Textos da Internet
27.3.04
excertos de "the weblog handbook", rebecca blood
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/print/0,23102,3453473,00.html
Choose the Right Blog Tool
Know what to look for when you first enter the weblog world.
By Rebecca Blood
Rebecca Blood, author of "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog", visits tonight's show to discuss the blogging phenomenon and give us blogging tips. Read Sarah's interview with Blood, then, to learn about choosing the right blog tool, sample this excerpt from Blood's book.
"In the beginning, weblogs were created by Web professionals or by hobbyists who had taught themselves HTML. If you are one of these people, you will find designing and maintaining a weblog to be a breeze. You already have the knowledge to evaluate and the skill to use any of the current weblog management tools. Even if you plan to code your site by hand, take the time to investigate the available tools; they can greatly simplify the management of your site. But these days most new webloggers do not have a technical background and for them there is a vast mysterious expanse between 'I'm going to start a weblog' and 'There! My first entry is up.'
There is only one rule when selecting any tool or element for your website: choose the one that most closely matches your needs. Since you are just starting out, your requirements should be clear: easy and free. As you gain experience you may want to invest in tools that are more sophisticated than the ones you will begin with. But if your weblogging experiment requires that you learn three complex software programs and a coding language or two, you'll never get out of the starting gate, or if you do it will be months from now.
So, let's start at the very beginning. To start you will need a place to host your weblog and a way to update it. When you look at any website, your computer is looking at specially coded files that reside on a computer that is configured to publish Web pages to the world. Your 'host' will be one of these computers (sometimes called a server). From this computer your weblog will be viewable by anyone who knows the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or what you may commonly refer to as the 'Web address'.
A few weblog management tools offer free hosting. Because all the details will be taken care of for you, one of these services is often the best choice for a beginning weblogger. Now, these services have some drawbacks: because they are free to anyone who signs up, the service may be slow and there may be outages (times when their hosting servers malfunction, preventing you from reading and/or updating your website). These services go through cycles as they become popular, their equipment becomes overloaded, they upgrade their machines, and then eventually become overloaded again. That said, to my knowledge these services all work very hard to provide good service for their users, and many webloggers have no desire to host their weblogs elsewhere.
All of these services have a link on the home page that will take you to a sign-up form. All of them require a user name and password, and maybe an email address. All of them will provide easy-to-follow directions for creating your new weblog. Spend a weekend or several weeknights signing up for a few of these services so that you can see what they offer and exactly how they work. Use Google to search for ["free weblog"] and [weblog "free hosting"] (omit the brackets and keep the quotation marks) to find the services that currently offer free weblog hosting.
Begin by making a list of the services you want to consider, and then go to each and create an account for evaluation purposes. You may be given a list of preferences to select from, or you may jump straight to the posting page. Some sites automatically create a list of recently updated weblogs. If you are given the option, make your test weblog private (which just means that your site will not be included on that list). For all intents and purposes, your site will be private until you publish the URL in a directory or give it to your friends. If you are very nervous about being discovered, title your test weblog with a fake name.
Play around a bit with the posting functions of each service and try out all or many of the available templates to see which one suits you the best. Try updating your new site. Don't plan on posting anything of importance, just start clicking links and pushing buttons to see what happens next.
Do this with several services until you find one that feels like a good fit. As you look at your weblog management page, ask yourself a few questions about the interface.
* Can you easily identify how to create and delete an entry?
* Can you easily change the way your site looks?
* How do you add the name of your weblog to the page?
* Does this service offer clear instructions?
* Is it easy to find help when you need it?
* Do you need to read the directions before you can actually use the service, or are many of the available functions easily understandable just by looking?
* Are there user forums where you can ask questions?
Put yourself front and center as you evaluate these products. It doesn't matter if the service looks well thought out and well documented if you have difficulty understanding what you should do next. It doesn't matter how many other people happily use the service or how many of them think it is simple to use. When you read the directions do they make sense to you? Choose the service that you find easiest to use."
From the book "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog" by Rebecca Blood. Copyright 2002. Reprinted by permission of Perseus Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Originally posted June 13, 2003
http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html
Weblog Ethics
Weblogs are the mavericks of the online world. Two of their greatest strengths are their ability to filter and disseminate information to a widely dispersed audience, and their position outside the mainstream of mass media. Beholden to no one, weblogs point to, comment on, and spread information according to their own, quirky criteria.
The weblog network's potential influence may be the real reason mainstream news organizations have begun investigating the phenomenon, and it probably underlies much of the talk about weblogs as journalism. Webloggers may not think in terms of control and influence, but commercial media do. Mass media seeks, above all, to gain a wide audience. Advertising revenues, the lifeblood of any professional publication or broadcast, depend on the size of that publication's audience. Content, from a business standpoint, is there only to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, whether the medium is paper or television.
Journalists--the people who actually report the news--are acutely aware of the potential for abuse that is inherent in their system, which relies on support from businesses and power brokers, each with an agenda to promote. Their ethical standards are designed to delineate the journalist's responsibilities and provide a clear code of conduct that will ensure the integrity of the news.
Weblogs, produced by nonprofessionals, have no such code, and individual webloggers seem almost proud of their amateur status. "We don't need no stinkin' fact checkers" seems to be the prevailing attitude, as if inaccuracy were a virtue.
Let me propose a radical notion: The weblog's greatest strength--its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice--is also its greatest weakness. News outlets may be ultimately beholden to advertising interests, and reporters may have a strong incentive for remaining on good terms with their sources in order to remain in the loop; but because they are businesses with salaries to pay, advertisers to please, and audiences to attract and hold, professional news organizations have a vested interest in upholding certain standards so that readers keep subscribing and advertisers keep buying. Weblogs, with only minor costs and little hope of significant financial gain, have no such incentives.
The very things that may compromise professional news outlets are at the same time incentives for some level of journalistic standards. And the very things that make weblogs so valuable as alternative news sources--the lack of gatekeepers and the freedom from all consequences--may compromise their integrity and thus their value. There is every indication that weblogs will gain even greater influence as their numbers grow and awareness of the form becomes more widespread. It is not true, as some people assert, that the network will route around misinformation, or that the truth is always filtered to widespread awareness. Rumors spread because they are fun to pass along. Corrections rarely gain much traction either in the real world or online; they just aren't as much fun.
There has been almost no talk about ethics in the weblog universe: Mavericks are notoriously resistant to being told what to do. But I would propose a set of six rules that I think form a basis of ethical behavior for online publishers of all kinds.1 I hope that the weblog community will thoughtfully consider the principles outlined here; in time, and with experience, the community may see the need to add to these rules or to further codify our standards. At the very least, I hope these principles will spur discussion about our responsibilities and the ramifications of our collective behavior.
Journalistic codes of ethics seek to ensure fairness and accuracy in news reporting. By comparison, each of these suggestions attempts to bring transparency--one of the weblog's distinguishing characteristics and greatest strengths--into every aspect of the practice of weblogging. It is unrealistic to expect every weblogger to present an even-handed picture of the world, but it is very reasonable to expect them to be forthcoming about their sources, biases, and behavior.
Webloggers who, despite my best efforts, persist in their quest to be regarded as journalists will have a special interest in adhering to these principles. News organizations may someday be willing to point to weblogs (or weblog entries) as serious sources, but only if weblogs have, as a whole, demonstrated integrity in their information gathering and dissemination, and consistency in their online conduct.
Any weblogger who expects to be accorded the privileges and protections of a professional journalist will need to go further than these principles. Rights have associated responsibilities; in the end it is an individual's professionalism and meticulous observance of recognized ethical standards that determines her status in the eyes of society and the law. For the rest of us, I believe the following standards are sufficient:
1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
If your statement is speculation, say so. If you have reason to believe that something is not true, either don't post it, or note your reservations. When you make an assertion, do so in good faith; state it as fact only if, to the best of your knowledge, it is so.
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
Linking to referenced material allows readers to judge for themselves the accuracy and insightfulness of your statements. Referencing material but selectively linking only that with which you agree is manipulative. Online readers deserve, as much as possible, access to all of the facts--the Web, used this way, empowers readers to become active, not passive, consumers of information. Further, linking to source material is the very means by which we are creating a vast, new, collective network of information and knowledge.
On the rare occasion when a writer wishes to reference but not drive traffic to a site she considers to be morally reprehensible (for example, a hate site), she should type out (but not link) the name or URL of the offending site and state the reasons for her decision. This will give motivated readers the information they need to find the site in order to make their own judgment. This strategy allows the writer to preserve her own transparency (and thus her integrity) while simultaneously declining to lend support to a cause she finds contemptible.
3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
If you find that you have linked to a story that was untrue, make a note of it and link to a more accurate report. If one of your own statements proves to be inaccurate, note your misstatement and the truth. Ideally, these corrections would appear in the most current version of your weblog and as an added note to the original entry. (Remember that search engines will pull up entries without regard to when they were posted; once an entry exists in your archives, it may continue to spread an untruth even if you corrected the information a few days later.) If you aren't willing to add a correction to previous entries, at least note it in a later post.
One clear method of denoting a correction is the one employed by Cory Doctorow, one of the contributors to the Boing Boing weblog. He strikes through any erroneous information and adds the corrected information immediately following. The reader can see at a glance what Bill Cory originally wrote and that he has updated the entry with information he feels to be more accurate. (Do it like this in HTML: The reader can see at a glance whatBill Cory originally wrote and that he has updated the entry with information he feels to be more accurate.)
4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
Post deliberately. If you invest each entry with intent, you will ensure your personal and professional integrity.
Changing or deleting entries destroys the integrity of the network. The Web is designed to be connected; indeed, the weblog permalink is an invitation for others to link. Anyone who comments on or cites a document on the Web relies on that document (or entry) to remain unchanged. A prominent addendum is the preferred way to correct any information anywhere on the Web. If an addendum is impractical, as in the case of an essay that contains numerous inaccuracies, changes must be noted with the date and a brief description of the nature of the change.
If you think this is overly scrupulous, consider the case of the writer who points to an online document in support of an assertion. If this document changes or disappears--and especially if the change is not noted--her argument may be rendered nonsensical. Books do not change; journals are static. On paper, new versions are always denoted as such.
The network of shared knowledge we are building will never be more than a novelty unless we protect its integrity by creating permanent records of our publications. The network benefits when even entries that are rendered irrelevant by changing circumstance are left as a historical record. As an example: A weblogger complains about inaccuracies in an online article; the writer corrects those inaccuracies (and notes them!); the weblogger's entry is therefore meaningless--or is it? Deleting the entry somehow asserts that the whole incident simply didn't happen--but it did. The record is more accurate and history is better served if the weblogger notes beneath the original entry that the writer has made the corrections and the article is now, to the weblogger's knowledge, accurate.
History can be rewritten, but it cannot be undone. Changing or deleting words is possible on the Web, but possibility does not always make good policy. Think before you publish and stand behind what you write. If you later decide you were wrong about something, make a note of it and move on.
I make a point never to post anything I am not willing to stand behind even if I later disagree. I work to be thoughtful and accurate, no matter how angry or excited I am about a particular topic. If I change my opinion in a day or two, I just note the change. If I need to apologize for something I've said, I do so.
If you discover that you have posted erroneous information, you must note this publicly on your weblog. Deleting the offending entry will do nothing to correct the misinformation your readers have already absorbed. Taking the additional step of adding a correction to the original entry will ensure that Google broadcasts accurate information into the future.
The only exception to this rule is when you inadvertently reveal personal information about someone else. If you discover that you have violated a confidence or made an acquaintance uncomfortable by mentioning him, it is only fair to remove the offending entry altogether, but note that you have done so.
5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
Most webloggers are quite transparent about their jobs and professional interests. It is the computer programmer's expertise that gives her commentary special weight when she analyzes a magazine article about the merits of the latest operating system. Since weblog audiences are built on trust, it is to every weblogger's benefit to disclose any monetary (or other potentially conflicting) interests when appropriate. An entrepreneur may have special insight into the effect of a proposed Senate bill or a business merger; if she stands to benefit directly from the outcome of any event, she should note that in her comments. A weblogger, impressed with a service or product, should note that she holds stock in the company every time she promotes the service on her page. Even the weblogger who receives a CD for review should note that fact; her readers can decide for themselves whether her favorable review is based on her taste or on her desire to continue to receive free CDs.
Quickly note any potential conflict of interest and then say your piece; your readers will have all the information they need to assess your commentary.
6. Note questionable and biased sources.
When a serious article comes from a highly biased or questionable source, the weblogger has a responsibility to clearly note the nature of the site on which it was found. In their foraging, webloggers occasionally find interesting, well-written articles on sites that are maintained by highly biased organizations or by seemingly fanatical individuals. Readers need to know whether an article on the medical ramifications of first trimester abortion comes from a site that is pro-life, pro-choice, or strongly opposed to medical intervention of all kinds. A thoughtful summation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be worth reading whether it is written by a member of the PLO or a Zionist--but readers have the right to be alerted to the source.
It is reasonable to expect that expert foragers have the knowledge and motivation to assess the nature of these sources; it is not reasonable to assume that all readers do. Readers depend on weblogs, to some extent, for guidance in navigating the Web. To present an article from a source that is a little nutty or has a strong agenda is fine; not to acknowledge the nature of that source is unethical, since readers don't have the information they need to fully evaluate the article's merits.
If you are afraid that your readers will discount the article entirely based on its context, consider why you are linking it at all. If you strongly feel the piece has merit, say why and let it stand on its own, but be clear about its source. Your readers may cease to trust you if they discover even once that you disguised--or didn't make clear--the source of an article they might have evaluated differently had they been given all the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 With regard to points 1 and 5, I am indebted to Dave Winer for his discussions on Scripting News about integrity with regard to weblogging. Though our thinking diverges greatly, his ideas were one springboard for my own thoughts on the matter.
