I really like design: graphics, Photoshop, colours, photography, creating brochures, laying out web pages... that kind of thing. I'm no artist, I don't think; although I am not afraid to quickly sketch out an idea I have, suggesting broad ideas of layout and weights, I can't draw a horse to save my ass (even if I had a donkey of any kind). And my faces are quite scary... interesting, I think, but not realistic.
I keep the possibility of getting a degree or even just taking a course in graphic design, but what I need specifically, is not the physical ability to draw (don't need it), or the knowledge of the tools (already got it or can get it myself), or even the intuition of what works and what does (I think I`ve got that)... What I need is the theory, the tips, the tricks, the ratios of space to negative space, the guidelines as to how to use colour to achieve a certain effect. I`ve looked around for top-ten lists and tutorials for this kind of information and I occasionally find tidbits of such here and there, but there does not seem to be a nice practical compilation of such. (Tell me if I`ve missed a gem out there.) Perhaps contact with a professional in an educational setting would provide that, or even just the community of those interested enough to develop their skills in this area would help me find such recommended practices.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
"I don't dare laugh, down at the library."
This is Carol Burnett portraying a library worker (she doesn't claim to be a librarian in the video, although she does suggest reference work in addition to shelving) on The Lucy Show.
(Update 20110628: Video has been removed from Youtube and I have been unable to find a replacement. See comment from 20101031.)
[ Found this through an RSS feed entry from one of my favourite library related comic strips, Shelf Check. ]
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Seeing should not always be believing.
In the car this morning, listening to CBC Radio, I heard the start of a report on "Animal Law", and the change in thinking about animals, in terms of rights and our seeing them as possessions.
It made me think, not of animal rights or PETA or vegetarianism, but about "perceptual ethics". (Yeah, I'm weird like that.) I BELIEVE I just made up that term, but what I'm thinking of is an aspect of information ethics that is concerned with our perceptions and understanding of our ourselves and our environment. Perception is an action so we can be conscious of it and manage it to some degree, so therefore there can be ethical behaviour regarding perceptions. In other words there can be a "good perceptual act" and "bad perceptual act". The two issues that come to my mind in terms of perceiving in an ethical way would be in questioning the biases that we bring to an instance of perception beforehand, and in determining appropriate assumptions and actions that result from perceptions.
It might not be obvious that it is the actual act of perceiving that is to be consider good or bad (the above two aspects can be seen as pre-perception and post-perception) and I'm not sure how to resolve that. But the act of perceiving is not easily distinguishable from these pre- and post- "acts" and they are certainly consistently connected so I believe that the label "perceptual ethics" is still appropriate.
In the animal rights example above, for example, most of us probably see no or insufficient evidence of any awareness like ours in the animals around us. From this, we leap to two conclusions: (1) that it does not exist, and (2) that therefore we can treat them as we wish. I don't think either of these follows in any well-justified way. We are acting unethically in our perceptions of animal awareness.
I am not aware of any literature on this topic, so if you come across anything, send it my way!
It made me think, not of animal rights or PETA or vegetarianism, but about "perceptual ethics". (Yeah, I'm weird like that.) I BELIEVE I just made up that term, but what I'm thinking of is an aspect of information ethics that is concerned with our perceptions and understanding of our ourselves and our environment. Perception is an action so we can be conscious of it and manage it to some degree, so therefore there can be ethical behaviour regarding perceptions. In other words there can be a "good perceptual act" and "bad perceptual act". The two issues that come to my mind in terms of perceiving in an ethical way would be in questioning the biases that we bring to an instance of perception beforehand, and in determining appropriate assumptions and actions that result from perceptions.
It might not be obvious that it is the actual act of perceiving that is to be consider good or bad (the above two aspects can be seen as pre-perception and post-perception) and I'm not sure how to resolve that. But the act of perceiving is not easily distinguishable from these pre- and post- "acts" and they are certainly consistently connected so I believe that the label "perceptual ethics" is still appropriate.
In the animal rights example above, for example, most of us probably see no or insufficient evidence of any awareness like ours in the animals around us. From this, we leap to two conclusions: (1) that it does not exist, and (2) that therefore we can treat them as we wish. I don't think either of these follows in any well-justified way. We are acting unethically in our perceptions of animal awareness.
