Communicate Your Ideas

Misreading E-Books

2012-01-04T21:39:00.000-08:00

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported a new study today that shows most students only saved $1 purchasing E-Textbooks when compared to those who purchased printed books.

Sadly this is the headline but isn't the important aspect of this study. After all, why shouldn't publishers expect to get paid for their work whether they deliver it on paper or via bits and bytes? We should know by now that publishing something electronically doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be less expensive.

The real question of worth is not related to the monetary cost, the question is will people use it and will it surpass the utility of simply consuming the printed word?

The Educause study from Daytona State College reports that more than 60% of participants did not enjoy reading or referring to their text book in place of a printed book. Further, more than 65% of students felt they were less prepared for exams then they would have been if they would have had the book.

One big challenge to the Daytona State College teaching staff in this study was the fact that many of their students were not technologically savvy. This can certainly effect the results of the study. We could imagine that students with more technical skills would be more attracted to the technology and thus would have been happier reading the books online.

If you look at the results of the study, though, you see that the students did use the technology available to them and found it quite important to the success of their work in the class. About 65% of students said the applications on the netbooks they were assigned were helpful in doing the work in the class.

So the students used the technology to complete their class work but they did not enjoy reading the book electronically and they felt the screen version of the text left them less prepared than they would have been with a printed book.

Another factor in gauging the utility of E-books and E-readers is the ecological footprint of the technology versus printed books. It turns out that the environmental impact of the electronic version may by much higher than the printed version. According Raz Godelnik of EcoLibris, Apple Computer's own documentation shows that one iPad has "the carbon footprint that is equal to the footprint of about 32 paper books". Amazon.com and other E-reader sellers do not publish the eco-footprint of Kindle and other devices.

I am not suggesting that E-books and E-readers are wasteful or bad. In fact, I believe the technology of these micro devices should be important to the expansion of communication between people in the modern world. It is, in fact, the utility of the communications tools that make these devices so important, not the consumption of media. The communications tools can make them more valuable then if they are used simply as tools for media consumption.

Schools and families buying up these devices by the millions should be planning other uses beyond keeping books out of our children's backpacks. Manufacturers should be creating devices that have other tools that further the communication of ideas between people.

Making a list of applications for these devices and how you would use them in learning and communicating is a great place to start when trying to decide whether or not to introduce an iPad or Kindle to your students. Not, how many books you can pack into them.

The FBI, CIA, Social Media, and Ninja Librarians

2011-11-07T20:21:00.001-08:00

Last month we had a small election in our County. There were two seats open on our local school board and a bond measure for our local community services agency. As always I made sure to vote. When I got home that night I posted a Facebook notice to let people know I had voted in case anyone I knew had forgotten about the election. A few minutes later a friend posted a comment after mine. When I came to the page to read the comment I noticed a couple of Facebook ads related to elections.

On the face of it, Facebook "Related Ads" seem to be quite helpful. Why wouldn't I want to know about other election information? I've just told the whole world that I'm interested in elections.

What I know is that whatever I publish on Internet is public or at least available to someone no matter what Privacy Settings Facebook or any other Internet service offers me. In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg goes so far as to say that this is a good thing. Humans long for connecting with people with whom they have something in common. That's why Facebook is so successful says Zukerberg.

As we begin to use social media, and the Internet in general, more and more for publishing our political opinions and activities the Orwellian questions arise as to who knows what I'm doing and what are they doing with that information?

It turns out that a growing list of organizations have the capacity to know. Obviously Facebook knows everything you publish on their service. So do the FBI and the CIA.

In a recent NPR story, How Does the CIA Use Social Media? Robert Seigel interviews Associated Press intelligence correspondent Kimberly Dozier about the CIA's hundreds of "ninja librarians" who comb through millions of tweets and Facebook postings looking for information to provide US government policymakers. When Dozier asked the CIA about the possibility that their analysts might be following postings by American citizens she said "the CIA was very clear with me: We do not follow Americans here or overseas. That's not our purview."