Referenced and related URLs
from the Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog by Rebecca Blood, copyright 2002, all rights reserved
Choose the Right Blog Tool
Know what to look for when you first enter the weblog world.
By Rebecca Blood
Rebecca Blood, author of "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog", visits tonight's show to discuss the blogging phenomenon and give us blogging tips. Read Sarah's interview with Blood, then, to learn about choosing the right blog tool, sample this excerpt from Blood's book.
"In the beginning, weblogs were created by Web professionals or by hobbyists who had taught themselves HTML. If you are one of these people, you will find designing and maintaining a weblog to be a breeze. You already have the knowledge to evaluate and the skill to use any of the current weblog management tools. Even if you plan to code your site by hand, take the time to investigate the available tools; they can greatly simplify the management of your site. But these days most new webloggers do not have a technical background and for them there is a vast mysterious expanse between 'I'm going to start a weblog' and 'There! My first entry is up.'
There is only one rule when selecting any tool or element for your website: choose the one that most closely matches your needs. Since you are just starting out, your requirements should be clear: easy and free. As you gain experience you may want to invest in tools that are more sophisticated than the ones you will begin with. But if your weblogging experiment requires that you learn three complex software programs and a coding language or two, you'll never get out of the starting gate, or if you do it will be months from now.
So, let's start at the very beginning. To start you will need a place to host your weblog and a way to update it. When you look at any website, your computer is looking at specially coded files that reside on a computer that is configured to publish Web pages to the world. Your 'host' will be one of these computers (sometimes called a server). From this computer your weblog will be viewable by anyone who knows the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or what you may commonly refer to as the 'Web address'.
A few weblog management tools offer free hosting. Because all the details will be taken care of for you, one of these services is often the best choice for a beginning weblogger. Now, these services have some drawbacks: because they are free to anyone who signs up, the service may be slow and there may be outages (times when their hosting servers malfunction, preventing you from reading and/or updating your website). These services go through cycles as they become popular, their equipment becomes overloaded, they upgrade their machines, and then eventually become overloaded again. That said, to my knowledge these services all work very hard to provide good service for their users, and many webloggers have no desire to host their weblogs elsewhere.
All of these services have a link on the home page that will take you to a sign-up form. All of them require a user name and password, and maybe an email address. All of them will provide easy-to-follow directions for creating your new weblog. Spend a weekend or several weeknights signing up for a few of these services so that you can see what they offer and exactly how they work. Use Google to search for ["free weblog"] and [weblog "free hosting"] (omit the brackets and keep the quotation marks) to find the services that currently offer free weblog hosting.
Begin by making a list of the services you want to consider, and then go to each and create an account for evaluation purposes. You may be given a list of preferences to select from, or you may jump straight to the posting page. Some sites automatically create a list of recently updated weblogs. If you are given the option, make your test weblog private (which just means that your site will not be included on that list). For all intents and purposes, your site will be private until you publish the URL in a directory or give it to your friends. If you are very nervous about being discovered, title your test weblog with a fake name.
Play around a bit with the posting functions of each service and try out all or many of the available templates to see which one suits you the best. Try updating your new site. Don't plan on posting anything of importance, just start clicking links and pushing buttons to see what happens next.
Do this with several services until you find one that feels like a good fit. As you look at your weblog management page, ask yourself a few questions about the interface.
* Can you easily identify how to create and delete an entry?
* Can you easily change the way your site looks?
* How do you add the name of your weblog to the page?
* Does this service offer clear instructions?
* Is it easy to find help when you need it?
* Do you need to read the directions before you can actually use the service, or are many of the available functions easily understandable just by looking?
* Are there user forums where you can ask questions?
Put yourself front and center as you evaluate these products. It doesn't matter if the service looks well thought out and well documented if you have difficulty understanding what you should do next. It doesn't matter how many other people happily use the service or how many of them think it is simple to use. When you read the directions do they make sense to you? Choose the service that you find easiest to use."
From the book "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog" by Rebecca Blood. Copyright 2002. Reprinted by permission of Perseus Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Originally posted June 13, 2003
http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html
Weblog Ethics
Weblogs are the mavericks of the online world. Two of their greatest strengths are their ability to filter and disseminate information to a widely dispersed audience, and their position outside the mainstream of mass media. Beholden to no one, weblogs point to, comment on, and spread information according to their own, quirky criteria.
The weblog network's potential influence may be the real reason mainstream news organizations have begun investigating the phenomenon, and it probably underlies much of the talk about weblogs as journalism. Webloggers may not think in terms of control and influence, but commercial media do. Mass media seeks, above all, to gain a wide audience. Advertising revenues, the lifeblood of any professional publication or broadcast, depend on the size of that publication's audience. Content, from a business standpoint, is there only to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, whether the medium is paper or television.
Journalists--the people who actually report the news--are acutely aware of the potential for abuse that is inherent in their system, which relies on support from businesses and power brokers, each with an agenda to promote. Their ethical standards are designed to delineate the journalist's responsibilities and provide a clear code of conduct that will ensure the integrity of the news.
Weblogs, produced by nonprofessionals, have no such code, and individual webloggers seem almost proud of their amateur status. "We don't need no stinkin' fact checkers" seems to be the prevailing attitude, as if inaccuracy were a virtue.
Let me propose a radical notion: The weblog's greatest strength--its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice--is also its greatest weakness. News outlets may be ultimately beholden to advertising interests, and reporters may have a strong incentive for remaining on good terms with their sources in order to remain in the loop; but because they are businesses with salaries to pay, advertisers to please, and audiences to attract and hold, professional news organizations have a vested interest in upholding certain standards so that readers keep subscribing and advertisers keep buying. Weblogs, with only minor costs and little hope of significant financial gain, have no such incentives.
The very things that may compromise professional news outlets are at the same time incentives for some level of journalistic standards. And the very things that make weblogs so valuable as alternative news sources--the lack of gatekeepers and the freedom from all consequences--may compromise their integrity and thus their value. There is every indication that weblogs will gain even greater influence as their numbers grow and awareness of the form becomes more widespread. It is not true, as some people assert, that the network will route around misinformation, or that the truth is always filtered to widespread awareness. Rumors spread because they are fun to pass along. Corrections rarely gain much traction either in the real world or online; they just aren't as much fun.
There has been almost no talk about ethics in the weblog universe: Mavericks are notoriously resistant to being told what to do. But I would propose a set of six rules that I think form a basis of ethical behavior for online publishers of all kinds.1 I hope that the weblog community will thoughtfully consider the principles outlined here; in time, and with experience, the community may see the need to add to these rules or to further codify our standards. At the very least, I hope these principles will spur discussion about our responsibilities and the ramifications of our collective behavior.
Journalistic codes of ethics seek to ensure fairness and accuracy in news reporting. By comparison, each of these suggestions attempts to bring transparency--one of the weblog's distinguishing characteristics and greatest strengths--into every aspect of the practice of weblogging. It is unrealistic to expect every weblogger to present an even-handed picture of the world, but it is very reasonable to expect them to be forthcoming about their sources, biases, and behavior.
Webloggers who, despite my best efforts, persist in their quest to be regarded as journalists will have a special interest in adhering to these principles. News organizations may someday be willing to point to weblogs (or weblog entries) as serious sources, but only if weblogs have, as a whole, demonstrated integrity in their information gathering and dissemination, and consistency in their online conduct.
Any weblogger who expects to be accorded the privileges and protections of a professional journalist will need to go further than these principles. Rights have associated responsibilities; in the end it is an individual's professionalism and meticulous observance of recognized ethical standards that determines her status in the eyes of society and the law. For the rest of us, I believe the following standards are sufficient:
1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
If your statement is speculation, say so. If you have reason to believe that something is not true, either don't post it, or note your reservations. When you make an assertion, do so in good faith; state it as fact only if, to the best of your knowledge, it is so.
2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
Linking to referenced material allows readers to judge for themselves the accuracy and insightfulness of your statements. Referencing material but selectively linking only that with which you agree is manipulative. Online readers deserve, as much as possible, access to all of the facts--the Web, used this way, empowers readers to become active, not passive, consumers of information. Further, linking to source material is the very means by which we are creating a vast, new, collective network of information and knowledge.
On the rare occasion when a writer wishes to reference but not drive traffic to a site she considers to be morally reprehensible (for example, a hate site), she should type out (but not link) the name or URL of the offending site and state the reasons for her decision. This will give motivated readers the information they need to find the site in order to make their own judgment. This strategy allows the writer to preserve her own transparency (and thus her integrity) while simultaneously declining to lend support to a cause she finds contemptible.
3. Publicly correct any misinformation.
If you find that you have linked to a story that was untrue, make a note of it and link to a more accurate report. If one of your own statements proves to be inaccurate, note your misstatement and the truth. Ideally, these corrections would appear in the most current version of your weblog and as an added note to the original entry. (Remember that search engines will pull up entries without regard to when they were posted; once an entry exists in your archives, it may continue to spread an untruth even if you corrected the information a few days later.) If you aren't willing to add a correction to previous entries, at least note it in a later post.
One clear method of denoting a correction is the one employed by Cory Doctorow, one of the contributors to the Boing Boing weblog. He strikes through any erroneous information and adds the corrected information immediately following. The reader can see at a glance what Bill Cory originally wrote and that he has updated the entry with information he feels to be more accurate. (Do it like this in HTML: The reader can see at a glance what
4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
Post deliberately. If you invest each entry with intent, you will ensure your personal and professional integrity.
Changing or deleting entries destroys the integrity of the network. The Web is designed to be connected; indeed, the weblog permalink is an invitation for others to link. Anyone who comments on or cites a document on the Web relies on that document (or entry) to remain unchanged. A prominent addendum is the preferred way to correct any information anywhere on the Web. If an addendum is impractical, as in the case of an essay that contains numerous inaccuracies, changes must be noted with the date and a brief description of the nature of the change.
If you think this is overly scrupulous, consider the case of the writer who points to an online document in support of an assertion. If this document changes or disappears--and especially if the change is not noted--her argument may be rendered nonsensical. Books do not change; journals are static. On paper, new versions are always denoted as such.
The network of shared knowledge we are building will never be more than a novelty unless we protect its integrity by creating permanent records of our publications. The network benefits when even entries that are rendered irrelevant by changing circumstance are left as a historical record. As an example: A weblogger complains about inaccuracies in an online article; the writer corrects those inaccuracies (and notes them!); the weblogger's entry is therefore meaningless--or is it? Deleting the entry somehow asserts that the whole incident simply didn't happen--but it did. The record is more accurate and history is better served if the weblogger notes beneath the original entry that the writer has made the corrections and the article is now, to the weblogger's knowledge, accurate.
History can be rewritten, but it cannot be undone. Changing or deleting words is possible on the Web, but possibility does not always make good policy. Think before you publish and stand behind what you write. If you later decide you were wrong about something, make a note of it and move on.
I make a point never to post anything I am not willing to stand behind even if I later disagree. I work to be thoughtful and accurate, no matter how angry or excited I am about a particular topic. If I change my opinion in a day or two, I just note the change. If I need to apologize for something I've said, I do so.
If you discover that you have posted erroneous information, you must note this publicly on your weblog. Deleting the offending entry will do nothing to correct the misinformation your readers have already absorbed. Taking the additional step of adding a correction to the original entry will ensure that Google broadcasts accurate information into the future.
The only exception to this rule is when you inadvertently reveal personal information about someone else. If you discover that you have violated a confidence or made an acquaintance uncomfortable by mentioning him, it is only fair to remove the offending entry altogether, but note that you have done so.
5. Disclose any conflict of interest.
Most webloggers are quite transparent about their jobs and professional interests. It is the computer programmer's expertise that gives her commentary special weight when she analyzes a magazine article about the merits of the latest operating system. Since weblog audiences are built on trust, it is to every weblogger's benefit to disclose any monetary (or other potentially conflicting) interests when appropriate. An entrepreneur may have special insight into the effect of a proposed Senate bill or a business merger; if she stands to benefit directly from the outcome of any event, she should note that in her comments. A weblogger, impressed with a service or product, should note that she holds stock in the company every time she promotes the service on her page. Even the weblogger who receives a CD for review should note that fact; her readers can decide for themselves whether her favorable review is based on her taste or on her desire to continue to receive free CDs.
Quickly note any potential conflict of interest and then say your piece; your readers will have all the information they need to assess your commentary.
6. Note questionable and biased sources.
When a serious article comes from a highly biased or questionable source, the weblogger has a responsibility to clearly note the nature of the site on which it was found. In their foraging, webloggers occasionally find interesting, well-written articles on sites that are maintained by highly biased organizations or by seemingly fanatical individuals. Readers need to know whether an article on the medical ramifications of first trimester abortion comes from a site that is pro-life, pro-choice, or strongly opposed to medical intervention of all kinds. A thoughtful summation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be worth reading whether it is written by a member of the PLO or a Zionist--but readers have the right to be alerted to the source.
It is reasonable to expect that expert foragers have the knowledge and motivation to assess the nature of these sources; it is not reasonable to assume that all readers do. Readers depend on weblogs, to some extent, for guidance in navigating the Web. To present an article from a source that is a little nutty or has a strong agenda is fine; not to acknowledge the nature of that source is unethical, since readers don't have the information they need to fully evaluate the article's merits.
If you are afraid that your readers will discount the article entirely based on its context, consider why you are linking it at all. If you strongly feel the piece has merit, say why and let it stand on its own, but be clear about its source. Your readers may cease to trust you if they discover even once that you disguised--or didn't make clear--the source of an article they might have evaluated differently had they been given all the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 With regard to points 1 and 5, I am indebted to Dave Winer for his discussions on Scripting News about integrity with regard to weblogging. Though our thinking diverges greatly, his ideas were one springboard for my own thoughts on the matter.
