The Conflict of Interest of CO2

By | November 22, 2011
4 Comments

image

Quite a hoo ha over one of those weekend type stories whose headline in the Times of London says it all:

Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches

Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says that performing two Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea

The article liberally quotes Wissner-Gross “a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon.” Lower down the storiy It also says “Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website www.CO2stats.com.”

True. Though what it doesn’t say is that the website—and Wissner-Gross–directly benefits from this kind of research. C02Stats offers clients plans, ranging from $5 a month to $100, to calculate their websites total energy consumption, make it more energy efficient, and then neutralizes their carbon footprint by buying renewable energy from wind and solar farms.

The startup is funded by Y Combinator, which specializes in giving modest funding—about $10,000—to small startups. Indeed, Wissner-Gross, an environmental fellow, has set up four such companies.

Now, the research may well be right. (Some doubt it.) And the idea of certifying websites is not a bad idea. But I guess what troubles me is that an academic is able to publish research which tries to prove a point which would benefit the same academic’s business which offers green certification which depends upon a service which the business sells.

I’m sure it’s not the only example, but it strikes me as quite a compromise going on there.

Radio Australia Stuff, Jan 9 2009

By | November 22, 2011
0 Comment

For those listening to my slot on Radio Australia’s Breakfast Show, here’s what I was talking about:

Clint, Veganism, and Maligning the Net

By | November 22, 2011
6 Comments

Great interview in the International Herald Tribune/NYT with Clint Eastwood, but once again, it’s old media slagging off new media and ending up looking the worse for it.

The interviewer, presumably, asks Clint to confirm that he’s a vegan. Turns out he’s not.  Apparently the writer did his research on Wikipedia, because that’s what he cites as a source:

Despite what you might have read on Wikipedia, Eastwood is not a vegan, and he looked slightly aghast when told exactly what a vegan is. “I never look at the Internet for just that reason,” he said.

Trouble is, the source is not Wikipedia. As anyone who uses Wikipedia knows, any information on there must be sourced. A glance at the actual Wikipedia page would reveal that the source for this ‘fact’ about Clint is, in fact, a fellow old media source, The Los Angeles Times:

People ask him to autograph rifles, but Eastwood is no Charlton Heston. A vegan, he was distressed to hear Hillary Rodham Clinton boast recently about bagging a bird.

This piece was subsequently run in the San Jose Mercury News, the Providence Journal and PressDisplay.

In fact, you won’t be able to see this on the Wikipedia page anymore because it’s been removed. That’s because some new media moves faster than old media: on December 11, the day the NYT piece was first published, a Wikipedian spotted the reference and prompted a discussion, and the removal of the reference on the grounds that a direct denial from Eastwood trumps an LAT piece. (You can see the discussion here.)

In other words, from what we can judge, the journalist involved researched Clint on Wikipedia, and was ready enough to accept that as a source on which to base his questions. When the fact in question turned out to be wrong, he allowed Clint to make a familiar sideswipe at the Internet, and not further research the origin of the myth.

But the story doesn’t stop there. The LA Times doesn’t cite a source. But there are plenty of them—apparently. Clint is quoted on dozens of sites as saying

“I try to stick to a vegan diet—heavy on fruit, vegetables, tofu, and other soy products.”

Sites like GoVeg.com have been happy to include him in their Animal-Friendly Celebrities (although, to their credit, they seem to have removed him. Compare this page with this cached version.)

What’s perhaps most intriguing is the source of this quote. I’ll admit I can’t find it. But it’s been bouncing around the net for a couple of years; this forum cites it in September 2006. I found a  piece in Glasgow’s Daily Record on May 23, 2006 that also listed Clint as vegetarian, although the web site does not seem to contain a record of it. The oldest reference I can find is in the Miami New Times, on October 13 2005, which lists Clint among a number of (supposed) vegans.

In other words, a myth arose on the net, without any straightforward way of establishing its provenance or authenticity, which was then happily picked up by websites, businesses, and organisations whose purpose it served, then found its way into a mainstream news article, before finally being authoritatively quashed.

So yes, in a way Clint and the NYT reporter are right. The Internet isn’t reliable. But Wikipedia is. Or at least, it’s no less reliable than the sources it cites. Which in this case, happened to be old media itself.

Lesson? As a journalist I guess I might too have fallen into the trap of trusting the LA Times. But it’s a timely reminder that there’s no fact too small or apparently established that it can’t stand to be fact-checked.

Just don’t blame the net if you get it wrong. It’s cheap and it’s old wave.