Of course it is the purview of the FBI. We can be certain they are using the same methods and digital tools to conduct their investigations. And, they are likely using the same tools anyone of us can use -- Google Analytics. "Enterprise-class web analytics made smarter, friendlier and free" is the motto Google uses to describe their powerful service that analyzes web traffic.

After the 2011 popular uprisings in the Middle East, United States intelligence staff realized they could have used these tools to predict the uprising in Egypt. In a story for NPA (Google: A New Tool For US Intelligence) Army instructor Gabriel Koehler-Derrick describes how "Google Trends allows us to get a sense of atmospherics." Trying to get a pulse of the citizenry, investigators tap into what kind of information searches people are doing. What they found after the fact in Egypt was that people were following what was going on in Tunis far more than what they might typically be searching on most days.

This isn't something new. Companies have been following our purchasing trends since the advent of computers. Grocery stores have decades of purchasing data on each of us as do banks and credit card companies.

What's different is that now we are putting even more data online. It's not just our shopping habits but our vacations, our family images, our sexual and religious preferences, and our political views. The potential for government officials and investigators for misusing this information is great. Racial profiling is one example of this very difficult issue facing our country since the tragedy on September 11, 2001. Certainly our digital footprints are a big part of the process.

Because we live in a Democratic society I have faith that the power of the information flow will not only allow us to maintain our personal freedoms but also help guarantee the open, Democratic life we enjoy.

During the recent political unrest in the US the world got a window into the power of citizenry voice. A University of California, Davis student published an eight minute video of a pepper spray incident on campus. To date nearly 2.4 million people have seen this video on YouTube.

The video expanded the public dialog such that students were able to communicate their ideas on major mainstream media outlets like Fox News. Shortened versions of the video and snippets hit the mainstream media like wildfire. It went viral. More importantly, the video provides the kind of trend that even Google's electronic servers can't analyze.

Most people watch only about the first minute and a half of the video. However, about two minutes into the video you begin to hear voices in the crowd scream "shame on you!" After just a few shouts the screams turn into a chant. In the next few minutes the police begin to realize that something terrible had just happened and they start to back away. The camera follows as the crowd begins to chant in unison over and over again. The eery video appears as if the students were pushing the police away with their verbal chastising.

This event was no Kent State and the world has changed significantly since that terrible day on May 4, 1970. One result of the tragedy at Kent State was a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of a young woman kneeling over the body of a dead student. He had just been shot and killed by the Ohio National Guard. The photo helped inspire Neil Young to write one of the most memorable songs of his long and illustrious career. It also helped galvanize a generation of Americans who stood up and helped finally end the war in Vietnam.

There is no telling what today's social media will do when it comes to changing the political landscape. Just as easily as groups use it to post information about their political views, other groups can use it to publish their own views in an attempt to squelch other movements. That sounds much like Democracy to me.

Today's young people have been born as "great communicators" and the tools available to them may expand their political base if used effectively.

Whatever happens, what we do know is that the whole world is watching. Literally.

Note to self . . . there are vans that don't have automatic doors

2011-10-23T23:29:00.000-07:00

This afternoon I picked up my daughter and her friend Gabby at the local mall. When I dropped Gabby off at her house she got out of the van and said goodbye. Then she pulled the handle on the door and began to walk away.

But the door didn't close.

I drive a lot of kids around these days and most of them make the same mistake with our doors. It turns out we have a 12 year old van with standard doors. Most kids today are used to automatic doors.

You could say it's time for me to trade-in my van after 182,000 miles but I think we'll keep it for a few more years. Maybe I should put a sign on the door to remind kids that they need to pull on the door to close it . . .

About a year or two ago I started wondering about who was it that invented the automatic door. Why is it such a great idea? Sure busses have them but do we need them in our personal cars?