Referenced and related URLs
from the Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog by Rebecca Blood, copyright 2002, all rights reserved
rebecca blood
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/howto/story/0,24330,3453269,00.html
Q&A: Be a Better Blogger
Blogger and author Rebecca Blood talks about the blogging phenomenon, gives tips.
By Sarah Lane
There are a lot of weblogs out there, so it isn't easy making your blog stand out. Do people really care about what you did last Thursday? How can you get more people to visit your site? And which sites can help if you want to start a blog?
Read on for some expert advice. Rebecca Blood, author of "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog," offers some great tips for experienced and newbie bloggers alike. If this Q&A still leaves you with unanswered questions, read this excerpt from Blood's book.
TechTV: How did you get started blogging, and why do you think you've been successful?
Rebecca Blood: I've had a million jobs, and when the original weblog community formed, I was maintaining websites for a department in a university. I already knew how to make webpages, and I just fell in love with the form, so I thought I would just try one of my own. And I was already sending my friends links every day with my comments, so putting them on a webpage wasn't such a stretch.
I think I've been successful in large part just because I've stuck with it. And I put a lot of work into my site, especially in the writing -- mostly rewriting.
TechTV: What can people do to get more views, traffic, and comments?
Blood: The best way to get the attention of the community is to become an active part of the community. It's always irritating to get an email from someone asking you to link them. What if you don't like their site? It's especially bad when you go to their site and they don't link to any other weblogs. If you want the support of the community, you have to support the community.
TechTV: What are your rules for what to post and what not to post?
Blood: The first rule is, is it going to come back to bite you? If it might, don't post it. Don't post about work, don't post personal things about your friends, don't post what isn't true. Lots of people imagine that because they are hobbyists, they are somehow exempt from the law or from being found out. They forget they are publishing, and all the rules that apply to the New York Times apply to them.
TechTV: You don't think blogging is the future of journalism. Why not?
Blood: I prefer the term "participatory media." Bloggers who link to the news are, in the first place, relying on established news organizations to do the reporting -- they are at most augmenting that reportage, and at least just commenting on it. News organizations have a mandate to present a fair and objective version of events that a general audience can understand. It would be foolish to expect bloggers to follow those standards. Bloggers are at their best giving their opinions, adding to the reported facts, or analyzing the reportage itself.
TechTV: How can blogs help us filter out the useless stuff in the news?
Blood: Weblogs that are centered around links can create what I call "targeted serendipity." They will point you to things you didn't know you wanted to see. A general-interest weblog will consistently point you to articles and websites that you find interesting. A subject-specific blog can give you all the news about a particular subject with one stop a day.
There aren't enough of these, by the way. There are lots of areas of interest and lots of professions that could benefit from this kind of resource. There are niches just waiting to be filled.
TechTV: Say you want to start a weblog. How should you begin?
Blood: There are hundreds of kinds of weblog software available, but for people who don't want to mess with the technical stuff, Blog*Spot is probably the best learning tool. It's free and easy.
If you don't mind spending some money, you can try Radio UserLand.
TypePad is a service that will be available sometime in June. It will host a Movable Type weblog for you at a very low cost.
Those are the big three, but there are many other choices. The Eatonweb portal is probably the best place to start exploring your other options.
Originally posted June 13, 2003
Q&A: Be a Better Blogger
Blogger and author Rebecca Blood talks about the blogging phenomenon, gives tips.
By Sarah Lane
There are a lot of weblogs out there, so it isn't easy making your blog stand out. Do people really care about what you did last Thursday? How can you get more people to visit your site? And which sites can help if you want to start a blog?
Read on for some expert advice. Rebecca Blood, author of "The Weblog Handbook: Practical Advice on Creating and Maintaining Your Blog," offers some great tips for experienced and newbie bloggers alike. If this Q&A still leaves you with unanswered questions, read this excerpt from Blood's book.
TechTV: How did you get started blogging, and why do you think you've been successful?
Rebecca Blood: I've had a million jobs, and when the original weblog community formed, I was maintaining websites for a department in a university. I already knew how to make webpages, and I just fell in love with the form, so I thought I would just try one of my own. And I was already sending my friends links every day with my comments, so putting them on a webpage wasn't such a stretch.
I think I've been successful in large part just because I've stuck with it. And I put a lot of work into my site, especially in the writing -- mostly rewriting.
TechTV: What can people do to get more views, traffic, and comments?
Blood: The best way to get the attention of the community is to become an active part of the community. It's always irritating to get an email from someone asking you to link them. What if you don't like their site? It's especially bad when you go to their site and they don't link to any other weblogs. If you want the support of the community, you have to support the community.
TechTV: What are your rules for what to post and what not to post?
Blood: The first rule is, is it going to come back to bite you? If it might, don't post it. Don't post about work, don't post personal things about your friends, don't post what isn't true. Lots of people imagine that because they are hobbyists, they are somehow exempt from the law or from being found out. They forget they are publishing, and all the rules that apply to the New York Times apply to them.
TechTV: You don't think blogging is the future of journalism. Why not?
Blood: I prefer the term "participatory media." Bloggers who link to the news are, in the first place, relying on established news organizations to do the reporting -- they are at most augmenting that reportage, and at least just commenting on it. News organizations have a mandate to present a fair and objective version of events that a general audience can understand. It would be foolish to expect bloggers to follow those standards. Bloggers are at their best giving their opinions, adding to the reported facts, or analyzing the reportage itself.
TechTV: How can blogs help us filter out the useless stuff in the news?
Blood: Weblogs that are centered around links can create what I call "targeted serendipity." They will point you to things you didn't know you wanted to see. A general-interest weblog will consistently point you to articles and websites that you find interesting. A subject-specific blog can give you all the news about a particular subject with one stop a day.
There aren't enough of these, by the way. There are lots of areas of interest and lots of professions that could benefit from this kind of resource. There are niches just waiting to be filled.
TechTV: Say you want to start a weblog. How should you begin?
Blood: There are hundreds of kinds of weblog software available, but for people who don't want to mess with the technical stuff, Blog*Spot is probably the best learning tool. It's free and easy.
If you don't mind spending some money, you can try Radio UserLand.
TypePad is a service that will be available sometime in June. It will host a Movable Type weblog for you at a very low cost.
Those are the big three, but there are many other choices. The Eatonweb portal is probably the best place to start exploring your other options.
Originally posted June 13, 2003
25.3.04
22.3.04
Is a Reporter's E-mail Address Really Anyone's Business?
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1079478749
You bet it is, if you work at one of the growing number of newspapers and their Web sites that are publishing the addresses with each story. Not all news organizations agree on their benefit, and some reporters are downright outraged by the amount of junk mail and spam they receive.
Mark Glaser
Posted: 2004-03-16
Many journalists know the feeling. They write something groundbreaking, provocative or controversial, and the next morning they come to work and find their e-mail inbox overflowing with feedback from readers -- not all of it printable in family publications. What should they do? Respond to every single e-mail? Delete the obscene ones? Foist the work onto an assistant?
E-mail is especially well-suited as a communications medium, allowing almost instant response and queries. But it has bred untold trillions of spam messages and flame e-mails that would never have been said face-to-face. As more newspapers and their Web sites publish the reporter's e-mail address, journalists are finding themselves caught in an avalanche of their own creation.
The practice varies widely from newspaper to newspaper, and from news site to news site. In the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, The New York Times prints a special box with e-mail addresses for corrections and feedback, but NYTimes.com has no uniform policy on including e-mail addresses of reporters on stories or columns. The Washington Post gives reporters a choice whether or not to run e-mail addresses.
The Wall Street Journal runs some columnists' e-mails in print, but nearly every online story has an e-mail address with it. The San Francisco Chronicle runs an e-mail address in print or online with every staff-written story.
CBSNews.com includes e-mail addresses for some columnists, but more general mailboxes for particular CBS News shows. MSNBC.com also runs some e-mail addresses with in-house stories, though rarely from NBC News personnel. Finding specific e-mail addresses on CNN.com is like finding a needle in a haystack.
The issue of running e-mail addresses with stories (or not) erupted on Romenesko's boards recently after Don Wycliff, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, noted that readers were complaining that they couldn't find reporters' e-mail addresses on the paper's Web site. It seems that the "E-mail the Staff" link was taken off the home page in favor of a convoluted route to the page through "Customer Service."
But Stephanie Strom of The New York Times questioned why readers would have an automatic right to reporters' e-mail addresses. "Will Mr. Wycliff soon be arguing that readers have a right to our mobile phone numbers and home telephone numbers and addresses?... Every morning I waste time deliberating over whether to open anywhere from 25 to 75 e-mails from unknown correspondents, most of whom are spammers."
Strom was then chastised by various reporters and editors who believe that journalists should be available for readers' responses, no matter how ugly they get. But the issue remains a more nuanced one, especially for reporters covering politics or other highly charged issues -- and especially at large metro newspapers or big broadcast sites.
Len Apcar, editor of NYTimes.com, told me the situation was complicated at the Times and would involve a lot of meetings to iron out issues -- if they wanted to come up with a policy. "While some reporters say, 'Hey, what's the big deal? I'm ready to do it' -- others are not," he said. "If people want to get ahold of our reporters, we give them many staff e-mails [online], bulk e-mailboxes, we list them in the paper. Judging by the volume of e-mails that we get, we don't think there's any mystery in the minds of the readers as to how to get ahold of the reporter or their boss."
Tangled rivals in Chi-town
The Wycliff column and Romenesko diatribes highlight an interesting case study of sorts unfolding in Chicago. While the Tribune online has done a good job of hiding its staff e-mail list, the rival Chicago Sun-Times hyperlinks nearly every byline online to a reporter's email address (which pops up a blank e-mail message to send them).
In print, the Tribune does a much better job of providing e-mail addresses, at least for columnists and general sections. A recent tally of a weekday Tribune found about eight e-mail addresses in the paper for feedback, including letters and the public editor. The Sun-Times, however, ran only four e-mail addresses, including letters.
In a redesign a couple years ago, the Tribune's column width was narrowed, making space an issue; plus the Tribune leaves the issue of including e-mail addresses up to columnists. So rather than run some e-mail addresses for reporters who wanted them in the paper, the Trib decided to run general e-mailboxes for each section, according to Stacy Sweat, associate managing editor for design and graphics.
Moreover, in the Romenesko boards, Tribune travel writer Alan Solomon sung the praises of e-mailing readers, while Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg was called out for sending derisive form e-mails to readers who sent foul or racist comments to him. So which paper really wants to hear from readers, and which one is in avoidance mode?
Wycliff's complaints -- and those of readers -- brought a planned change to the Tribune Web site, with a new left rail line on the home page , "Contact us," coming next week, according to Tribune communications manager Patty Wetli. It's not clear how easy it will be to get to e-mail addresses from that link, but it's a step in the right direction.
Solomon told me he loved having his e-mail address attached to his travel stories, and he has a fervent belief that replying to e-mails is part of the job description of a journalist -- no matter the beat.
"[Reader e-mail] lets me fill in the gaps -- information my story should have explained and didn't," Solomon said via e-mail. "I can be the reason the O'Briens, who were hesitant, got to see the Parthenon. That's chilling. It can tell me when I've screwed up -- and that gives us a chance to make that correction both in the paper and, at least as important, in our archives. ... I simply don't understand the logic in not communicating with the people we're actually working for. The readers are why we do what we do. Without them, we're nothing, zero, bupkiss."
Annoying the boss, entertaining friends
A couple blocks away at the Sun-Times, Steinberg takes a more jaundiced view of some of the e-mails he has received. He has gotten into personal spates with readers, where he responded to hate mail by blasting back with invective, leading to a vicious cycle that upset his editors. In fact, Steinberg even included a conversation he had with his editor on the subject of hate e-mail in a recent column item. The editor told him to just delete the e-mails or send one of his form letters.
Steinberg told me that he didn't have his e-mail address in the newspaper for a long time, but in a redesign they began publishing his e-mail address along with many other columnists. "I'm a writer, not a social service," he said via e-mail. "And I don't like to spend my day holding hands with anonymous correspondents. But I haven't asked to yank [the address in the paper] yet either -- I'm still working my way toward a balance."
One of those ways is sending humorous form letters to people who go over the line. Here is a slightly condensed version of a recent form letter of Steinberg's:
Dear Reader:
Thank you for your kind letter. Unfortunately, due to the volume of mail from fans such as yourself, it isn't possible for me to answer each letter individually. But rest assured that I did read -- or will read eventually -- your comments, and deeply appreciate your taking the time to share them. Since many reader inquiries fall into three general categories, let me answer these quickly, in case this satisfies a question you may have.
1. Yes, I do speaking appearances, host dinners and such.
2. No, there are no more spaces left on Neil's Fun Cruise this February.
3. Signed copies of The Cream of Steinberg II and More Cream are on sale at the Sun-Times store.
Anyway, I hope that this answers your question. Or if you were just writing to pass along your good wishes, thanks, and toodleloo!
Your pal,
Neil Steinberg
The Tribune's Solomon is circumspect when sending e-mails to ranting readers, telling me he assumes that the response will be read by one of his bosses -- "That keeps me from telling them to shove something, animate or inanimate, into sensitive orifices."
Steinberg's boss, Sun-Times Editor-in-Chief Michael Cooke, didn't seem to mind when I forwarded Steinberg's form letter to him. "This is Steinberg being Steinberg," he told me via e-mail. "He's a treasure ... and remember (and this is important) he only sends this reply to e-mails that are foul and/or racist."
When I asked Cooke about the disparity in running so many e-mail addresses online but very few in print, he bluntly told me it wasn't about space or reporters' time, but was something they just hadn't done yet. "There's no reason we don't include e-mail addresses at the end of reporters' stories," Cooke said. "We ought to do it, but we haven't got round to it."
