Home › Blogs › Larsen on everything
« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 29, 2005
Thinking of the future II
In George Orwell's "1984," the main character works at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting the past to conform to the present. Facts, statements, references to people who no longer existed are altered, the original copy destroyed and the corrected copy the new official, and only record.
The process was continuous. Something could be altered over and over. The fixing applied to newspapers, books, films, cartoons, in fact, any kind of literature or documentation. I asked here Tuesday if such a process could happen today. The answer, of course, is yes because of the proliferation of computers and the Internet.
Consider newspapers. It is possible to create the news of the day only in an electronic form. The writing process, the design process and the preparation of photos can be prepare on a computer and posted on the Internet. Not a sheet of paper need be wasted. Even newspaper archives can be kept in electronic form. Anywhere along the process, a story or a photograph can be altered.
The same goes for governmental agencies. Reports, press releases and speeches by politicians and high governmental officials are all posted on the Internet.
In both cases, the Web site and content are controlled by people whose sole function is to post and maintain content. (At The Star, the department hand the Web site goes by the decidedly Orwellian-sounding name, New Media.) An error of fact can be corrected and the story, speech, report, etc., can be reposted.
Would you know if something had been altered? Most likely not because few people can remember verbatim what they read and hear and see. Even fewer would take the time to download an original posting and checking it periodically to see if anything changed.
As Orwell wrote in "1984, "If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable — what then?"
How about the "wiki" phenomenon?
According to Java.net, "wiki" is short for "What I know is." According to Wikipedia.org, "wiki" is based on the Hawaiian term "wiki wiki," meaning "quick" or "informal." When used on the Internet, wiki is an application that allows people not only to add content to a Web site, but to also edit content already posted there.
Wikipedia.org, for example, is creating an online encyclopedia by allowing users to write the content and to edit the content. There is no overall editor in chief who can pluck the chaff from the wheat; Wikipedia developers believe uses can do that by themselves. Wikipedia also sponsors a place for uses to create a dictionary (Wikinary) and to list the days news events (Wikinews). "Nonsense and vandalism are removed quickly," the Wikipedia Web site notes.
I don't particularly like the idea of a consensus-created encyclopedia; it leaves entries too open to misinformation. And I certainly don't believe the day's news events should be put together by consensus. And most definitely, the recently failed attempt by the Los Angeles Times to launch a "wikitorial," where readers could rewrite the paper's editorials, was a step that never should have been taken. A newspaper's opinion is just that — the newspaper's opinion. Can you imagine the uproar if a newspaper decided to create a "wikimentary" that allowed readers to rewrite columns by George Will, Tom Teepan, Thomas Friedman or Cliff May?
All this is tied into the possibility that the past could be easily rewritten and most people would never know. A fact changed here and there, a photo altered now and then. But will it?
I don't know about decidedly partisan Web sites, but I can say that, for the most part, the integrity of those work in the mainstream media and their devotion to credibility are powerful incentives to make sure what you read is accurate, historically correct and never altered. I hope also the same sense of integrity and credibility would be applied to governmental Web sites.
But the ease with which the record might be changed should come as a warning. It should make all more viglilant about what they read online. And it should harden the resolve of those whose lives are dedicated to recording, keeping and protecting information vital not merely to our understanding off the world, but out ability to reach into the future
Posted by Rick Larsen at 01:03 PM
June 28, 2005
Thinking of the future I
I have been rereading "1984," George Orwell's gloomy novel about an ultratotalitarian society, in which the government's motto is "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignroance is Strength." The novel gave us the concept of Big Brother (the state ruthlessly invading privacy in order to control individuals), the term doublethink (holding two contradictory beliefs and accepting both) and the punishable offence thoughtcrime (any thought not approved by the government).
Many of the ideas and concepts Orwell wrote about have become grist for the mill of challenging whatever one does not like. Big Brother, for example, has been used to describe government-approved laws, rules and regulation, or the tactics of a police force, or an employer who monitors people's use of the Internet or the company's phones for personal use. Religion has long had a tradition of rooting out thoughtcrime — perhaps thoughtsin would be a more apt word to use, but the concept is fairly similar, the belief that people need to do penance for thinking certain thoughts.
What strikes me most in this rereading is not so much the prophecy many people saw when the book was published in 1948 (just after the reign of fascism had been broken and just as the Cold War between Western democracy and Soviet totalitarianism was beginning), but the idea that history is a fluid thing, existing only today.
Winston Smith, the main character, works in the Ministry of Truth, the government agency responsible for all media. I have always believe that the news stories produced by the media are the first recordings of history, sketchy in initial details and subject to misinterpretation because not all the facts of an event have yet been revealed. Opinion, in this view, would be the first attempt to put history into a perspective.
