians, so I'm welcome everywhere (except Tanzania, which is another story). I don't live in Canada, I don't pay taxes in Canada, and when I was living there I was either an impoverished student or working minimum wage jobs, so I can fairly safely say I have taken way more from Canada than I have contributed over the years.

The thing is, though, that passport is not just a convenience, although it is convenient. I am Canadian in all sorts of ways. I'm a pacifist, I'm uncomfortable with overt displays of nationalism, I'm multicultural (both personally and in my tastes). I'm polite (usually), I'm intelligent and somewhat smug about less intelligent southerly neighbours, I'm unambitious with money, and I have a Canadian's sense of personal space (I spend much of my time in African and Asian public spaces in a state of mild distress at all the people! so close! shudder!). I like winter. I don't mind paying taxes for social services. I could even like curling. Canada suits me, in a way that no other place I've found does, and it's really no less than a conspiracy on the part of the universe to prevent me from living there all the time. I really have been trying to get back to Canada for the last fifteen years, and I can't seem to manage it.

That said, and now that I have asserted my true and utter Canadian-ness, can I just say that the Canadian passport renewal system is the most byzantine, bureaucratic, Kafka-esque process I have ever encountered? Bloody hell, people, it's just a passport, it's not the freaking secret MI5 dossier from 1945 to 1990. And you make us do this every FIVE freaking years?

Oh well. It is still the best passport to have, and the best country to be a citizen of, so I will spend much of tomorrow trying to find a photographer in Manchester who can provide me with an image of myself that will satisfy the good people at Passports Canada, and fill in my multicoloured forms in triplicate with stamps and seals and the names and addresses of everyone I've ever met, and take my new passport happily with me to all the places I want to go, I just hope I get to take it home, sometimes, too.

I miss the nerds.

Way back in the mists of time, when I was young, nerds were a subculture. They (note, much as I would love to call myself a nerd, I'm really not) hung out in labs, in front of glowing green screens and mainframe computers, they played Dungeons and Dragons on Fridays nights in their parents' basements, with twenty-sided dice and lots of friends. They were mostly guys, but there were girls, too, nothing like the girls from my suburban high school - all feathered hair and handbags. These girls were smart, and funny and not afraid to show it. They wore interesting and sensible clothes, or fancy sexy clothes, or old ragged clothes because they couldn't be bothered. They wore their hair however they liked, and whatever shoes they wanted. They had backpacks full of books and ideas, not handbags full of combs and make-up.

They were smart, too. Not all of them, but some of them were really smart, and the conversation flew, puns and jokes and philosophy and computers and movies and books. Real conversation. Not what I now know is the kind of conversation designed to create and destroy social cohesion, conversation full of traps and pitfalls and inside comments designed to show where the boundaries are and who is inside and outside of them. This was conversation for the sake of finding out stuff, and it was next to impossible to say the wrong thing and be shunned (as far as I could tell, that is).

Nerds were my people.

Over the last 25 years or so, I have hung out on the fringes of the nerd subculture to various degrees. I wasn't a science or engineering student, but I did use the university's mainframe to write essays and participate in the discussion fora. I was a journalist, but I knew about computers, so I gravitated to other computer-geeky-journalists. Then I was a science and technology journalist, in the early nineties, so I got to hang out with and interview hackers and nerds and geeks (and corporate PR types in branded golf shirts, too, some of whom were secretly nerds under the plastic coated logos).

When I joined the university, I met more nerds, graduate students in computing science, my own students with nerdy leanings, colleagues with secret stashes of comic books and games. We formed a kind of subgroup within the university - my colleagues in journalism were baffled by my having coffee with PhD students in computing science, with me talking to people about the VAX in the basement - the one that brought the Internet to South Africa, right under the nose of Vorster, who would not have approved.

In the last decade, though, I've been wondering: where have the nerds gone?

One of the side effects of the mainstreaming of computer technology is that the subculture has all but vanished. Now everyone is on the internet, everyone knows about lolcats and xkcd, most people have heard of Warcraft (although not played it). That flash of recognition, when nerd meets nerd, is all but gone. Students who want to write about gaming are crawling out of the walls, there is no sense of secret and private knowledge, of access to things other people don't know, or care about at all.