Getting readers involved
Some online news sites have gone beyond simply running an e-mail address and have regular online-only columns that offer the best of reader e-mails. The Wall Street Journal Online, for example, runs various "Exchange" or "Mailbox" columns such as Capital Exchange with David Wessel, columnist and deputy bureau chief in Washington. For financial or business journalists, running an e-mail address with a story can mean a treasure trove of new sources or tips.
Dick Meyer, longtime CBS TV producer and current editorial director of CBSNews.com, said he enjoys the feedback he gets for his online political column, which dwarfs the feedback he used to get doing TV. He told me he averages 100 to 200 e-mails per week, but controversial subjects might push that up to 1,000 e-mails. Meyer tries to answer every one of them, though it might sometimes include some cutting and pasting.
Meyer said he doesn't believe that every journalist is in a position to answer a lot of e-mail. And he thinks an e-mail address should only be listed if the reporter can respond. "I don't think it makes sense to do it unless you can give a meaningful response to people who are writing in," he said. "I think if you can't give a meaningful response, then what you're engaging in is a marketing gimmick, which cheapens both your organization and the process of interactivity."
Meyer also believes that reader feedback can counter the elitism that sometimes creeps into an editor's thinking. "It's very interesting to realize how intelligent our readers are," he said. "Not all of them, but it's a real check. I see an unbelievable diversity of political opinion."
In theory, a lot of reporters and editors find it useful to include reporters' e-mail addresses with stories. Richard Hendrickson, assistant professor of communications at John Carroll University, is conducting a survey of journalists on that very subject. In preliminary results, he found that 90 out of 100 reporters said e-mail addresses on stories were extremely, quite or somewhat useful, while 30 of 32 editors felt the same (of course they don't have to answer that e-mail).
Plus, nearly 70 percent of reporters thought providing e-mail addresses would help improve the credibility of newspapers, while 75 percent of editors agreed. You can check out the full survey or participate by visiting Hendrickson's site.
The e-mail avalanche will continue to cause headaches for overworked journalists. But as e-mail becomes an indispensable tool, it will likely become more ingrained in a reporter's day-to-day life. Whether news organizations decide to include all e-mail addresses or some of them, the result will mean more tips and feedback for reporters, and a better understanding of the newsroom process for readers.
-- Additional Chicago research provided by Craig Neuman
You bet it is, if you work at one of the growing number of newspapers and their Web sites that are publishing the addresses with each story. Not all news organizations agree on their benefit, and some reporters are downright outraged by the amount of junk mail and spam they receive.
Mark Glaser
Posted: 2004-03-16
Many journalists know the feeling. They write something groundbreaking, provocative or controversial, and the next morning they come to work and find their e-mail inbox overflowing with feedback from readers -- not all of it printable in family publications. What should they do? Respond to every single e-mail? Delete the obscene ones? Foist the work onto an assistant?
E-mail is especially well-suited as a communications medium, allowing almost instant response and queries. But it has bred untold trillions of spam messages and flame e-mails that would never have been said face-to-face. As more newspapers and their Web sites publish the reporter's e-mail address, journalists are finding themselves caught in an avalanche of their own creation.
The practice varies widely from newspaper to newspaper, and from news site to news site. In the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, The New York Times prints a special box with e-mail addresses for corrections and feedback, but NYTimes.com has no uniform policy on including e-mail addresses of reporters on stories or columns. The Washington Post gives reporters a choice whether or not to run e-mail addresses.
The Wall Street Journal runs some columnists' e-mails in print, but nearly every online story has an e-mail address with it. The San Francisco Chronicle runs an e-mail address in print or online with every staff-written story.
CBSNews.com includes e-mail addresses for some columnists, but more general mailboxes for particular CBS News shows. MSNBC.com also runs some e-mail addresses with in-house stories, though rarely from NBC News personnel. Finding specific e-mail addresses on CNN.com is like finding a needle in a haystack.
The issue of running e-mail addresses with stories (or not) erupted on Romenesko's boards recently after Don Wycliff, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, noted that readers were complaining that they couldn't find reporters' e-mail addresses on the paper's Web site. It seems that the "E-mail the Staff" link was taken off the home page in favor of a convoluted route to the page through "Customer Service."
But Stephanie Strom of The New York Times questioned why readers would have an automatic right to reporters' e-mail addresses. "Will Mr. Wycliff soon be arguing that readers have a right to our mobile phone numbers and home telephone numbers and addresses?... Every morning I waste time deliberating over whether to open anywhere from 25 to 75 e-mails from unknown correspondents, most of whom are spammers."
Strom was then chastised by various reporters and editors who believe that journalists should be available for readers' responses, no matter how ugly they get. But the issue remains a more nuanced one, especially for reporters covering politics or other highly charged issues -- and especially at large metro newspapers or big broadcast sites.
Len Apcar, editor of NYTimes.com, told me the situation was complicated at the Times and would involve a lot of meetings to iron out issues -- if they wanted to come up with a policy. "While some reporters say, 'Hey, what's the big deal? I'm ready to do it' -- others are not," he said. "If people want to get ahold of our reporters, we give them many staff e-mails [online], bulk e-mailboxes, we list them in the paper. Judging by the volume of e-mails that we get, we don't think there's any mystery in the minds of the readers as to how to get ahold of the reporter or their boss."
Tangled rivals in Chi-town
The Wycliff column and Romenesko diatribes highlight an interesting case study of sorts unfolding in Chicago. While the Tribune online has done a good job of hiding its staff e-mail list, the rival Chicago Sun-Times hyperlinks nearly every byline online to a reporter's email address (which pops up a blank e-mail message to send them).
In print, the Tribune does a much better job of providing e-mail addresses, at least for columnists and general sections. A recent tally of a weekday Tribune found about eight e-mail addresses in the paper for feedback, including letters and the public editor. The Sun-Times, however, ran only four e-mail addresses, including letters.
In a redesign a couple years ago, the Tribune's column width was narrowed, making space an issue; plus the Tribune leaves the issue of including e-mail addresses up to columnists. So rather than run some e-mail addresses for reporters who wanted them in the paper, the Trib decided to run general e-mailboxes for each section, according to Stacy Sweat, associate managing editor for design and graphics.
Moreover, in the Romenesko boards, Tribune travel writer Alan Solomon sung the praises of e-mailing readers, while Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg was called out for sending derisive form e-mails to readers who sent foul or racist comments to him. So which paper really wants to hear from readers, and which one is in avoidance mode?
Wycliff's complaints -- and those of readers -- brought a planned change to the Tribune Web site, with a new left rail line on the home page , "Contact us," coming next week, according to Tribune communications manager Patty Wetli. It's not clear how easy it will be to get to e-mail addresses from that link, but it's a step in the right direction.
Solomon told me he loved having his e-mail address attached to his travel stories, and he has a fervent belief that replying to e-mails is part of the job description of a journalist -- no matter the beat.
"[Reader e-mail] lets me fill in the gaps -- information my story should have explained and didn't," Solomon said via e-mail. "I can be the reason the O'Briens, who were hesitant, got to see the Parthenon. That's chilling. It can tell me when I've screwed up -- and that gives us a chance to make that correction both in the paper and, at least as important, in our archives. ... I simply don't understand the logic in not communicating with the people we're actually working for. The readers are why we do what we do. Without them, we're nothing, zero, bupkiss."
Annoying the boss, entertaining friends
A couple blocks away at the Sun-Times, Steinberg takes a more jaundiced view of some of the e-mails he has received. He has gotten into personal spates with readers, where he responded to hate mail by blasting back with invective, leading to a vicious cycle that upset his editors. In fact, Steinberg even included a conversation he had with his editor on the subject of hate e-mail in a recent column item. The editor told him to just delete the e-mails or send one of his form letters.
Steinberg told me that he didn't have his e-mail address in the newspaper for a long time, but in a redesign they began publishing his e-mail address along with many other columnists. "I'm a writer, not a social service," he said via e-mail. "And I don't like to spend my day holding hands with anonymous correspondents. But I haven't asked to yank [the address in the paper] yet either -- I'm still working my way toward a balance."
One of those ways is sending humorous form letters to people who go over the line. Here is a slightly condensed version of a recent form letter of Steinberg's:
Dear Reader:
Thank you for your kind letter. Unfortunately, due to the volume of mail from fans such as yourself, it isn't possible for me to answer each letter individually. But rest assured that I did read -- or will read eventually -- your comments, and deeply appreciate your taking the time to share them. Since many reader inquiries fall into three general categories, let me answer these quickly, in case this satisfies a question you may have.
1. Yes, I do speaking appearances, host dinners and such.
2. No, there are no more spaces left on Neil's Fun Cruise this February.
3. Signed copies of The Cream of Steinberg II and More Cream are on sale at the Sun-Times store.
Anyway, I hope that this answers your question. Or if you were just writing to pass along your good wishes, thanks, and toodleloo!
Your pal,
Neil Steinberg
The Tribune's Solomon is circumspect when sending e-mails to ranting readers, telling me he assumes that the response will be read by one of his bosses -- "That keeps me from telling them to shove something, animate or inanimate, into sensitive orifices."
Steinberg's boss, Sun-Times Editor-in-Chief Michael Cooke, didn't seem to mind when I forwarded Steinberg's form letter to him. "This is Steinberg being Steinberg," he told me via e-mail. "He's a treasure ... and remember (and this is important) he only sends this reply to e-mails that are foul and/or racist."
When I asked Cooke about the disparity in running so many e-mail addresses online but very few in print, he bluntly told me it wasn't about space or reporters' time, but was something they just hadn't done yet. "There's no reason we don't include e-mail addresses at the end of reporters' stories," Cooke said. "We ought to do it, but we haven't got round to it."
Getting readers involved
Some online news sites have gone beyond simply running an e-mail address and have regular online-only columns that offer the best of reader e-mails. The Wall Street Journal Online, for example, runs various "Exchange" or "Mailbox" columns such as Capital Exchange with David Wessel, columnist and deputy bureau chief in Washington. For financial or business journalists, running an e-mail address with a story can mean a treasure trove of new sources or tips.
Dick Meyer, longtime CBS TV producer and current editorial director of CBSNews.com, said he enjoys the feedback he gets for his online political column, which dwarfs the feedback he used to get doing TV. He told me he averages 100 to 200 e-mails per week, but controversial subjects might push that up to 1,000 e-mails. Meyer tries to answer every one of them, though it might sometimes include some cutting and pasting.
Meyer said he doesn't believe that every journalist is in a position to answer a lot of e-mail. And he thinks an e-mail address should only be listed if the reporter can respond. "I don't think it makes sense to do it unless you can give a meaningful response to people who are writing in," he said. "I think if you can't give a meaningful response, then what you're engaging in is a marketing gimmick, which cheapens both your organization and the process of interactivity."
Meyer also believes that reader feedback can counter the elitism that sometimes creeps into an editor's thinking. "It's very interesting to realize how intelligent our readers are," he said. "Not all of them, but it's a real check. I see an unbelievable diversity of political opinion."
In theory, a lot of reporters and editors find it useful to include reporters' e-mail addresses with stories. Richard Hendrickson, assistant professor of communications at John Carroll University, is conducting a survey of journalists on that very subject. In preliminary results, he found that 90 out of 100 reporters said e-mail addresses on stories were extremely, quite or somewhat useful, while 30 of 32 editors felt the same (of course they don't have to answer that e-mail).
Plus, nearly 70 percent of reporters thought providing e-mail addresses would help improve the credibility of newspapers, while 75 percent of editors agreed. You can check out the full survey or participate by visiting Hendrickson's site.
The e-mail avalanche will continue to cause headaches for overworked journalists. But as e-mail becomes an indispensable tool, it will likely become more ingrained in a reporter's day-to-day life. Whether news organizations decide to include all e-mail addresses or some of them, the result will mean more tips and feedback for reporters, and a better understanding of the newsroom process for readers.
-- Additional Chicago research provided by Craig Neuman
13.3.04
David Hockney e a Fotografia, The Guardian, Março 2004
Disposable cameras
We can't trust photographs. In fact, we never could. In an exclusive interview, David Hockney tells Jonathan Jones why painting creates a more reliable record of the truth
Jonathan Jones
Thursday March 4, 2004
The Guardian
"Do you know what Edvard Munch said about photography?" David Hockney asks me. "He said photography can never depict heaven or hell." We're talking about Hell at the Fine Art and Antiques Fair in London's Olympia. Hockney recently drove to Spain from his current home in west London - "Those autoroutes are empty. It's fabulous, like driving in Arizona" - and saw Goya's Third of May in the Prado. He noticed that Goya had painted this horrific scene of a mass execution in Madrid in 1808 from a viewpoint no photograph could have achieved.
It adds fuel to his belief that painting can do things photography can't, even when it comes to telling the truth about war. Everyone used to assume photographs of war were "true" in a way photography can't be. But Hockney argues that the digital age has made such a conception of photography obsolete. You can change any image now in any way you want. He once saw what a famous LA photographer's portrait of Elton John looked like before it was retouched. The difference, he says, was "hilarious". And now everyone can do this.
"My sister, who is just a bit older than me, she's a retired district nurse, she's just gone mad with the digital camera and computer - move anything about; she doesn't worry about whether it's authentic or stuff like that - she's just making pictures."
If photography is no longer blunt fact, why not accept that painting has equal status? War photography is as fictional as painting, but painting can express profound insights denied photography. The famous photograph of a Russian soldier placing the red flag over Berlin is an example: "With the man putting the flag on top of the Reichstag - how did the photographer happen to get there first?" wonders Hockney. By contrast, Goya's image of the executions of May 3 1808 has a truth that transcends whether or not he was an eyewitness. Hockney thinks Picasso, when he painted his extremely anti-naturalist Massacres in Korea in the 1950s, was making this very argument against photography: instead of random glimpses of violence, Picasso's painting presents his understanding of the war.