I am not aware of any literature on this topic, so if you come across anything, send it my way!
Monday, 23 February 2009
"Corn. Straight off the cob."
Watched Howard Hawks' Ball of Fire (1941) last night.
Although there were a whole bunch of "that wouldn't happen"s and "oh come on"s, I really liked the film. It was sappy and funny and intellectually intriguing.
Since a major part of the story line involves the creation of an encyclopedia, it made me think about the kind of work that would go into a project like that, particularly in that day: Would they really work alphabetically through the entries or would they jump around conceptually? Would they work together collaboratively, as they were doing with the dance they were trying to figure out, or would they rather work mostly independently in their own areas of expertise? And, whenever I'm presented with a story about exceptionally intelligent individuals, I'm always interested in how this intelligence is portrayed: full of knowledge but too often out of touch, which seems not intelligent but rather focused on something academic, which is often connected but not equivalent.
But in the end, it's a pseudo-love story. I say pseudo, because, as my wife points out, it's not really convincing that she loves him. But that doesn't really take away from the light entertaining happiness that you CAN get out of it, if you just accept it. This is not a complicated love story. Just sit back and be amused by Gary Cooper's / Professor Potts' naivete and honesty, while patiently waiting for the revelation that you know Barbara Stanwyck / Sugarpuss O'Shea will have.
Although there were a whole bunch of "that wouldn't happen"s and "oh come on"s, I really liked the film. It was sappy and funny and intellectually intriguing.
Since a major part of the story line involves the creation of an encyclopedia, it made me think about the kind of work that would go into a project like that, particularly in that day: Would they really work alphabetically through the entries or would they jump around conceptually? Would they work together collaboratively, as they were doing with the dance they were trying to figure out, or would they rather work mostly independently in their own areas of expertise? And, whenever I'm presented with a story about exceptionally intelligent individuals, I'm always interested in how this intelligence is portrayed: full of knowledge but too often out of touch, which seems not intelligent but rather focused on something academic, which is often connected but not equivalent.
But in the end, it's a pseudo-love story. I say pseudo, because, as my wife points out, it's not really convincing that she loves him. But that doesn't really take away from the light entertaining happiness that you CAN get out of it, if you just accept it. This is not a complicated love story. Just sit back and be amused by Gary Cooper's / Professor Potts' naivete and honesty, while patiently waiting for the revelation that you know Barbara Stanwyck / Sugarpuss O'Shea will have.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Librarians do it in stacks... Maintain collections, that is.
Just read "Topeka Library Board Restricts Access to Four Books on Sex" by Norman Oder from the Library Journal on February 20. The article talks about how the library board for Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library has decided to restrict access bye age to four books on the topic of sex, despite the director's recommendation and comments from other groups.
This is not uncommon. And not really surprising. A group of mayor or county appointed concerned citizens claiming that any exposure to sexual information to anyone under 18 (I'm assuming that's what passes for a minor in that area) is painfully traumatizing. Despite the seemingly obvious fact that this kind of reaction is probably the biggest cause of all our adult problems with sex, relationships, intimacy, gender issues and the like... Despite the fact that putting sex education material where you have to ask someone specifically for it will place an insurmountable barrier to the vast majority of the very adults the books are there to help... Despite the seemingly obvious contradiction of censoring these materials in the face of their own country's declarations of freedom and democracy... Despite all our own experience of not being scarred for life on discovering our Dad's Playboys and our continued ignorance even with such a valuable reference on a subject that's central to all our lives by definition... Despite all these issues with this story, I think my biggest problem is with the lack of similar action with materials "harmful to minors" (as well as the rest of us) due to a lack of truthfulness and reason.
We have a bizarre sense of priority. We shut down discussions and educational opportunities on an act and aspect of our society that ensures the continuation of our species (and at least half of us would say a very contented continuation... lol) because we think it's dangerous. And then we embrace and protect or simply ignore whole areas of irrationality, nonsense, bias and unjustified claims. Those who are religious literally place faith or belief without justification above reason. We raise our children on deliberate lies we call fairy tales and tradition. We get so much "information" from journalists, authors, and friends without requiring any amount of proof. Sure Oprah Winfrey gets upset when she finds out a book she's put her brand on turns out to be blatant lies, but then where were the measures taken to ensure that didn't happen in the first place?