Don't get me wrong, the Internet is fabulous - an amazing invention, and the fact that there are two billion people online is truly incredible. I'm glad that there are millions who communicate every day, that Twitter lets me and everyone else know the latest celebrity death hoax almost instantaneously, that Google's dispute with the Chinese government is the lead on the evening news (even if they do get it wrong). I just miss that sense of belonging, that sense that there are only a handful of us, and we know each other by secret means. I miss my fellow travellers, now that we've been overtaken by the corporate behemoths, intent on advertising and market share and revenue streams.

I miss the nerds.

This is chiming in with the chorus way too late, but I've been chewing on this for a while. Why Rod Liddle should not become editor of the Independent.

Apparently Lebedev has said that if he buys the Indy, he will make Rod Liddle editor. There's a campaign to boycott the Indy if this happens. I support this wholeheartedly, although, to be honest, I seldom buy the Indy, since it shows up at the office, and when I do buy it, it's at a discount on the campus shop. I can't say I'll refuse to read it, since I read a lot of newspapers, but if it changes it will no longer be my favourite newspaper to read for non-research purposes. Take that as a threat, you Russian, you!

I don't read much of Liddle. A while back when we accidentally subscribed to the Spectator (long story), I used to read him and Toby Young sometimes. I freely admit that I have read more comment about him in the last three weeks than I have of his actual output. However, this is a blog, so lack of research should not prevent me from having an opinion, so here's my opinion: Rod Liddle should not be appointed editor for the following reasons:

1) He's too famous. I realise that Britain does have something of a tendency to make celebrities of their journalists, but I don't believe this is a good thing for the newspaper. Editing a paper, especially a serious and intellectual one like the Indy is (or should be), requires someone who cares more about the news than about themselves as editor. Editing a paper in difficulties, as the Indy is, needs someone who will make it their first and only priority, who will be there every day, who will read it and nurture it and their staff, who cannot be anything other than demoralised at this point. Maybe Liddle would abandon all his other ventures, give up his columns and his other activities and be in the office every day. I hope so, but I suspect not. It's clear that Lebedev thinks that one way to make people notice the Indy is to appoint someone famous as its editor, generate a bit of PR. I can see that argument, in the short term, but in the longer term, I don't think this would work, especially not for a paper like the Independent.

2) He's either a twit or a racist (or both). Either, as he claims, he is too stupid to pick a decent password for his membership in an online community, and too thick to work out how to delete posts or change his password once he figured out that someone was impersonating him, or those posts are genuinely his. If it is the former, then anyone hiring him needs to take a close look at his supposed skills and qualifications - he is clearly not fit for employment in the modern world, and especially not at a media company that has a substantial online presence. What's he going to do, pick 'liddle' as his staff password and allow his email address to be hacked by disgruntled staff who then proceed to send rude messages to all the advertisers under his name? If he did make those posts, then he clearly holds some repugnant opinions. He may claim that the racist content of his columns is intended as a wind-up, that he's playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument and debate (more on that below), but that argument is pretty weak when it comes to posts made on a discussion board using a pseudonym. There is no way he can claim his participation on the Milwall supporters' board is anything other than a leisure activity for him: he's an ardent fan of the club, so if he were playing a game and spreading vile comments around for the sake of some social experiment, why is he shitting in his own back yard, as it were? In any case, his bylined columns display much of the same opinions - the point about the Milwall posts is not that they are offensive (after all, they are anonymous, and he is entitled to hold all sorts of opinions repulsive or not), but that they put the lie to any claim that his columns in a similar vein are only 'for show', or playing some kind of postmodernist relativistic game of devil's advocate, since he evinces the same opinions behind closed doors, for free.

3) He's one of the 'wanker boys'. We don't need more 'wanker boys' in position to influence opinion and policy in this country. Wanker boys are grown men who behave like fourteen-year-old boys and are proud of it. Ross and Brand are wanker boys - phoning up an old man and saying "ha ha, I saw your granddaughter's tits" is classic wanker boy behaviour. So is opining that a highly-accomplished female athlete must be willing to perform all sorts of perverted acts in order to get a boyfriend because she isn't the right kind of attractive. Comedians are often wanker boys, and while I find it offensive and unfunny, it's kind of par for the industry. The issue is when this kind of attitude is permitted and aggrandised in other areas. Rod Liddle is not a comedian, he's supposedly a journalist, but he seems to think that it is relevant or meaningful to judge the performance of a senior government minister on whether or not he would sleep with her. That's the level of his engagement with serious issues: how drunk would you have to be to fuck her? Aside from the offensiveness of the whole concept (and I am seriously tempted to make a comment here about how physically repulsive Liddle himself appears to be - even in his byline pic - and how likely it is that any woman with a brain would even consider getting within ten feet of the man, but that would be validating the tack of his argument - that appearance is at all relevant when discussing politics, or journalism, or anything important), is this the best he can do? He can't think of anything else to say, or write about, than his own dick? That is essentially the problem with wanker boys - they are incapable of engaging with anything beyond themselves or their desires, and that makes them useless as participants in civil society.