It's funny, talking about war and politics with David Hockney. Gloom and doom was why he left first Bradford, then Britain. "I grew up in austerity in the 1940s and 1950s. You didn't know at the time, of course - you didn't know any different."
Hockney talks about his father, in the Bradford accent that has never deserted him after decades of living in Los Angeles and now London. "He was a very eccentric man. He was constantly writing to Stalin - every week. He used to tell us how important these letters were. We didn't think so. We didn't think Stalin would be waiting for them." What were the letters about? "Peace, war. I've given up on all that, I think. I think the Enlightenment is leading us into a dark hole, really. Goya saw that. A lot of people, given the chance, would blow up everything, and you and me."
We're talking about Goya's visions of hell, but I'm thinking about a vision of heaven: David Hockney's A Bigger Splash, painted in 1967. In it, the sky is different from the water only in that it is a paler shade of blue. Between the luxuriant nothingness of the pool and the empty, warm sky is a low pink house with a reflecting glass wall, a canvas chair and two palm trees. In the foreground is a yellow diving board, and beyond it, the only motion in this eternally afternoon world, are explosions and curlicues, the aftertrace of a diver.
Hell is not Hockney's subject. Paradise is what his eye has pursued. "I always wanted to be an artist because I like looking - scopophilia, is it called?" he says.
In the 1960s, Hockney did as much as the Beatles to end the British culture of austerity he grew up with, to assert that pleasure matters. The postwar painters were severe chroniclers of ration-book misery. We're here at Olympia to celebrate one of them: Prunella Clough, whose first retrospective since her death in 1999 includes her 1950s realist portraits of workers as well as her later, more playful and sometimes gently lovely abstractions. "It's very good that you're doing this," Hockney tells the exhibition's curator, Angus Stewart, who says Clough was suspicious of people who lived too comfortably. Hockney says that's typical of a lot of British people. "But I'm not like that."
He also remembers, among the leading painters when he came to London, the Scottish duo Robert Colquhoun and Robert MacBryde, who "always wore these shiny suits - never wore anything else. They were shiny from never having been off - that kind of shiny." David Hockney wore a shiny jacket to graduate from the Royal College of Art - but this was the other kind of shiny: superstar shiny. It was made out of gold lamé.
Hockney is so famous, so popular, such a great talker and character that it's easy to take him for granted as an artist. If you're a critic, it's tempting to give him a bash. But Hockney is a significant modern painter. He is one of only a handful of 20th-century British artists who added anything to the image bank of the world's imagination. Francis Bacon's screaming popes, Richard Hamilton's Mick Jagger and Damien Hirst's shark are icons of irony, and grimly Hogarthian. Hockney is something very different, a modern Gainsborough, whose eye is entranced by beauty. This is a very radical thing to be.
He was by far the most hedonist of the 1960s pop artists, the only painter who put sex and utopianism at the heart of his decade. He was British art's first pop star. But this was not because he made easy images. His paintings unequivocally praised gay sex - for example, Two Men in a Shower (1963). They were so innocent they disarmed everyone.
Hockney's utopia was America. "I went to New York in the summer of 1961. I thought this is the place, this is it. It ran 24 hours a day for everybody. Here in London everything closed early. I used to complain about that like mad. I don't care now - I go to bed at 11." In his 1961-3 series of prints A Rake's Progress, "The 7-Stone Weakling in America" for the first time visits gay bars until "The Wallet Begins to Empty".
American freedom entranced him a lot more than Swinging London. "Girls in small skirts, it's OK. You know I'm not that bothered about them. I preferred the white socks in California, actually. I did."
Hockney now berates photography and yet, famously, a lot of his art has been made with photography. Like his friend Andy Warhol, he was interested in the world you see through the lens. His series of images of the pursuit and loss of heaven on earth - the swimming pools, Beverly Hills Housewife (1966), Mr and Mrs Clark and Percy (1970-1) - are paintings that superficially resemble photographs.
When I look at A Bigger Splash again, I am surprised how much the quotation he dropped on me from the symbolist painter Edvard Munch applies to his own work. Hockney doesn't paint hell, but the heaven on earth, at once blissful and unattainable, that he found in California and mourned in the aftermath of the 1960s is a vision photography could never quite create. A Bigger Splash is a painting about an inner state, an emotional state, somewhere between intoxication and death - it is the perfect invocation of a beauty so powerful it hits you like a wall, so empty it has no solid lines. Blue, pink, white.
Hockney says beauty is the thing none of us can resist. He saw a picture of a Colorado University football player accused of rape and the man's face was so incredibly beautiful, he found it impossible to believe he was guilty. "Human beings always recognise a very beautiful creature, and open the door for them."
The libertarianism of the 1960s is still there in Hockney, and still challenging. When the Guardian commissioned and printed Gillian Wearing's Cilla Black on the cover of G2 last year, which carried the words "Fuck Cilla Black", he "thought it was quite funny. I had no idea Cilla Black was alive or anything." He was amazed that so many letters attacked it. The paper's art critic defended this as a work of art. Fine. Then Hockney read an interview in the Guardian with a man who spent two years in prison for downloading images from the internet. The man claimed he did not think the pictures were wrong, but innocent and beautiful. "This man who, from human curiosity, looking for innocence and beauty, gets some pictures from the internet and does two years in prison for that. Why don't you art critics talk about that?"
This is why he wants to get people thinking about photography - the way we see, and the power of images. "It's time to debate images, especially when someone's going to prison for downloading them."
Photography, with its claim to truth, is a discipline, he thinks, and he's glad digital technology is ending the rule of the one-eyed monster that never lied. "I suppose I never thought the world looked like photographs, really. A lot of people think it does but it's just one little way of seeing it. All religions are about social control. The church, when it had social control, commissioned paintings, which were made using lenses" - as Hockney has argued in his book Secret Knowledge - "and when it stopped commissioning images, its power declined, slowly. Social control today is in the media - and based on photography. The continuum is the mirrors and lenses."
Hockney is an artist who, at his best, broke free of all disciplines, of photography or politics or anything else, to paint his own paradise. He's still looking for enjoyment. He left America because it has become so prissy about smoking and drinking - but he'll go back, he says. He smokes with evident pleasure. "I was born in Bradford in 1937, it was the smokiest place on earth. We all survived - some people might have coughed a bit and fallen over."
Having been so long in America, there's a lot of Europe he hasn't seen. He's just been to Andalusia for the first time. The Spanish, he says - they know how to enjoy themselves.
· Prunella Clough is at the Spring Olympia Fine Art and Antiques Fair, London W12 (020-7923 3188), until March 7.
The camera today? You can't trust it. Hockney sparks a debate
Artist says ease of manipulation has made photography a dying art
Jonathan Jones and Gerard Seenan
Thursday March 4, 2004
The Guardian
David Hockney, the celebrated pop artist who has worked extensively in photography, has fallen out of love with the medium because of its digital manipulation and now believes it is a dying art form.
In an interview with the Guardian, Hockney says he believes modern photography is now so extensively and easily altered that it can no longer be seen to be true or factual. He also describes art photography as "dull".
Even war photography, once seen as objectively "true", has now been cast in doubt by the ubiquitous use of digital cameras which produce images that can be easily enhanced or twisted.
Hockney points to the case during the Iraq war when the Los Angeles Times sacked a photographer for having superimposed two images to make them more powerful.
"A reader spotted it; they then printed the two photographs with the story and fired him. Why? Because he was not using photography as 'I was there and this happened in front of me'. A newspaper has to have that, or thinks it does," he said.
The result, Hockney believes, is that photography has been pushed closer to drawing and painting. The veracity of what he calls the "chemical period" of images produced faithfully in the darkroom has been lost.
No going back
"We can't go back: Kodak got rid of 22,000 people when it ended its chemical developing. You've no need to believe a photograph made after a certain date because it won't be made the way Cartier-Bresson made his. We know he didn't crop them - he was the master of truthful photography. But you can't have a photographer like that again because we know photographs can be made in different ways."
Hockney also points to the degrading of truth in celebrity photography. He cites a portrait of Elton John taken by a well-known photographer from California. The difference between the final touched-up image and the original was "hilarious", the artist told the Guardian.
The impact of computerised images was most strongly brought to his attention much closer to home: "My sister, who is just a bit older than me, she's a retired district nurse, she's just gone mad with the digital camera and computer - move anything about. She doesn't worry about whether it's authentic; she's just making pictures."
As more and more people emulate his sister and realise that the camera can be made to lie, Hockney hopes there will be a positive side-effect for painting, which will gain in standing in reverse proportion.
The photography world, however, was unwilling last night to see the medium dismissed.
Russell Roberts, head of photography at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, said Hockney's argument was "simplistic".
Mr Roberts said manipulation of images was as old as photography. He could cite numerous examples from the 1840s, the first decade of photography, of images which claimed to be accurate depictions of events but were in fact highly stage managed.
"It would be great if David could cite examples of photographers he felt worked in an era where manipulation was not widespread, before this collective conscious of how manipulative photography is developed," he added.
Manipulated
Eamonn McCabe, a former picture editor of the Guardian, said it had become increasingly difficult for picture editors to tell whether a picture had been manipulated and a growing number of digitally manipulated pictures were being published.
"I think there was perhaps a point where there was a general perception that photography was truth, but we have lost that," he said.
But McCabe said this did not detract from the value of good photography. "To say that photography is dead is faintly ludicrous. It would be better to say that you should be wary of everything."
Hockney, who worked in photography during his photo-collages of the 1980s, now says that photography is inherently inferior to painting as an art form.
He says no photograph or video could ever capture the tenderness of a Rembrandt drawing showing a young family teaching a child to walk.
"For a work of art you need the hand, the eye and the heart. Many people would video that moment, but again, the video would turn it into a performance. Fellini says everything in front of the camera's a performance."
False witness
Charlotte Higgins
Wednesday March 10, 2004
The Guardian
Last week David Hockney declared the end of photography in these pages: the rise and rise of digital cameras, and the concomitant ease with which images can be distorted and manipulated, have put paid to the notion of photography's truthfulness, he argued. Joel Sternfeld, winner of the Citigroup photography prize (for which the Guardian is media partner) begs to differ.
"Photography has always been capable of manipulation," says the New Yorker, whose best known images - a fireman sizes up a pumpkin at a farm stall as a nearby house blazes; an elephant escaped from a circus collapses in the street - capture the sinister curiousness of modern America. "Even more subtle and more invidious is the fact that any time you put a frame to the world, it's an interpretation. I could get my camera and point it at two people and not point it at the homeless third person to the right of the frame, or not include the murder that's going on to the left of the frame. You take 35 degrees out of 360 degrees and call it a photo. There's an infinite number of ways you can do this: photographs have always been authored.
"And nor is anything that purports to be documentary to be completely trusted, anyway," he says, referring to Hockney's assumption that, in the past, war photography was rightly regarded as having claims to veracity. "The Hockney argument is as simplistic as saying that any non-fiction book is truthful. You can never lose sight of the fact that it's authored. With a photograph, you are left with the same modes of interpretation as you are with a book. You ask: what do we know about the author and their background? What do I know about the subject?
"Some of the people who are now manipulating photos, such as Andreas Gursky, make the argument - rightly - that the 'straight' photographs of the 1940s and 50s were no such thing. Ansell Adams would slap a red filter on his lens, then spend three days burning and dodging in the dark room, making his prints," says Sternfeld, referring to the processes of adding or withholding intensity to a print. "That's a manipulation. Even the photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson, with all due respect to him, are notoriously burned and dodged.
"No individual photo explains anything. That's what makes photography such a wonderful and problematic medium. It is the photographer's job to get this medium to say what you need it to say. Because photography has a certain verisimilitude, it has gained a currency as truthful - but photographs have always been convincing lies."
We can't trust photographs. In fact, we never could. In an exclusive interview, David Hockney tells Jonathan Jones why painting creates a more reliable record of the truth
Jonathan Jones
Thursday March 4, 2004
The Guardian
"Do you know what Edvard Munch said about photography?" David Hockney asks me. "He said photography can never depict heaven or hell." We're talking about Hell at the Fine Art and Antiques Fair in London's Olympia. Hockney recently drove to Spain from his current home in west London - "Those autoroutes are empty. It's fabulous, like driving in Arizona" - and saw Goya's Third of May in the Prado. He noticed that Goya had painted this horrific scene of a mass execution in Madrid in 1808 from a viewpoint no photograph could have achieved.
It adds fuel to his belief that painting can do things photography can't, even when it comes to telling the truth about war. Everyone used to assume photographs of war were "true" in a way photography can't be. But Hockney argues that the digital age has made such a conception of photography obsolete. You can change any image now in any way you want. He once saw what a famous LA photographer's portrait of Elton John looked like before it was retouched. The difference, he says, was "hilarious". And now everyone can do this.
"My sister, who is just a bit older than me, she's a retired district nurse, she's just gone mad with the digital camera and computer - move anything about; she doesn't worry about whether it's authentic or stuff like that - she's just making pictures."
If photography is no longer blunt fact, why not accept that painting has equal status? War photography is as fictional as painting, but painting can express profound insights denied photography. The famous photograph of a Russian soldier placing the red flag over Berlin is an example: "With the man putting the flag on top of the Reichstag - how did the photographer happen to get there first?" wonders Hockney. By contrast, Goya's image of the executions of May 3 1808 has a truth that transcends whether or not he was an eyewitness. Hockney thinks Picasso, when he painted his extremely anti-naturalist Massacres in Korea in the 1950s, was making this very argument against photography: instead of random glimpses of violence, Picasso's painting presents his understanding of the war.