I'm not saying that we should all live our lives through pure logic (although Mr. Spock's ears are a conversation starter!) and that no amount of fiction or childhood innocence is allowed or even appropriate or that religion provides nothing helpful or positive. Imagination of what's not possible or falling into a make-believe world is wonderful and valuable and we must all put bounds on the level of certainty we require from all the various sources in our lives. What I'm dismayed at is the relative lack of awareness of THESE issues and the disproportionate preoccupation with what seems to me to be mere insecurities and phobias. These latter are supposed to be managed and surmounted in the name of the former. Not embraced and maintained.
I do think we're getting better though. Fewer cases of censorship seem to bubble to the surface and they are often accompanied by reports of opposition. Sex education IS more available in schools overall and hopefully (because I have no numbers to support anything more than hope) parents are helping their children learn more. And, although so many see it as the downfall of civilization, sex and other untouchable subjects are coming into the mainstream more, which is good if only to allow us to talk about such things and discover what IS harmful and what is not.
So go out and talk. Or just stay where you are and comment here...
This is not uncommon. And not really surprising. A group of mayor or county appointed concerned citizens claiming that any exposure to sexual information to anyone under 18 (I'm assuming that's what passes for a minor in that area) is painfully traumatizing. Despite the seemingly obvious fact that this kind of reaction is probably the biggest cause of all our adult problems with sex, relationships, intimacy, gender issues and the like... Despite the fact that putting sex education material where you have to ask someone specifically for it will place an insurmountable barrier to the vast majority of the very adults the books are there to help... Despite the seemingly obvious contradiction of censoring these materials in the face of their own country's declarations of freedom and democracy... Despite all our own experience of not being scarred for life on discovering our Dad's Playboys and our continued ignorance even with such a valuable reference on a subject that's central to all our lives by definition... Despite all these issues with this story, I think my biggest problem is with the lack of similar action with materials "harmful to minors" (as well as the rest of us) due to a lack of truthfulness and reason.
We have a bizarre sense of priority. We shut down discussions and educational opportunities on an act and aspect of our society that ensures the continuation of our species (and at least half of us would say a very contented continuation... lol) because we think it's dangerous. And then we embrace and protect or simply ignore whole areas of irrationality, nonsense, bias and unjustified claims. Those who are religious literally place faith or belief without justification above reason. We raise our children on deliberate lies we call fairy tales and tradition. We get so much "information" from journalists, authors, and friends without requiring any amount of proof. Sure Oprah Winfrey gets upset when she finds out a book she's put her brand on turns out to be blatant lies, but then where were the measures taken to ensure that didn't happen in the first place?
I'm not saying that we should all live our lives through pure logic (although Mr. Spock's ears are a conversation starter!) and that no amount of fiction or childhood innocence is allowed or even appropriate or that religion provides nothing helpful or positive. Imagination of what's not possible or falling into a make-believe world is wonderful and valuable and we must all put bounds on the level of certainty we require from all the various sources in our lives. What I'm dismayed at is the relative lack of awareness of THESE issues and the disproportionate preoccupation with what seems to me to be mere insecurities and phobias. These latter are supposed to be managed and surmounted in the name of the former. Not embraced and maintained.
I do think we're getting better though. Fewer cases of censorship seem to bubble to the surface and they are often accompanied by reports of opposition. Sex education IS more available in schools overall and hopefully (because I have no numbers to support anything more than hope) parents are helping their children learn more. And, although so many see it as the downfall of civilization, sex and other untouchable subjects are coming into the mainstream more, which is good if only to allow us to talk about such things and discover what IS harmful and what is not.
So go out and talk. Or just stay where you are and comment here...
Friday, 20 February 2009
What does "Check Engine Soon" mean?