In "1984," the concept of history is simple: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," Orwell wrote. Big Brother controls the present in "1984," and it is through people like Winston that it controls the past.
"The messages he had received," Orwell described, "referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify."
That is, if the party leader had made a statement a few months or few years previously that doesn't fit the facts of today, then the leader's words of the past are fixed to match the events of today.
As Orwell put it: "As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead."
History, thus, is rendered obsolete each day.
Could such a thing happen today?
The means and technology to do it do exist, and I'm certain the will exists in some circles to do just that. Will it?
Wednesday: Rethinking the future II
Posted by Rick Larsen at 12:04 PM
June 14, 2005
The elephant in the room
So, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after failing to carry through on his promise of trying to work with the Legislature resorts to an end run by calling a special election for Nov. 8. The only problem is that he is going into a venue that has already proved to be one of the main sources of California's problems — letting the voters try to govern the state.
Ever since the original Proposition 13 passed, special-interests groups, disgruntled citizens and wanna-be politicians have used the initiative process for self-serving gain — trimming taxes, locking in budget allocations, recalling a governor and just generally tinkering in areas where they have little expertise.
Can we expect anything different this time? Probably not. But thankfully, the historical record shows that California voters have defeated at least two-thirds of the initiatives that have appeared on the ballot. If the record holds true, let's hope the two of three initiatives defeated will be the one on spending and the one on teacher tenure.
That leaves the initiative on redistricting, which, if approved, would shift the 10-year process of redrawing legislative districts from the Legislature to a panel of retired judges. I know proponents of the initiative hope that if passed, districts could be redrawn in time for the 2006 midterm elections, but that seems hardly likely, given that one of the deadlines for potential candidates comes about nine days after the special election.
And I doubt the redrawing will be accomplished in time for the 2008 presidential election because proponents say congressional districts will be redrawn at the same time as state legislative districts. One tiny elephant in the room on this: Congressional redistricting is governed by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, which states that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of people (the actual definition of the people was changed by the 14th Amendment), that number was determined by an enumeration (census) of the people three years after the first meeting of Congress and "within every subsequent term of ten years" after.
Congressional districts have been reapportioned once already this decade and since no new population figures will be available until after the next census in 2010, it could be argued, and probably will be, that congressional district must wait until the normal time for redrawing, after a census.
Proponents haven't yet addressed how they will get around that seemingly constitutional issue, but it's likely the courts will be called into play and that will only delay implementation of any new redistricting structure approved.
In fact, none of the initiatives Schwarzenegger wants will be quickly implement. They could have been voted on in the 2006 primary, at a great savings to California taxpayers, and the outcome would have been the same.
So why does Schwarzenegger seem to believe that is must be done as soon as possible. Does it have to do with him considering a run for re-election? Or does it have to do with the fact that his popularity has fallen to 40 percent, which makes him, like Gov. Gray Davis before him, an ineffectual governor?
Posted by Rick Larsen at 12:57 PM
June 13, 2005
Who really cares?
So, Michael Jackson has been found not guilty. Not that it matters, but who really cares? We shall be subjected (unless we turn off our televisions) to endless speculation on where the prosecution went wrong and recap after recap on every aspect of the trial. Do we have more important things to do with our intellect? Doesn't the news media have more important issues to cover?
For example, after the verdict was read and Jackson and his entourage were in their black SUVs heading back to his Never Never Land ranch near Los Olivos, news helicopters followed the caravan as it spend along Highway 101. Would it have been better if those news organizations covered the solemn return of this nation's war dead?
That's another more important consideration, the war in Iraq and the daily deaths (1,701 as of Monday) of our sons and daughters, the nearly ignored war in Afghanistan and the deaths still occurring there (149 as of Monday) and the strain the war is taking on America's homeland defence, the reserves and the National Guard.
What about the genocide in Darfur (nearly 180,000 dead over nearly 30 months) and the failure of nations whose leaders consider themselves champions of make the world better to act speedily to halt the genocide, to feed the hungry, to care for the people?
What about the murder rate in the United States? The poverty rate? The number of uninsured children? The inability of people to be able to afford housing in Ventura County? The rising tirades against illegal immigration that are bordering on a new era of racism?
All these things are much more important than wasting time on a self-indulgent, out-of-touch-with-reality, pampered entertainer. Perhaps, though, one good thing can come from this. Maybe someone will be able to sit Jackson down and make him finally understand that yes, there is something wrong with a 46-year-old sleeping with young boys. But I doubt that. He's a celebrity and like other celebrities, too many people will make his star power more important than the person who has become buried inside him.
Posted by Rick Larsen at 02:19 PM