Leave Rod Liddle to his column, and his girlfriends, and his fan club of born-again suburbanites, and hire a real journalist to run the Indy. Someone with a brain who is not afraid to show it. There must be one or two intelligent, articulate and thoughtful British journalists left, surely?

So, Google says it's going to stop filtering search results for their Chinese search engine (www.google.cn). If that means they become required to leave China, so be it. The exact wording is: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

Interestingly, this is being reported largely that Google has said it will pull out of China, which is not correct. They may well have to pull out of China, and shut down Google.cn, but they haven't said they will. They are very clearly leaving the ball in the government's court, and I suspect that if they are told to leave, they will attempt to make very clear that they are being evicted, not that they have chosen to go. Unfortunately, the meme may already have spoken: Google is taking its marbles and going home.

The general take on this side of the Firewall is that this is a bad business move. This approach really frustrates me, and is indicative of the extent to which we ascribe only business motives to business entities. The assumption seems to be that a) Google must want to be the largest and wealthiest [technology] company in the world; and b) that in order to 'win', they must have China as a market. There is also an assumption that they owe it to the shareholders to do so. This, of course, ignores Google's mission statement [Don't be evil], something which is usually only reported as a kind of joke. Few people seem to believe that it may be entirely serious. It also assumes (in line with conventional wisdom) that China is the single most important market in the world, for almost any product. This is probably not true. In any case, Google only ever had a small part of the search market in China, and didn't seem to be in much of a position to increase that. (Baidu is the main search engine in China. Look familiar? Although, Baidu has its own problems right now. ) What is not often reported is the reason why Google is doing this.

Behind the Firewall, reactions are mixed. (Disclaimer: I don't read or speak Chinese. Everything I know I learnt from Chinahush, Chinasmack, Chinageeks, Danwei, Digital Times, China Media Project and other such sites). There is the usual cry of 'China is better at everything, who needs Google?' jingoism, mixed in with more serious discussions of what this may mean for the average user in China. People are testing the search engines and not seeing any major changes in results so far. People are also worried about what will happen to services like Gmail, especially. [Heck, I'm worried that the next time I'm in China I won't be able to access my email myself.]

What I'm interested in is something which is not often discussed: what sector of the Chinese public would be most inconvenienced by the loss of Google? I have absolutely no way of knowing this, but my instinct is that it would be the better-educated and more outward-looking 'netizens' [not my favourite word, but pretty much unavoidable now] who are most likely to use their services, as opposed to sina, or baidu, or any one of the many other homegrown sites. I know I have my students create Google accounts for assignments/blogs/etc while they are here, and I know several who continued to use them when they returned. I can't help thinking that it will just make China more insular if/when Google goes.

 Wow, two days in a row - that's quite something for me.

Well, a newspaper wants the story I'm working on, which is cool, so I've spent the day sending emails and making phone calls. The only problem is that I won't get comment from the police until tomorrow morning, and my deadline is 12:3o (I have to lecture at one), so tomorrow will be a bit nerve-wracking.  The story is looking good, though. Maybe if it's really good I can get another regular writing arrangement with them. I hate selling story ideas to strangers.

I noticed yesterday that the ads on my blog page are targeted for catholic memorabilia, I assume because I wrote about the patron saint of the Internet. I'd better write a whole lot more, so that the ads change. I would hate for anyone to see this page and think I have anything to do with the Catholic church.

OK, months later, and I am once again trying to revive this blog.  I'm back in Johannesburg, semi-employed and have a home internet connection, so I see no reason why I should not be bombarding you (whoever you are, out there in domain namespace) with witty thoughts, riveting insights and my inner torment.