One of my biggest beefs with how people search for information is that they don't know (and don't care to know) how the tool that they are using works. Whenever I bring this up, the common response is something like, "You don't have to be an auto mechanic to drive." But I think this is a misunderstanding of what it is to know how something works.
To drive, you certainly don't need to know about everything that's under the hood, how spark plugs ignite fuel causing pistons to move up and all the rest. It may help in some way, in order to push your car to its extreme, or to ensure that you are not causing unnecessary harm to the engine, or even how to interpret subtle reactions the car may have to what you're doing. But you DO need to know what happens when you turn the steering wheel, when you step on the accelerator, when you turn the key... You need to know what the result is in pretty good detail (how much do you turn the steering to cause so much turn in the front wheels or how much gas to give it to accelerate a certain amount). You don't need to know how the car does what it does but you do need to know what it does. That's what "knowing how a car works" in a operational manner means.
Similarly when searching for information, you need to know how your search tool works. You don't need to know Google's proprietary code underneath the "hood" or what programming language PubMed uses on it's servers. You do need to know that when you type in a word in the Google search box, it's looking for entries in its database (i.e. web pages) that has that word in the web page (or rather Google's record of the web page) somewhere. You need to know that PubMed not only finds the article citations that has the word that you typed in somewhere but also maps that word to possible subject labels and includes the articles tagged with those too.
But too often, novice users merely type words and phrases into the box without considering what the box will do with those words and phrases. Some think they are clever and include Boolean terms like AND or OR or short forms of those like the plus (+) sign, but don't think to check whether the tool recognizes those terms or whether it uses them in the way they think. And I've come across a few tools that don't know themselves how they work. (For example, TRIP at http://www.tripdatabase.com claims in the search tips that users can include the connector AND but it "ands" terms by default anyway, making using the word useless.)
So, please, when you're searching, test out the tool a little first. See what changing your search a little will do to see if it does what you think it does. If you think adding more words will get you closer to what you want, see if adding any other word actually reduces your results. If it increases them, it's not doing what you think. So test drive your search engine or article index a little first. Or better yet, ask a librarian.
To drive, you certainly don't need to know about everything that's under the hood, how spark plugs ignite fuel causing pistons to move up and all the rest. It may help in some way, in order to push your car to its extreme, or to ensure that you are not causing unnecessary harm to the engine, or even how to interpret subtle reactions the car may have to what you're doing. But you DO need to know what happens when you turn the steering wheel, when you step on the accelerator, when you turn the key... You need to know what the result is in pretty good detail (how much do you turn the steering to cause so much turn in the front wheels or how much gas to give it to accelerate a certain amount). You don't need to know how the car does what it does but you do need to know what it does. That's what "knowing how a car works" in a operational manner means.
Similarly when searching for information, you need to know how your search tool works. You don't need to know Google's proprietary code underneath the "hood" or what programming language PubMed uses on it's servers. You do need to know that when you type in a word in the Google search box, it's looking for entries in its database (i.e. web pages) that has that word in the web page (or rather Google's record of the web page) somewhere. You need to know that PubMed not only finds the article citations that has the word that you typed in somewhere but also maps that word to possible subject labels and includes the articles tagged with those too.
But too often, novice users merely type words and phrases into the box without considering what the box will do with those words and phrases. Some think they are clever and include Boolean terms like AND or OR or short forms of those like the plus (+) sign, but don't think to check whether the tool recognizes those terms or whether it uses them in the way they think. And I've come across a few tools that don't know themselves how they work. (For example, TRIP at http://www.tripdatabase.com claims in the search tips that users can include the connector AND but it "ands" terms by default anyway, making using the word useless.)
So, please, when you're searching, test out the tool a little first. See what changing your search a little will do to see if it does what you think it does. If you think adding more words will get you closer to what you want, see if adding any other word actually reduces your results. If it increases them, it's not doing what you think. So test drive your search engine or article index a little first. Or better yet, ask a librarian.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Movin' on up...
A couple events in the past few days have made me feel excited for the future.