Then I thought about Thor's Wheels. This is a B.C. comic from the 1980s. Thor, who makes one wheeled vehicles, is asked if he'd ever considered a multi-wheeled vehicle. His reply shows that either he can't imagine a different type of vehicle ever becoming useful. Or, he's completely satisfied with a one wheeled vehicle.

This is the trouble with technology. We get used to it and can't imagine the need for anything else. And, we hardly have the time to go out and find something new and learn how to use it. Then someone like Steve Jobs comes up with an idea for a new technology, creates an "insanely great" product out of it, and we all want to have it.

But is that enough of a reason to go out and get it? What are we doing with the old technology we leave behind? Are we making sure it's donated to someone who will reuse it or perhaps taking it to a recycle center? Or, is it headed for a dusty spot in a back closet or the garage, or perhaps even the garbage heap?

The scariest part of this story for me is what we are teaching ourselves and our younger generations. Most of my daughters friends are very sweet and I'm sure they don't judge me harshly for having to manually close the doors in my van. But they do react in a strange way the very first time they have to close the door of my van. It's as if they just had to learn something new.

I can hear their internal brain talking to them at that very moment: "Note to self . . . there are vans that don't have automatic doors. Back in the old days you had to close them manually using your physical strength."

I think I'll keep my van for a few more years. I just hope my daughter's friends don't think I'm some grouchy old man barking at them to close the door properly.

When I do get another vehicle it will probably not be a van. By then I hope to be done with this taxi cab driving lifestyle and I can get something smaller and more sustainable. It won't have automatic doors. Or will it? It probably won't have a key and a number of other "features" I can't even imagine. It might actually drive itself.

Sometimes I feel just like Thor. Sometimes I feel so last week.

Can Gaming Save Education?

2011-09-14T10:03:00.000-07:00

I attended a presentation this week at the Marin County Office of Education with James Paul Gee, author of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Gee's thesis is about the positive aspects of gaming and why we should use video games in education.

He says we can use games to help people (young and old) learn teamwork, how to work on projects, and how to be learners who voluntarily seek out information in creative fashion.

Gee also describes how in education today we "punish" students who get it wrong with bad grades which tends to make them feel as if they are failing, while in gaming failure can be a positive process that helps us learn from our mistakes and get one step closer to success, the next level of the game, and our ultimate goal of completing (or winning) the game.

He also points out that this process of coming back from failure and striving for success helps make gamers more resilient and that resiliency is key to becoming a good learner and a successful person in today's competitive world.

These are all noble and important ideas which I believe are generally true. His examples from World of Warcraft and other games make sense. However, I believe Gee puts too much emphasis on the tech piece of the learning process.

At the end of his talk Gee left us with a slide that said "Teachers as Creators." The idea he wanted us to take away is that it's time for teachers to become creators of games that can teach students what they need to know in the process of playing the game. After all, if the people who built World of WarCraft can do this so successfully, why can't our teachers do the same in education?

To me this is the same argument we've heard for decades. The problem is defined as education is failing and the proof is that students are dropping out, or worse, sliding through without learning anything. Students are arriving at college without basic writing skills necessary to succeed at this higher level.

The system needs reform and why not turn it all into a computer game? We've shown how playing games helps people learn, this should be easy to do in schools. Right?

When I asked him about this one on one Gee said he also believes the transition to a gaming emphasis in education should be lead by the techies and not educators despite the fact that he spent a good deal of time in his talk praising teachers and lamenting how government programs like No Child Left Behind have destroyed teaching and teachers role in education.

In fact, I asked him if he had read Douglas Rushkoff's recent book "Program or Be Programmed" which suggests that people (such as teachers) need to learn how to create and manage the technology in our lives or risk being controlled by the programs that run our social, economic, and information systems. Gee scoffed and described Rushkoff as someone who says anything he thinks will help him sell books.