Semi-employed, actually more like demi-semi-employed. The funding for my lectureship at Rhodes has run out, so I am back here, glad to be living in the same city as Martin, but not gald to not be working. Initially there were plans for me to teach a course at the Wits Journalism School, but their funding also ran out; I was writing for the Mail and Guardian on Technology issues, but they decided to cancel the section (which I was supposed to take over editing). I am currently teaching a few hours a week at Tshwane University of Technology and at Boston Media House.  Freelance teaching is fine, but it doesn't even begin to pay the bills, especially since you don't get paid for prep, or marking, or anything else.

The freelance writing is more frustrating, since I have loads of stories, and no-one to tell them to. The problem is that I am a very good journalist, but a really bad salesperson. I hate having to sell myself, or my stories. I am currently sitting on something of a  scoop which I am desperately trying to sell to people and am not getting very far with.

Ok, well like most people writing an online diary/journal, I started out all full of the fires of enthusiasm, and then petered out. After only two posts, nogal.

Anyhow, I have been very busy recently, I was in Durban yesterday, training staff, and tomorrow it's Bloemfontein. However, the main reason I think I haven't updated is because I don't have an internet connection at home, which means I have to plan my postings, not exactly ideal.

And why don't I have home Internet? Well, because the options in South Africa are pretty limited on this point.

I can go for dial-up, which charges per call, and I would have to have a land-line installed, something I don't have any other use for.

I can go for ISDN, which is even more expensive, and I would still have to pay per use.

I can go for ADSL, which is more expensive in South Africa than pretty much anywhere else, mainly due to Telkom's desire to have people sign up for the more lucrative ISDN, and protect their margins.

I could also opt for the new MyWireless, from Sentech, which is a proprietary wireless system, IPWireless, and looks pretty good, except for the fact that it is a) proprietary technology, whcih nobody else appears to use (and I remember Sentech/SABC's analogue satellite fiasco), and b) it requires me to sign a 24 month contract. The 24 month thing is a big issue, since the industry is being deregulated even as we speak, so I am unwilling to tie myself down to two years of technology that may be overpriced and obsolete in two months.

So, that was a rather long-winded and convoluted excuse for why I don't update more often, sorry.

A few days ago, I got asked who the patron saint of journalists was. It's the sort of question I often get, not because I am a devout Catholic (I was raised to be one, but it didn't take), but because it's the sort of random trivia that my mind is stuffed with. Anyhow, on this occasion I couldn't remember, so I looked it up. In the process of doing so, I discovered this, which has to be the most irony-free, begging-to-be-spoofed thing I have seen in a while.
Catholic Online - Fun Facts

In fact, the whole site is pretty disturbing to me, both because aesthetically and content-wise it reminds me of my convent-school upbringing, and because most of my exposure to catholic tat over the last decade or more has been in the form of friends who find glow-in-the-dark virgin marys and st christopher medals hilariously trashy. I'm not sure how I feel about this. There are several stores locally that specialise in ironic religious imagery and spoof 1950s advertising, and while I generally appreciate the humour, I still have embarassing childhood memories of really really coveting a pink glass bead rosary with a painted crucifix, just like the one now being sold as an arch ornament at the "Trendy 'n' Trashy" shop in my nearest mall.

I guess catholic aesthetics may be harder to shake than the guilt.

P.S. the patron saint of journalists is St Francis de Sales, who was bishop of Geneva at the height of Calvinism. He tried to convert Calvinists, and became a mystic. Apparently he wrote a lot of religious tracts and books, which by Catholic logic I suppose makes him a role model for people reporting the news. He also fell off his horse a lot, which may be a better reason, given the rampant drunkenness in the profession.

Well, I have finally succumbed. Through ten years of building websites for other people, writing about the web for newspapers and magazines, teaching university students about the web and conducting academic research into the web and its impact and importance, I never once built my own vanity site, or registered my own domain.

But, now, for some reason, I have succumbed and am creating a blog. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has more to do with the format of blogging, which appeals far more than the format of a personal "home page" as they used to be called.

As you may have surmised from the first paragraph, I am a journalist, web developer and academic, not in that order. I am currently the Johnnic Lecturer in New Media at Rhodes University, in Grahamstown, South Africa. The New Media Lab is part of the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, the leading english-language journalism school in South Africa, and probably Africa.

Right now, though, I am on secondment to the South African Broadcasting Corporation, working specifically with the news division on coverage of the 2004 national elections. I am working primarily on a GIS-based election results system, which will be used to provide ongoing information to journalists working on four TV channels and 16 radio stations, as well as to provide results directly to the online news service, the phone-based Newsbreak system, and to automatically generate television graphics and tickers.