As I've probably mentioned before, I'm the chair of my kids' school's Parent Advisory Council. I haven't been chair for very long and this is the first position like this I've had outside of the world of librarianship so I got off to a rather slow start: merely arranging for meetings, creating agendas, piping in with suggestions and questions when appropriate. But not knowing the community or the school or the processes as much as the others, I felt a little cautious about proposing things and directing them in any way. But as I've learned more and listened more, I feel more confident in a leadership role. I love coming up with ideas and ways to see them through. In the past couple meetings, I've started us down the path of improving communication to the parents and just recently started a wiki to act as the school council's web site.
And just today, I got a call from Hamilton Public Library that they would like to interview me for the position of Branch Manager. I just had a phone interview yesterday and apparently they were sufficiently impressed that they want me to continue on down the process. I've loved working as a health sciences librarian in the position I have now, but it's always been a temporary position and it's coming to an end soon so I have to move on. I worked as a public librarian and supervisor before so I know I would do well and have a great time back there so I crossing my fingers on this one. I've applied to a whole bunch of positions in a wide variety of places and fields and levels but this one would be uber leet. LOL
Everything's coming up Milhouse! Good times FTW!
As I've probably mentioned before, I'm the chair of my kids' school's Parent Advisory Council. I haven't been chair for very long and this is the first position like this I've had outside of the world of librarianship so I got off to a rather slow start: merely arranging for meetings, creating agendas, piping in with suggestions and questions when appropriate. But not knowing the community or the school or the processes as much as the others, I felt a little cautious about proposing things and directing them in any way. But as I've learned more and listened more, I feel more confident in a leadership role. I love coming up with ideas and ways to see them through. In the past couple meetings, I've started us down the path of improving communication to the parents and just recently started a wiki to act as the school council's web site.
And just today, I got a call from Hamilton Public Library that they would like to interview me for the position of Branch Manager. I just had a phone interview yesterday and apparently they were sufficiently impressed that they want me to continue on down the process. I've loved working as a health sciences librarian in the position I have now, but it's always been a temporary position and it's coming to an end soon so I have to move on. I worked as a public librarian and supervisor before so I know I would do well and have a great time back there so I crossing my fingers on this one. I've applied to a whole bunch of positions in a wide variety of places and fields and levels but this one would be uber leet. LOL
Everything's coming up Milhouse! Good times FTW!
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Emulator to translator...
Read the article: "Welcome to the everything emulator" from the UK newspaper The Guardian, about the effort to create a single emulator to be able to open any old archaic computer file from any old archaic application. Reading this made me imagine the process in fast forward... In the beginning it would simply be a composite program that had the ability to open any number of important document formats, MS Word documents from the start of Office, image files of all the important types, and so on. As more and more format abilities are added to the emulator's resume, more "judgment" will be required of it, possibly identifying what version of what application best displays a certain file or something like that. I can imagine some young ingenius programmer thinking, "Why hardwire this thing to recognize individual file formats and link them up with the appropriate display process... I'll just write something to peel back the code and pull out the content and display it how I wish." The ability to recognize patterns and interpret meaning out of an never-before-seen encoded file would be, I think, at least theoretically possible. But this led me mentally to the concept of the Universal Translator from Star Trek. If a system can be developed to pull meaning out of an electronic file regardless of when or where it was developed, perhaps language itself can be interpretted automatically. Hmmm... What do you think?
Monday, 16 February 2009
A real day off...
I did remarkably little productive today. I had created a long list carefully scheduled for today's day off (due to either Heritage Day - a uniquely Kingston holiday - or Family Day - a recently conjured Ontario holiday) but disregarded it almost completely... I did reorganize all the items and postpone them appropriately. And you know what? I don't feel bad about it either. I got more accomplished Saturday and Sunday than I have in several past weekends so I figure I earned today's laziness. All I did today was:
- goof around in World of Warcraft, working on professions, checking mail, participating in silly guild chat...
- tried several more times in vain to convince my 8 year old daughter to PLEASE listen to what I have to say and that, unlike all the other parents in the world, I'm not saying these things for the good of my health... LOL
- and read an article that I will be peer reviewing for the Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA)
Sunday, 15 February 2009
25 random things? I think not...