The veteran power of Clint Eastwood – International Herald Tribune

The Aviators of Social Media

By | November 22, 2011
0 Comment

What’s more astonishing: Twitter’s extraordinary capabilities for distributing information, or news managers’ reluctance to recognize its power?

When describing a digital media phenomenon to old media staff it’s useful to look for an old media analogy. I describe Twitter, as being like an old AP news printer, sitting in the corner of the newsroom, spitting out news all day long. Except it’s written by the people you choose to follow.

And there’s more. Unlike the news printer which only delivered you information, if you want to you can follow stories back to your sources and see who they were talking to about whatever it is that interests you.

But even after my analogies, my bubbling enthusiasm for Twitter, and my “see, I can see what people who do my job are saying all over the country,” I’m still often met with those “whatever makes you happy” smiles.

Which leads me to another analogy. Perhaps the Twitterati, and other news people experimenting with digital media tools are a little like the early aviators.

In the years before the First World War there were very few of them. They were flying planes, building new planes, talking about planes and constantly trying new ideas. I’ve no doubt they were totally obsessed with flight. Are two engines better than one? Will monoplanes fly faster than biplanes? How about using metal for the wings?

But for everyone else, planes probably seemed fun, but dangerous and of no real interest to them. How would planes ever impact their lives? Besides everyone else had better things to do on carts and trains. And those crazy aviators; well, good luck to them.

Times have changed. No one thinks twice about flying today. No one thinks about whether the plane will have enough fuel or what makes it stay up. Flying is just a part of life, in spite of the fact that the general idea of a flying machine has really changed very little in a hundred years. It still has two wings, a body and a tail. It’s just more refined and developed.

One day soon we’ll be in Twitter’s age of commercial flight. Everyone will take micro-blogging for granted, and wonder what life must have been like buying newspapers for news, or looking at one of those old televisions. “Remember those,” we’ll say, with a smile.

How Good Information Goes Bad

By | November 22, 2011
1 Comment

image 

The Internet is fast becoming a sort of gossip chamber where the real merges with the fantasy, leaving ordinary people overwhelmed. I’m not sure it’s a good thing.

Take an email my wife forwarded me this morning. It’s from a newsgroup comprising Indonesian expat mothers in Singapore (talk about niches!). The sender had forwarded an email they received from someone who claimed to have had the scam they describe befall them in Singapore.

The scam itself is ingenious: someone phones a resident, saying they’ve got a package to deliver and confirming someone will be home. The package is a beautiful basket of flowers and wine. No card (the delivery guy says it’s coming later.) Recipient happy, but told will have to pay $3.50 as proof the delivery guy left the alcohol-containing package to an adult. Fair enough.

The recipient goes to get cash. No, says the guy, it has to be by EFTPOS—a bank card—because he’s not allowed to handle cash. Fair enough.

He swipes the card on  his machine, recipient enters PIN, and off delivery guy goes.

Within a few days, several thousand dollars disappears from the recipient’s account, via a duplicated card and the stolen PIN number.

Now this is a good, classy and brazen scam. And it’s true. It did happen—in Sydney, Australia, in October (and possibly November) 2008. The guy involved was arrested on November 21.

But it didn’t, as far as we know, happen in Singapore. Or anywhere else.

But that hasn’t stopped the email from spreading virally. In Malaysia, Canada, and elsewhere.

Myth-busting sites like Snopes and Hoax Slayer have done a good job of trying to separate fact and fiction. The problem is that as these legitimate stories spread, they serve to confuse and alarm rather than educate the public. As Hoax Slayer puts it:

While they may be perfectly valid when first launched, a problem with such warning emails is that they may continue to circulate for years and eventually become outdated and redundant. And, as noted, false or misleading information may be added to the messages as they circulate and such additions can significantly erode their use as warnings. Before forwarding such warning messages, it is always wise to check that the information they contain is accurate and up-to-date.

I quite agree. It’s good that people are wary, but not based on stories that are no longer true.

Checklist to avoid such scams:

  • Ask to see credentials of any delivery guy, whether or not he’s giving you free stuff.
  • If you’re wary, don’t accept the delivery. Even if it’s free stuff.
  • You should not be asked to pay money by someone appearing at your door unless you’re expecting the package. Sadly this is not properly adhered to, even by supposedly reputable couriers. In Indonesia I would find the couriers demanding duty payments that were not sufficiently documented.
  • Don’t let anyone swipe your bank card unless you’ve established who they are.
  • If in doubt, demand a name card and take a photo of the person with your cellphone. Then close the door.

Photo credit: North Shore Times.