It's funny, talking about war and politics with David Hockney. Gloom and doom was why he left first Bradford, then Britain. "I grew up in austerity in the 1940s and 1950s. You didn't know at the time, of course - you didn't know any different."
Hockney talks about his father, in the Bradford accent that has never deserted him after decades of living in Los Angeles and now London. "He was a very eccentric man. He was constantly writing to Stalin - every week. He used to tell us how important these letters were. We didn't think so. We didn't think Stalin would be waiting for them." What were the letters about? "Peace, war. I've given up on all that, I think. I think the Enlightenment is leading us into a dark hole, really. Goya saw that. A lot of people, given the chance, would blow up everything, and you and me."
We're talking about Goya's visions of hell, but I'm thinking about a vision of heaven: David Hockney's A Bigger Splash, painted in 1967. In it, the sky is different from the water only in that it is a paler shade of blue. Between the luxuriant nothingness of the pool and the empty, warm sky is a low pink house with a reflecting glass wall, a canvas chair and two palm trees. In the foreground is a yellow diving board, and beyond it, the only motion in this eternally afternoon world, are explosions and curlicues, the aftertrace of a diver.
Hell is not Hockney's subject. Paradise is what his eye has pursued. "I always wanted to be an artist because I like looking - scopophilia, is it called?" he says.
In the 1960s, Hockney did as much as the Beatles to end the British culture of austerity he grew up with, to assert that pleasure matters. The postwar painters were severe chroniclers of ration-book misery. We're here at Olympia to celebrate one of them: Prunella Clough, whose first retrospective since her death in 1999 includes her 1950s realist portraits of workers as well as her later, more playful and sometimes gently lovely abstractions. "It's very good that you're doing this," Hockney tells the exhibition's curator, Angus Stewart, who says Clough was suspicious of people who lived too comfortably. Hockney says that's typical of a lot of British people. "But I'm not like that."
He also remembers, among the leading painters when he came to London, the Scottish duo Robert Colquhoun and Robert MacBryde, who "always wore these shiny suits - never wore anything else. They were shiny from never having been off - that kind of shiny." David Hockney wore a shiny jacket to graduate from the Royal College of Art - but this was the other kind of shiny: superstar shiny. It was made out of gold lamé.
Hockney is so famous, so popular, such a great talker and character that it's easy to take him for granted as an artist. If you're a critic, it's tempting to give him a bash. But Hockney is a significant modern painter. He is one of only a handful of 20th-century British artists who added anything to the image bank of the world's imagination. Francis Bacon's screaming popes, Richard Hamilton's Mick Jagger and Damien Hirst's shark are icons of irony, and grimly Hogarthian. Hockney is something very different, a modern Gainsborough, whose eye is entranced by beauty. This is a very radical thing to be.
He was by far the most hedonist of the 1960s pop artists, the only painter who put sex and utopianism at the heart of his decade. He was British art's first pop star. But this was not because he made easy images. His paintings unequivocally praised gay sex - for example, Two Men in a Shower (1963). They were so innocent they disarmed everyone.
Hockney's utopia was America. "I went to New York in the summer of 1961. I thought this is the place, this is it. It ran 24 hours a day for everybody. Here in London everything closed early. I used to complain about that like mad. I don't care now - I go to bed at 11." In his 1961-3 series of prints A Rake's Progress, "The 7-Stone Weakling in America" for the first time visits gay bars until "The Wallet Begins to Empty".
American freedom entranced him a lot more than Swinging London. "Girls in small skirts, it's OK. You know I'm not that bothered about them. I preferred the white socks in California, actually. I did."
Hockney now berates photography and yet, famously, a lot of his art has been made with photography. Like his friend Andy Warhol, he was interested in the world you see through the lens. His series of images of the pursuit and loss of heaven on earth - the swimming pools, Beverly Hills Housewife (1966), Mr and Mrs Clark and Percy (1970-1) - are paintings that superficially resemble photographs.
When I look at A Bigger Splash again, I am surprised how much the quotation he dropped on me from the symbolist painter Edvard Munch applies to his own work. Hockney doesn't paint hell, but the heaven on earth, at once blissful and unattainable, that he found in California and mourned in the aftermath of the 1960s is a vision photography could never quite create. A Bigger Splash is a painting about an inner state, an emotional state, somewhere between intoxication and death - it is the perfect invocation of a beauty so powerful it hits you like a wall, so empty it has no solid lines. Blue, pink, white.
Hockney says beauty is the thing none of us can resist. He saw a picture of a Colorado University football player accused of rape and the man's face was so incredibly beautiful, he found it impossible to believe he was guilty. "Human beings always recognise a very beautiful creature, and open the door for them."
The libertarianism of the 1960s is still there in Hockney, and still challenging. When the Guardian commissioned and printed Gillian Wearing's Cilla Black on the cover of G2 last year, which carried the words "Fuck Cilla Black", he "thought it was quite funny. I had no idea Cilla Black was alive or anything." He was amazed that so many letters attacked it. The paper's art critic defended this as a work of art. Fine. Then Hockney read an interview in the Guardian with a man who spent two years in prison for downloading images from the internet. The man claimed he did not think the pictures were wrong, but innocent and beautiful. "This man who, from human curiosity, looking for innocence and beauty, gets some pictures from the internet and does two years in prison for that. Why don't you art critics talk about that?"
This is why he wants to get people thinking about photography - the way we see, and the power of images. "It's time to debate images, especially when someone's going to prison for downloading them."
Photography, with its claim to truth, is a discipline, he thinks, and he's glad digital technology is ending the rule of the one-eyed monster that never lied. "I suppose I never thought the world looked like photographs, really. A lot of people think it does but it's just one little way of seeing it. All religions are about social control. The church, when it had social control, commissioned paintings, which were made using lenses" - as Hockney has argued in his book Secret Knowledge - "and when it stopped commissioning images, its power declined, slowly. Social control today is in the media - and based on photography. The continuum is the mirrors and lenses."
Hockney is an artist who, at his best, broke free of all disciplines, of photography or politics or anything else, to paint his own paradise. He's still looking for enjoyment. He left America because it has become so prissy about smoking and drinking - but he'll go back, he says. He smokes with evident pleasure. "I was born in Bradford in 1937, it was the smokiest place on earth. We all survived - some people might have coughed a bit and fallen over."
Having been so long in America, there's a lot of Europe he hasn't seen. He's just been to Andalusia for the first time. The Spanish, he says - they know how to enjoy themselves.
· Prunella Clough is at the Spring Olympia Fine Art and Antiques Fair, London W12 (020-7923 3188), until March 7.
The camera today? You can't trust it. Hockney sparks a debate
Artist says ease of manipulation has made photography a dying art
Jonathan Jones and Gerard Seenan
Thursday March 4, 2004
The Guardian
David Hockney, the celebrated pop artist who has worked extensively in photography, has fallen out of love with the medium because of its digital manipulation and now believes it is a dying art form.
In an interview with the Guardian, Hockney says he believes modern photography is now so extensively and easily altered that it can no longer be seen to be true or factual. He also describes art photography as "dull".
Even war photography, once seen as objectively "true", has now been cast in doubt by the ubiquitous use of digital cameras which produce images that can be easily enhanced or twisted.
Hockney points to the case during the Iraq war when the Los Angeles Times sacked a photographer for having superimposed two images to make them more powerful.
"A reader spotted it; they then printed the two photographs with the story and fired him. Why? Because he was not using photography as 'I was there and this happened in front of me'. A newspaper has to have that, or thinks it does," he said.
The result, Hockney believes, is that photography has been pushed closer to drawing and painting. The veracity of what he calls the "chemical period" of images produced faithfully in the darkroom has been lost.
No going back
"We can't go back: Kodak got rid of 22,000 people when it ended its chemical developing. You've no need to believe a photograph made after a certain date because it won't be made the way Cartier-Bresson made his. We know he didn't crop them - he was the master of truthful photography. But you can't have a photographer like that again because we know photographs can be made in different ways."
Hockney also points to the degrading of truth in celebrity photography. He cites a portrait of Elton John taken by a well-known photographer from California. The difference between the final touched-up image and the original was "hilarious", the artist told the Guardian.
The impact of computerised images was most strongly brought to his attention much closer to home: "My sister, who is just a bit older than me, she's a retired district nurse, she's just gone mad with the digital camera and computer - move anything about. She doesn't worry about whether it's authentic; she's just making pictures."
As more and more people emulate his sister and realise that the camera can be made to lie, Hockney hopes there will be a positive side-effect for painting, which will gain in standing in reverse proportion.
The photography world, however, was unwilling last night to see the medium dismissed.
Russell Roberts, head of photography at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, said Hockney's argument was "simplistic".
Mr Roberts said manipulation of images was as old as photography. He could cite numerous examples from the 1840s, the first decade of photography, of images which claimed to be accurate depictions of events but were in fact highly stage managed.
"It would be great if David could cite examples of photographers he felt worked in an era where manipulation was not widespread, before this collective conscious of how manipulative photography is developed," he added.
Manipulated
Eamonn McCabe, a former picture editor of the Guardian, said it had become increasingly difficult for picture editors to tell whether a picture had been manipulated and a growing number of digitally manipulated pictures were being published.
"I think there was perhaps a point where there was a general perception that photography was truth, but we have lost that," he said.
But McCabe said this did not detract from the value of good photography. "To say that photography is dead is faintly ludicrous. It would be better to say that you should be wary of everything."
Hockney, who worked in photography during his photo-collages of the 1980s, now says that photography is inherently inferior to painting as an art form.
He says no photograph or video could ever capture the tenderness of a Rembrandt drawing showing a young family teaching a child to walk.
"For a work of art you need the hand, the eye and the heart. Many people would video that moment, but again, the video would turn it into a performance. Fellini says everything in front of the camera's a performance."
False witness
Charlotte Higgins
Wednesday March 10, 2004
The Guardian
Last week David Hockney declared the end of photography in these pages: the rise and rise of digital cameras, and the concomitant ease with which images can be distorted and manipulated, have put paid to the notion of photography's truthfulness, he argued. Joel Sternfeld, winner of the Citigroup photography prize (for which the Guardian is media partner) begs to differ.
"Photography has always been capable of manipulation," says the New Yorker, whose best known images - a fireman sizes up a pumpkin at a farm stall as a nearby house blazes; an elephant escaped from a circus collapses in the street - capture the sinister curiousness of modern America. "Even more subtle and more invidious is the fact that any time you put a frame to the world, it's an interpretation. I could get my camera and point it at two people and not point it at the homeless third person to the right of the frame, or not include the murder that's going on to the left of the frame. You take 35 degrees out of 360 degrees and call it a photo. There's an infinite number of ways you can do this: photographs have always been authored.
"And nor is anything that purports to be documentary to be completely trusted, anyway," he says, referring to Hockney's assumption that, in the past, war photography was rightly regarded as having claims to veracity. "The Hockney argument is as simplistic as saying that any non-fiction book is truthful. You can never lose sight of the fact that it's authored. With a photograph, you are left with the same modes of interpretation as you are with a book. You ask: what do we know about the author and their background? What do I know about the subject?
"Some of the people who are now manipulating photos, such as Andreas Gursky, make the argument - rightly - that the 'straight' photographs of the 1940s and 50s were no such thing. Ansell Adams would slap a red filter on his lens, then spend three days burning and dodging in the dark room, making his prints," says Sternfeld, referring to the processes of adding or withholding intensity to a print. "That's a manipulation. Even the photographs of Henri Cartier-Bresson, with all due respect to him, are notoriously burned and dodged.
"No individual photo explains anything. That's what makes photography such a wonderful and problematic medium. It is the photographer's job to get this medium to say what you need it to say. Because photography has a certain verisimilitude, it has gained a currency as truthful - but photographs have always been convincing lies."
Verbo Haver (Ciberduvidas)
Tema
Haver/existir
Pergunta/Resposta
É um grande prazer poder tirar minhas dúvidas com vocês. Desde já, agradeço a atenção.
Por que o verbo haver no sentido de existir é impessoal (Há três pessoas na sala.) e o próprio verbo existir não o é (Existem três pessoas na sala.)?
Jaqueline Brand
Brasil
Este verbo, com o sentido de existir, é impessoal pelo seguinte:
No português antigo, não significava existir, mas ter, possuir. Ainda hoje se encontra com este significado em vários casos, como nesta forma de agradecimento: «Bem haja pela ajuda que me deu». Isto é: «Tenha, possua o bem pela ajuda que me deu».
Suponhamos agora o seguinte no português antigo:
(a) O João há (= tem) aqui uma bela casa.
Uma pessoa que passasse naquele sítio, mas sem saber qual o dono da casa, poderia dizer:
(b) Há aqui uma bela casa.
É o mesmo que:
(c) Tem aqui uma bela casa.
Note-se, até, esta coisa interessante: no Brasil, usam frases do tipo da (c), sem sujeito, e cujo verbo tem o significado de existir. Julgo que não estou errado. Em Portugal não se usa.
Com o decorrer dos anos, em presença de frases do tipo da (b), os falantes foram perdendo a consciência de que o verbo haver significava ali ter, e passaram a atribuir-lhe o significado de existir. Conservou-se, no entanto, a impessoalidade nas terceiras pessoas do singular. Por isso, uma bela casa é complemento directo de há. Outros exemplos:
Há/houve/haverá/havia/etc. muitas pessoas, belas casas, etc.
Tema
Haver
Pergunta/Resposta
Como se deve conjugar o verbo haver? Sei que há situações em que se privilegia o uso do verbo no singular, não concordando em número com o complemento directo. Penso que é o caso da frase «há coisas». No entanto, há situações em que o verbo é conjugado no plural, como, por exemplo, «eles hão-de ir à rua». Gostaria de saber qual a regra subjacente, no caso de as minhas suposições estarem correctas.