Want to Know More About Me? Here are ‘25 Random Things.’ - NYTimes.com
So I'm seeing this "here's 25 random things about me that you didn't know" or didn't want to know or something. Sure that sounds interesting for some of the people I read the blogs of... It's always nice to know a little more about the people in your life. As I age I find out more and more about my own parents for criminies' sake! (Not all that I wanted to either.)
So I consider including this little literary meme for my own blogging purposes and guess what? I can't think of 25 things. Or maybe I can and I don't really want to. A random list of things I've done, things I've bought, things I've thought? I don't know if I'm that interesting really? LOL Here's what I can think of right now:
So I'm seeing this "here's 25 random things about me that you didn't know" or didn't want to know or something. Sure that sounds interesting for some of the people I read the blogs of... It's always nice to know a little more about the people in your life. As I age I find out more and more about my own parents for criminies' sake! (Not all that I wanted to either.)
So I consider including this little literary meme for my own blogging purposes and guess what? I can't think of 25 things. Or maybe I can and I don't really want to. A random list of things I've done, things I've bought, things I've thought? I don't know if I'm that interesting really? LOL Here's what I can think of right now:
- When we were young, I "taught" my little brother the Martian alphabet by just making up random sounds.
- In university, there was an empty field that I walked through between campus and home. One winter day I decided to create a path by walking in the same line (between two easily recognizable landmarks) every single time, there and back. After a while, everyone used my path and it's probably well-beaten to this day.
- I met my wife on the Internet! Ooooooooo...
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Journalism: a bone to pick...
I came up with the title of this entry with complete innocence, that is, lacking any "bone" pun in mind. It's simply that I have, for a long time, had a problem with the profession of news reporting. There are too many aspects of this line of work that get under my skin.
The first is probably the biggest: their claim to honest. When you hear someone in the profession talk about the purpose of journalism, the speech is full of words like honesty, accuracy, truth, unbiased, objective... They claim to find the facts and try to transmit them unadulterated to the people as best they can. I'll be the last one to claim that this is an easy job, but not only to they seem to avoid achieving their goals, but they fail extravagantly. When thinking of individuals that you would trust with information, I think that most people would put reporters dead last. This may be unfair to many who call themselves journalists, but generalizations come from somewhere and I don't find too many news reports brimming with the restraint and cold rationality I would expect from someone merely delivering the facts.
I have to reveal a small bias of my own. I am a librarian and I got my masters degree in library and information science from the University of Western Ontario. At this institution, the schools of librarianship and journalism are in the same faculty: the Faculty of Information and Media Studies. While there, I thought that this was an appropriate connection. Librarians (and archivists) collect, preserve and provide passive access to to information, and journalists, theoretically, actively discovery and disseminate information. How idealistic I was. The more I experienced the clash of the two schools, and the more I compared the actual output and practice of the two professions, the more I was disappointed. I'm not sure who's job it is to push information out to the masses but it's not reporters. Even the best of them are picking and choosing the most "interesting" pieces of "information" to push, and by that I unfortunately mean that it's only the most fantastic and entertaining news stories that make it to air. That's like an animal rights activist saving only the cutest and the cuddliest. Easier? Yes. Honest? I'm afraid not.
One particular bias has bubbled into my brain recently. I don't think I ever noticed before how much journalists are reporting on journalism itself. There seems to be an overabundance in the number of times that they are reporting on how freedom of the press is being trampled somewhere. I have no numbers to back me up - anyone want to take up this study? - so it's only a gut feeling based on my own limited experience but it only makes sense. What group of people wouldn't find themselves and their plight excessively interesting? But journalists claim to be above that.
Now I've been using the term "professional" to describe journalists out of a certain amount of courtesy and lack of other good labels but actually, not all journalists see themselves that way. Many wouldn't call themselves "professional" in the way I'm using it, and I've even heard them say that they don't really care for the "integrity" of the occupation. By this I mean that unlike other professions, anyone can pick up a pen and notepad and call themselves a journalist. For an occupation proud of their high standards of accuracy and trustworthiness, I'm not sure how they could ensure anything like that without also controlling who's allowed to wear the hat.
I'm sure there are some journalists/reporters out there who have something to say about all of this... Well? Have at me!