Alda Rocha
Portugal
Algumas observações, entre outras:
1 - O verbo haver conjuga-se como outro qualquer e significa ter. Escreveu Camões: «Vendo os milagres, vendo a santidade, hão medo de perder a autoridade.»
2 - Emprega-se com a significação de existir. Neste caso, é impessoal (não tem pessoa, isto é, sujeito): Aqui há lindas flores. Há coisas. Como impessoal apenas se emprega na 3.ª pessoa do singular.
3 - Usa-se pronominalmente (haver-se) com significado de portar-se, proceder: O João houve-se muito bem na resposta que deu.
4 - Conjuga-se também como outro verbo qualquer, quando se encontra ligado a uma forma verbal no infinito: Eu hei-de fazer / comer / saborear, etc, esse bolo. É o caso de «Eles hão-de ir à rua». Em frases como estas, o verbo haver está nas mesmas condições que ter: «Elas têm de ir à rua».
Tema
Haver, de novo
Pergunta/Resposta
Sempre tive a ideia de que o verbo Haver apenas se conjugava na terceira pessoa do singular.
Recentemente tenho lido artigos publicados em revistas portuguesas onde se lia: «haverão muitos alunos...», «haverão muitos carros...». Será que esta é a forma correcta e eu sempre estive enganado? Por favor queiram esclarecer-me.
Telmo Figueiredo
estudante
Canadá
Haver é um verbo auxiliar, que se conjuga como os outros. Emprega-se também como unipessoal. Como unipessoal, diga-se:
a) Haverá muitos alunos.
b) Haverá muitos carros.
Nestas frases, o verbo não tem sujeito. O que se lhe segue é o complemento directo. Ora bem sabemos que o verbo não concorda com o complemento directo, mas com o sujeito.
Estas frases estão tão profundamente erradas, que inferiorizam quem as diz.
A excepção, como já se respondeu antes (in Respostas Anteriores), é só quando o haver se emprega como sinónimo de ter: haverão de ir embora.
Tema
Verbo haver, de novo
Pergunta/Resposta
Gostaria de ter comentários acerca do uso correto do verbo haver, como nas frases seguintes:
1. há muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor (ou havia muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor?)
2. a decisão já tinha sido tomada há duas semanas (ou a decisão já tinha sido tomada havia duas semanas?)
Paulo T. Maluf Jr.
médico
São Paulo
Brasil
Vejamos então as frases:
(a) Há muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
(b) Havia muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
Tem muita razão de ter esta dúvida. No português de Portugal, está-se tendendo para a frase (a). A expressão há tempo está-se tornando expressão fixa. Pelo que vejo, no Brasil acontece o mesmo.
A frase inteiramente correcta é a (b), visto que nela há correlação entre os dois tempos verbais, ambos referentes ao passado: havia e sabia. Na frase (a), não existe essa correlação: há (presente) e sabia (passado).
Compreenderemos facilmente o desacerto na frase (a), se substituirmos o verbo haver pelo verbo fazer:
(c) Faz muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
Vemos aqui perfeitamente que o correcto não é faz, mas fazia. O correcto, portanto, não é há, mas havia.
Em Portugal, a mesma frase tem mais um que:
Havia muito tempo que ela não sabia... É um que expletivo, de realce. Podemos suprimi-lo.
Tema
Ainda o verbo haver
Pergunta/Resposta
Nesta frase: É natural que hajam muitas mais imagens. Deve usar-se haja ou hajam?
Teresa Castanheira
professora
Odivelas
O verbo haver, quando usado no sentido de existir, só se conjuga na 3.ª pessoa do singular. Assim, na frase que refere, deve-se dizer (escrever) «é natural que haja muitas mais imagens».
Pode usar o verbo em tempos e modos diferentes - «há muitas imagens»,«haverá muitas imagens», «haveria muitas imagens» - mas sempre na mesma pessoa, a 3ª do singular.
Com o sentido de ter ou como auxiliar da voz perifrástica, o verbo haver conjuga-se normalmente:
«Hão-de vir a nossa casa», «ela não queria os vestidos que suas irmãs haviam usado».
Haver/existir
Pergunta/Resposta
É um grande prazer poder tirar minhas dúvidas com vocês. Desde já, agradeço a atenção.
Por que o verbo haver no sentido de existir é impessoal (Há três pessoas na sala.) e o próprio verbo existir não o é (Existem três pessoas na sala.)?
Jaqueline Brand
Brasil
Este verbo, com o sentido de existir, é impessoal pelo seguinte:
No português antigo, não significava existir, mas ter, possuir. Ainda hoje se encontra com este significado em vários casos, como nesta forma de agradecimento: «Bem haja pela ajuda que me deu». Isto é: «Tenha, possua o bem pela ajuda que me deu».
Suponhamos agora o seguinte no português antigo:
(a) O João há (= tem) aqui uma bela casa.
Uma pessoa que passasse naquele sítio, mas sem saber qual o dono da casa, poderia dizer:
(b) Há aqui uma bela casa.
É o mesmo que:
(c) Tem aqui uma bela casa.
Note-se, até, esta coisa interessante: no Brasil, usam frases do tipo da (c), sem sujeito, e cujo verbo tem o significado de existir. Julgo que não estou errado. Em Portugal não se usa.
Com o decorrer dos anos, em presença de frases do tipo da (b), os falantes foram perdendo a consciência de que o verbo haver significava ali ter, e passaram a atribuir-lhe o significado de existir. Conservou-se, no entanto, a impessoalidade nas terceiras pessoas do singular. Por isso, uma bela casa é complemento directo de há. Outros exemplos:
Há/houve/haverá/havia/etc. muitas pessoas, belas casas, etc.
Tema
Haver
Pergunta/Resposta
Como se deve conjugar o verbo haver? Sei que há situações em que se privilegia o uso do verbo no singular, não concordando em número com o complemento directo. Penso que é o caso da frase «há coisas». No entanto, há situações em que o verbo é conjugado no plural, como, por exemplo, «eles hão-de ir à rua». Gostaria de saber qual a regra subjacente, no caso de as minhas suposições estarem correctas.
Alda Rocha
Portugal
Algumas observações, entre outras:
1 - O verbo haver conjuga-se como outro qualquer e significa ter. Escreveu Camões: «Vendo os milagres, vendo a santidade, hão medo de perder a autoridade.»
2 - Emprega-se com a significação de existir. Neste caso, é impessoal (não tem pessoa, isto é, sujeito): Aqui há lindas flores. Há coisas. Como impessoal apenas se emprega na 3.ª pessoa do singular.
3 - Usa-se pronominalmente (haver-se) com significado de portar-se, proceder: O João houve-se muito bem na resposta que deu.
4 - Conjuga-se também como outro verbo qualquer, quando se encontra ligado a uma forma verbal no infinito: Eu hei-de fazer / comer / saborear, etc, esse bolo. É o caso de «Eles hão-de ir à rua». Em frases como estas, o verbo haver está nas mesmas condições que ter: «Elas têm de ir à rua».
Tema
Haver, de novo
Pergunta/Resposta
Sempre tive a ideia de que o verbo Haver apenas se conjugava na terceira pessoa do singular.
Recentemente tenho lido artigos publicados em revistas portuguesas onde se lia: «haverão muitos alunos...», «haverão muitos carros...». Será que esta é a forma correcta e eu sempre estive enganado? Por favor queiram esclarecer-me.
Telmo Figueiredo
estudante
Canadá
Haver é um verbo auxiliar, que se conjuga como os outros. Emprega-se também como unipessoal. Como unipessoal, diga-se:
a) Haverá muitos alunos.
b) Haverá muitos carros.
Nestas frases, o verbo não tem sujeito. O que se lhe segue é o complemento directo. Ora bem sabemos que o verbo não concorda com o complemento directo, mas com o sujeito.
Estas frases estão tão profundamente erradas, que inferiorizam quem as diz.
A excepção, como já se respondeu antes (in Respostas Anteriores), é só quando o haver se emprega como sinónimo de ter: haverão de ir embora.
Tema
Verbo haver, de novo
Pergunta/Resposta
Gostaria de ter comentários acerca do uso correto do verbo haver, como nas frases seguintes:
1. há muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor (ou havia muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor?)
2. a decisão já tinha sido tomada há duas semanas (ou a decisão já tinha sido tomada havia duas semanas?)
Paulo T. Maluf Jr.
médico
São Paulo
Brasil
Vejamos então as frases:
(a) Há muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
(b) Havia muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
Tem muita razão de ter esta dúvida. No português de Portugal, está-se tendendo para a frase (a). A expressão há tempo está-se tornando expressão fixa. Pelo que vejo, no Brasil acontece o mesmo.
A frase inteiramente correcta é a (b), visto que nela há correlação entre os dois tempos verbais, ambos referentes ao passado: havia e sabia. Na frase (a), não existe essa correlação: há (presente) e sabia (passado).
Compreenderemos facilmente o desacerto na frase (a), se substituirmos o verbo haver pelo verbo fazer:
(c) Faz muito tempo ela não sabia o que era o amor.
Vemos aqui perfeitamente que o correcto não é faz, mas fazia. O correcto, portanto, não é há, mas havia.
Em Portugal, a mesma frase tem mais um que:
Havia muito tempo que ela não sabia... É um que expletivo, de realce. Podemos suprimi-lo.
Tema
Ainda o verbo haver
Pergunta/Resposta
Nesta frase: É natural que hajam muitas mais imagens. Deve usar-se haja ou hajam?
Teresa Castanheira
professora
Odivelas
O verbo haver, quando usado no sentido de existir, só se conjuga na 3.ª pessoa do singular. Assim, na frase que refere, deve-se dizer (escrever) «é natural que haja muitas mais imagens».
Pode usar o verbo em tempos e modos diferentes - «há muitas imagens»,«haverá muitas imagens», «haveria muitas imagens» - mas sempre na mesma pessoa, a 3ª do singular.
Com o sentido de ter ou como auxiliar da voz perifrástica, o verbo haver conjuga-se normalmente:
«Hão-de vir a nossa casa», «ela não queria os vestidos que suas irmãs haviam usado».
Verbo "Haver"
HAVER
1. No sentido de existir , é impessoal e fixa-se na 3ª pessoa do singular
["Há muitas pessoas aqui"].
2. Nas formas compostas, o verbo haver transmite a sua impessoalidade ao verbo acompanhante ["Deve haver problemas"].
Modo Indicativo
Presente
(eu) hei
(tu) hás
(ele) há
(nós) havemos
(vós) haveis
(eles) hão
Pretérito perfeito
(eu) houve
(tu) houveste
(ele) houve
(nós) houvemos
(vós) houvestes
(eles) houveram
Pretérito imperfeito
(eu) havia
(tu) havias
(ele) havia
(nós) havíamos
(vós) havíeis
(eles) haviam
Pretérito mais-que-perfeito
(eu) houvera
(tu) houveras
(ele) houvera
(nós) houvéramos
(vós) houvéreis
(eles) houveram
Futuro do presente
(eu) haverei
(tu) haverás
(ele) haverá
(nós) haveremos
(vós) havereis
(eles) haverão
Futuro do pretérito
(eu) haveria
(tu) haverias
(ele) haveria
(nós) haveríamos
(vós) haveríeis
(eles) haveriam
Modo Subjuntivo
Presente
(eu) haja
(tu) hajas
(ele) haja
(nós) hajamos
(vós) hajais
(eles) hajam
Pretérito imperfeito
(eu) houvesse
(tu) houvesses
(ele) houvesse
(nós) houvéssemos
(vós) houvésseis
(eles) houvessem
Futuro do pretérito
(eu) houver
(tu) houveres
(ele) houver
(nós) houvermos
(vós) houverdes
(eles) houverem
Modo Imperativo
Imperativo afirmativo
há (tu)
haja (você)
hajamos (nós)
havei (vós)
hajam (vocês)
Imperativo negativo
hajas (tu)
haja (você)
hajamos (nós)
hajais (vós)
hajam (vocês)
Formas Nominais
Infinitivo pessoal
(eu) haver
(tu) haveres
(ele) haver
(nós) havermos
(vós) haverdes
(eles) haverem
Infinitivo impessoal
haver
Gerúndio
havendo
Particípio
havido
havida
havidos
havidas
1. No sentido de existir , é impessoal e fixa-se na 3ª pessoa do singular
["Há muitas pessoas aqui"].
2. Nas formas compostas, o verbo haver transmite a sua impessoalidade ao verbo acompanhante ["Deve haver problemas"].
Modo Indicativo
Presente
(eu) hei
(tu) hás
(ele) há
(nós) havemos
(vós) haveis
(eles) hão
Pretérito perfeito
(eu) houve
(tu) houveste
(ele) houve
(nós) houvemos
(vós) houvestes
(eles) houveram
Pretérito imperfeito
(eu) havia
(tu) havias
(ele) havia
(nós) havíamos
(vós) havíeis
(eles) haviam
Pretérito mais-que-perfeito
(eu) houvera
(tu) houveras
(ele) houvera
(nós) houvéramos
(vós) houvéreis
(eles) houveram
Futuro do presente
(eu) haverei
(tu) haverás
(ele) haverá
(nós) haveremos
(vós) havereis
(eles) haverão
Futuro do pretérito
(eu) haveria
(tu) haverias
(ele) haveria
(nós) haveríamos
(vós) haveríeis
(eles) haveriam
Modo Subjuntivo
Presente
(eu) haja
(tu) hajas
(ele) haja
(nós) hajamos
(vós) hajais
(eles) hajam
Pretérito imperfeito
(eu) houvesse
(tu) houvesses
(ele) houvesse
(nós) houvéssemos
(vós) houvésseis
(eles) houvessem
Futuro do pretérito
(eu) houver
(tu) houveres
(ele) houver
(nós) houvermos
(vós) houverdes
(eles) houverem
Modo Imperativo
Imperativo afirmativo
há (tu)
haja (você)
hajamos (nós)
havei (vós)
hajam (vocês)
Imperativo negativo
hajas (tu)
haja (você)
hajamos (nós)
hajais (vós)
hajam (vocês)
Formas Nominais
Infinitivo pessoal
(eu) haver
(tu) haveres
(ele) haver
(nós) havermos
(vós) haverdes
(eles) haverem
Infinitivo impessoal
haver
Gerúndio
havendo
Particípio
havido
havida
havidos
havidas
7.3.04
entrevistar
1.3.04
Princípio da Incerteza/Werner Heisenberg
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2062844/
egghead
Uncertainty About the Uncertainty Principle
Can't anybody get Heisenberg's big idea right?