The first is probably the biggest: their claim to honest. When you hear someone in the profession talk about the purpose of journalism, the speech is full of words like honesty, accuracy, truth, unbiased, objective... They claim to find the facts and try to transmit them unadulterated to the people as best they can. I'll be the last one to claim that this is an easy job, but not only to they seem to avoid achieving their goals, but they fail extravagantly. When thinking of individuals that you would trust with information, I think that most people would put reporters dead last. This may be unfair to many who call themselves journalists, but generalizations come from somewhere and I don't find too many news reports brimming with the restraint and cold rationality I would expect from someone merely delivering the facts.
I have to reveal a small bias of my own. I am a librarian and I got my masters degree in library and information science from the University of Western Ontario. At this institution, the schools of librarianship and journalism are in the same faculty: the Faculty of Information and Media Studies. While there, I thought that this was an appropriate connection. Librarians (and archivists) collect, preserve and provide passive access to to information, and journalists, theoretically, actively discovery and disseminate information. How idealistic I was. The more I experienced the clash of the two schools, and the more I compared the actual output and practice of the two professions, the more I was disappointed. I'm not sure who's job it is to push information out to the masses but it's not reporters. Even the best of them are picking and choosing the most "interesting" pieces of "information" to push, and by that I unfortunately mean that it's only the most fantastic and entertaining news stories that make it to air. That's like an animal rights activist saving only the cutest and the cuddliest. Easier? Yes. Honest? I'm afraid not.
One particular bias has bubbled into my brain recently. I don't think I ever noticed before how much journalists are reporting on journalism itself. There seems to be an overabundance in the number of times that they are reporting on how freedom of the press is being trampled somewhere. I have no numbers to back me up - anyone want to take up this study? - so it's only a gut feeling based on my own limited experience but it only makes sense. What group of people wouldn't find themselves and their plight excessively interesting? But journalists claim to be above that.
Now I've been using the term "professional" to describe journalists out of a certain amount of courtesy and lack of other good labels but actually, not all journalists see themselves that way. Many wouldn't call themselves "professional" in the way I'm using it, and I've even heard them say that they don't really care for the "integrity" of the occupation. By this I mean that unlike other professions, anyone can pick up a pen and notepad and call themselves a journalist. For an occupation proud of their high standards of accuracy and trustworthiness, I'm not sure how they could ensure anything like that without also controlling who's allowed to wear the hat.
I'm sure there are some journalists/reporters out there who have something to say about all of this... Well? Have at me!
Friday, 13 February 2009
Double the fun...
Since getting my laptop, I've discovered that I NEED two computers at all times. I've taken to using it in my office, on a table next my desktop. I do most of my work on my laptop, initially just to give myself an excuse to get used to the slightly different OS and apps, a different feeling keyboard, etc. but now it's mostly because that's where my "stuff" is. LOL But I'm always going back to my desktop for the odd thing: printing something off quickly (not easy on my laptop yet), getting a file off it that I haven't moved over yet, or to use some app I can't install elsewhere. When it's my shift on the reference desk, I bring it out there to continue whatever it is that I'm working on, seamlessly, and to be able to save where and how I want. I'm convinced (or convincing myself) that it's more productive this way (it really is but of course there's a whole heap of security blanket piled on there too).
Now I come home and occasionally my wife leaves our desktop defenseless and I sit down beside it and I play episodes of Battlestar Galactica or play some Daft Punk tracks that I've left on there... It's my extra-media processor, providing white noise (entertaining white noise) in the background of my blogging, searching, WoWing or random goofing off. I could have my laptop doing it but for some reason it's not as multi-tasky.
Maybe I'll have to get a second computer of my own...
Maybe I'll have to find a support group for this...
Now I come home and occasionally my wife leaves our desktop defenseless and I sit down beside it and I play episodes of Battlestar Galactica or play some Daft Punk tracks that I've left on there... It's my extra-media processor, providing white noise (entertaining white noise) in the background of my blogging, searching, WoWing or random goofing off. I could have my laptop doing it but for some reason it's not as multi-tasky.
Maybe I'll have to get a second computer of my own...
Maybe I'll have to find a support group for this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)