By Jim Holt
Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:54 PM PT
In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Heisenberg, Werner" lies between "Heidegger, Martin" and "Hell." That is precisely where he belongs. Heisenberg, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, was the leader of Hitler's atomic bomb project during World War II. After the war, he claimed that he had deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb effort. Many believed him. But last month, his protestations of innocence (indeed, valor) were revealed to have been almost certainly a lie. Letters written by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, released to the public for the first time, make it pretty clear that Heisenberg was doing everything he could to produce a nuclear weapon for the Third Reich. His failure was due not to covert heroism but to incompetence.
Heisenberg (1901-76) was a wonderful physicist. At the age of 24, in a rapture on a rock overlooking the North Sea, he had an insight that revolutionized our understanding of the subatomic world. Two years later he announced, in what is probably the most quoted paper in the history of physics, his "uncertainty principle." Today, even the greatest physicists admit to bafflement at Heisenberg's mathematical non sequiturs and leaps of logic. "I have tried several times to read [one of his early papers]," confesses the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, "and although I think I understand quantum mechanics, I have never understood Heisenberg's motivations for the mathematical steps ..."
Though he may have been a magician as a theorist, Heisenberg was something of a dunce at applied physics. His doctoral exam in 1923 was a disaster. Asked about it many years later by Thomas Kuhn, he gave the following account (his examiner was the experimental physicist Wilhelm Wien): "Wein asked me ... about the Fabry-Perot interferometer's resolving power ... and I'd never studied that. ... Then he got annoyed and asked about a microscope's resolving power. I didn't know that. He asked me about a telescope's resolving power, and I didn't know that either. ... So he asked me how a lead storage battery operates and I didn't know that. ... I am not sure whether he wanted to fail me ..." When, during the war, Heisenberg tried to determine how much fissionable uranium would be necessary for a bomb, he botched the calculation and came up with the impossible figure of several tons. (The Hiroshima bomb required only 56 kilograms.) This is not the kind of scientist you want to put in charge of a weapons project.
Those who, prior to last month's revelation about Heisenberg, wished to stress the supposed murkiness of his wartime motives often reached for a metaphor from his physics: the uncertainty principle. Michael Frayn did it in Copenhagen, his play about a mysterious 1941 encounter between Heisenberg and Bohr. Thomas Powers did it in Heisenberg's War, the 1993 book that defended Heisenberg's claim to have destroyed the Nazi bomb project from within. David C. Cassidy did it in the very title of his 1991 biography of Heisenberg, Uncertainty. They should all have known better.
And they're hardly alone. No scientific idea from the last century is more fetishized, abused, and misunderstood—by the vulgar and the learned alike—than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The principle doesn't say anything about how precisely any particular thing can be known. It does say that some pairs of properties are linked in such a way that they cannot both be measured precisely at the same time. In physics, these pairs are called "canonically conjugate variables." One such pair is position and momentum: The more precisely you locate the position of a particle, the less you know about its momentum (and vice versa). Another is time and energy: The more precisely you know the time span in which something occurred, the less you know about the energy involved (and vice versa).
How could this principle of physics be applied to Heisenberg the man? In the postscript to Copenhagen, Frayn writes, "There is not one single thought or intention of any sort that can ever be precisely established." Well, maybe; but the uncertainty principle applies to pairs of properties. In Heisenberg's case, the relevant pair is motivation and competence. How willing was he to help Hitler? How competent was he to produce an atomic bomb? But notice that there is a positive relationship between our knowledge of one and of the other: The more certain we become that Heisenberg was willing to serve the Third Reich, the more certain we become that he was incompetent to produce a bomb. This is not the uncertainty principle, but its exact opposite. Evidently, knavishness and incompetence are not canonically conjugate variables.
A more banal misuse of Heisenberg's principle can be found in the social sciences. There the principle is often taken to mean that the very act of observing a phenomenon inevitably alters that phenomenon in some way; that is why, say, Margaret Mead could never know the sexual mores of the Samoans—her very presence on the island distorted what she was there to observe. Postmodern theorists (like Stanley Aronowitz) invoke the uncertainty principle as proof of the unstable hermeneutics of subject-object relations, arguing that it undermines science's claim to objectivity.
Even physicists show considerable uncertainty about what the uncertainty principle really means. Dozens of different interpretations have been proposed over the years. Some locate the uncertainty in some inherent clumsiness in the act of measurement itself. How do you learn the position of an electron with great accuracy? By bouncing a photon off of it. But since the electron is quite tiny, the photon must have a comparably tiny wavelength and thus a very great energy (since wavelength and energy are inversely related). So, the photon will impart a random "kick" to the electron that will affect its momentum in an unknowable way. Heisenberg himself opted for this kind of interpretation, which is called "epistemic," since it places the burden of uncertainty on the knower. Niels Bohr, by contrast, plumped for an "ontic" interpretation, attributing the uncertainty not to the knower and his measurement apparatus but to reality itself. Familiar concepts like "position" and "momentum" simply do not apply at the quantum level, Bohr argued. The contemporary physicist Roger Penrose has declared himself unhappy with the whole gamut of interpretations of Heisenberg's principle, while admitting he has nothing better to replace them with just now.
From a mathematical point of view, there is nothing the least bit problematic about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you try to translate the sentence, "Electron e is exactly at position x with a momentum of exactly p," into the formal language of quantum theory, you get ungrammatical gibberish, just as you would if you tried to translate "the round square" into the language of geometry. It is only when you try to make sense of the principle philosophically that the waters begin to rise up around you. Years ago, the Princeton physicist John Wheeler began to wonder whether Heisenberg's uncertainty principle might not have some deep connection to Gödel's incompleteness theorem (probably the second most misunderstood discovery of the 20th century). Both, after all, seem to place inherent limits on what it is possible to know. But such speculation can be dangerous. "Well, one day [Wheeler recounts] I was at the Institute of Advanced Study, and I went to Gödel's office, and there was Gödel. It was winter and Gödel had an electric heater and had his legs wrapped in a blanket. I said, 'Professor Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?' And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office."
Jim Holt writes the "Egghead" column for Slate. He also writes for The New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine.
egghead
Uncertainty About the Uncertainty Principle
Can't anybody get Heisenberg's big idea right?
By Jim Holt
Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 12:54 PM PT
In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Heisenberg, Werner" lies between "Heidegger, Martin" and "Hell." That is precisely where he belongs. Heisenberg, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, was the leader of Hitler's atomic bomb project during World War II. After the war, he claimed that he had deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb effort. Many believed him. But last month, his protestations of innocence (indeed, valor) were revealed to have been almost certainly a lie. Letters written by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, released to the public for the first time, make it pretty clear that Heisenberg was doing everything he could to produce a nuclear weapon for the Third Reich. His failure was due not to covert heroism but to incompetence.
Heisenberg (1901-76) was a wonderful physicist. At the age of 24, in a rapture on a rock overlooking the North Sea, he had an insight that revolutionized our understanding of the subatomic world. Two years later he announced, in what is probably the most quoted paper in the history of physics, his "uncertainty principle." Today, even the greatest physicists admit to bafflement at Heisenberg's mathematical non sequiturs and leaps of logic. "I have tried several times to read [one of his early papers]," confesses the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, "and although I think I understand quantum mechanics, I have never understood Heisenberg's motivations for the mathematical steps ..."
Though he may have been a magician as a theorist, Heisenberg was something of a dunce at applied physics. His doctoral exam in 1923 was a disaster. Asked about it many years later by Thomas Kuhn, he gave the following account (his examiner was the experimental physicist Wilhelm Wien): "Wein asked me ... about the Fabry-Perot interferometer's resolving power ... and I'd never studied that. ... Then he got annoyed and asked about a microscope's resolving power. I didn't know that. He asked me about a telescope's resolving power, and I didn't know that either. ... So he asked me how a lead storage battery operates and I didn't know that. ... I am not sure whether he wanted to fail me ..." When, during the war, Heisenberg tried to determine how much fissionable uranium would be necessary for a bomb, he botched the calculation and came up with the impossible figure of several tons. (The Hiroshima bomb required only 56 kilograms.) This is not the kind of scientist you want to put in charge of a weapons project.
Those who, prior to last month's revelation about Heisenberg, wished to stress the supposed murkiness of his wartime motives often reached for a metaphor from his physics: the uncertainty principle. Michael Frayn did it in Copenhagen, his play about a mysterious 1941 encounter between Heisenberg and Bohr. Thomas Powers did it in Heisenberg's War, the 1993 book that defended Heisenberg's claim to have destroyed the Nazi bomb project from within. David C. Cassidy did it in the very title of his 1991 biography of Heisenberg, Uncertainty. They should all have known better.
And they're hardly alone. No scientific idea from the last century is more fetishized, abused, and misunderstood—by the vulgar and the learned alike—than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The principle doesn't say anything about how precisely any particular thing can be known. It does say that some pairs of properties are linked in such a way that they cannot both be measured precisely at the same time. In physics, these pairs are called "canonically conjugate variables." One such pair is position and momentum: The more precisely you locate the position of a particle, the less you know about its momentum (and vice versa). Another is time and energy: The more precisely you know the time span in which something occurred, the less you know about the energy involved (and vice versa).
How could this principle of physics be applied to Heisenberg the man? In the postscript to Copenhagen, Frayn writes, "There is not one single thought or intention of any sort that can ever be precisely established." Well, maybe; but the uncertainty principle applies to pairs of properties. In Heisenberg's case, the relevant pair is motivation and competence. How willing was he to help Hitler? How competent was he to produce an atomic bomb? But notice that there is a positive relationship between our knowledge of one and of the other: The more certain we become that Heisenberg was willing to serve the Third Reich, the more certain we become that he was incompetent to produce a bomb. This is not the uncertainty principle, but its exact opposite. Evidently, knavishness and incompetence are not canonically conjugate variables.
A more banal misuse of Heisenberg's principle can be found in the social sciences. There the principle is often taken to mean that the very act of observing a phenomenon inevitably alters that phenomenon in some way; that is why, say, Margaret Mead could never know the sexual mores of the Samoans—her very presence on the island distorted what she was there to observe. Postmodern theorists (like Stanley Aronowitz) invoke the uncertainty principle as proof of the unstable hermeneutics of subject-object relations, arguing that it undermines science's claim to objectivity.
Even physicists show considerable uncertainty about what the uncertainty principle really means. Dozens of different interpretations have been proposed over the years. Some locate the uncertainty in some inherent clumsiness in the act of measurement itself. How do you learn the position of an electron with great accuracy? By bouncing a photon off of it. But since the electron is quite tiny, the photon must have a comparably tiny wavelength and thus a very great energy (since wavelength and energy are inversely related). So, the photon will impart a random "kick" to the electron that will affect its momentum in an unknowable way. Heisenberg himself opted for this kind of interpretation, which is called "epistemic," since it places the burden of uncertainty on the knower. Niels Bohr, by contrast, plumped for an "ontic" interpretation, attributing the uncertainty not to the knower and his measurement apparatus but to reality itself. Familiar concepts like "position" and "momentum" simply do not apply at the quantum level, Bohr argued. The contemporary physicist Roger Penrose has declared himself unhappy with the whole gamut of interpretations of Heisenberg's principle, while admitting he has nothing better to replace them with just now.
From a mathematical point of view, there is nothing the least bit problematic about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you try to translate the sentence, "Electron e is exactly at position x with a momentum of exactly p," into the formal language of quantum theory, you get ungrammatical gibberish, just as you would if you tried to translate "the round square" into the language of geometry. It is only when you try to make sense of the principle philosophically that the waters begin to rise up around you. Years ago, the Princeton physicist John Wheeler began to wonder whether Heisenberg's uncertainty principle might not have some deep connection to Gödel's incompleteness theorem (probably the second most misunderstood discovery of the 20th century). Both, after all, seem to place inherent limits on what it is possible to know. But such speculation can be dangerous. "Well, one day [Wheeler recounts] I was at the Institute of Advanced Study, and I went to Gödel's office, and there was Gödel. It was winter and Gödel had an electric heater and had his legs wrapped in a blanket. I said, 'Professor Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?' And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office."
Jim Holt writes the "Egghead" column for Slate. He also writes for The New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine.
Archives
fevereiro 2004 março 2004 abril 2004 maio 2004 junho 2004 julho 2004 agosto 2004 setembro 2004 outubro 2004 novembro 2004 dezembro 2004 janeiro 2005 fevereiro 2005 março 2005 abril 2005 maio 2005 junho 2005 julho 2005 agosto 2005 setembro 2005 novembro 2005 dezembro 2005 janeiro 2006 fevereiro 2006 abril 2006 maio 2006 junho 2006 julho 2006 outubro 2006 janeiro 2008 maio 2008 setembro 2008 outubro 2008 novembro 2008 janeiro 2010