The truth is that Rushkoff has gone away from some of his earlier ideas promoting and evangelizing the positives of technology in life and has begun to question what it's doing to our society and our kids in particular. In my view this is essentially opposite to what Gee is saying about using gaming in education. For Gee it's all about putting gaming (technology) into learning.

Ironically Gee kept saying in his presentation how it isn't an either/or proposition. This is the one point I left thinking about the most. Teachers use project based learning extensively. This aspect in teaching has grown significantly for at least two decades with the help of organizations such as CUE, ISTE, GLEF, and BIE and many more.

Schools have successfully integrated technology into the learning space on a massive scale and teachers are becoming more and more skilled at involving technology in their curriculum.

Teachers are creative learners who strive to make sure their classes are fun and interesting so that their students leave with a sense of the importance of being a life long learner. Education is filled with opportunities for students to learn teamwork and become information literate.

Taking into account the ideas Gee shows us from learning through games and integrating those ideas into our curriculum makes sense. We need to learn teamwork, how to work on projects, and how to be learners who voluntarily seek out information in creative fashion. Re-tooling education to be a computer game is not the way to achieve this goal.

Education doesn't need to be saved. It needs to be nurtured and improved to meet the needs of 21st century world.

Who Will Save Us From The Future?

2011-08-06T09:07:00.000-07:00

Who will save us from the future?

Clive Thompson writes in his column Keying In The Future Leaders in The Bohemian about how a college english student named Daniel Finnegan who invented an application for your smart phone that will automatically reply to a text message you receive while driving (or any other time you don't need or want to answer a text message). The application will explain that you are driving and will reply as soon as you get to a safe place to send a text message.

Thompson uses Finnegan as an example of how modern computer programming allows even non-computer geeks to build apps that will support and improve human existence. Finnegan used a new Google tool called App Inventor which allows for graphical "programming" of the system and features of your smart phone.

He further cites Douglas Rushkoff's recent treatise "Program Or Be Programmed" as evidence of the importance of this new way of using technology to improve our lives.

Rushkoff explains - "That's right: America, the country that once put men on the moon, is now falling behind most developed and many developing nations in computer education. We do not teach programming in most public schools. Instead of teaching programming most schools with computer literacy curriculums teach programs. Kids learn how to use popular spreadsheet, word processing, and browsing software so that they can operate effectively in the high-tech workplace. These basic skills may make them more employable for the entry level cubicle jobs of today, but they will not help them adapt to the technologies of tomorrow."

Rushkoff and Thompson make a good point about the basic understanding most people have of technology and it's use and interface within our lives. As someone who teaches people how technology can be your friend, make your life easier, help you learn and communicate with others, I see how we all need to learn more about how technology works (or doesn't work) for us.

That part I agree with. It's the part about why Finnegan decided to create his ingenious phone app that bothers me. "How do you stop people from texting while driving?" asked Thompson. It turns out that Finnegan "realized that one of the reasons people type messages while they're in the car is that they don't want to be rude -- they want to respond quickly so friends (and I assume he also meant colleagues) don't think they're being ignored."

Is it a great idea to have a app for your phone that auto replies to people when you can't get to their message as quickly as they might like? Absolutely. There are so many places where this can be useful. Is it a great idea to live in a world where people think you are rude for not immediately responding to a text. Not at all.

That's where I believe we are falling behind. To me this life of always on and always connected is turning us into rude people expecting others to do something we may, or may not, have the time or even want to do in response. What if I'm in a meeting with someone else? Is that person not deserving of my full attention? I think so and therefore wouldn't answer a phone call, E-mail, or text while meeting with them.

Recently someone arranged a meeting me and one other person. The person who arranged the meeting spent the entire time texting and writing E-mails on his phone glancing up to make a comment every once in awhile. My take away from that is whatever I had to say was not as important as whatever was coming across his phone. If that's the case, spare me the rudeness and don't meet with me. Or, better yet, don't pick up your phone and "work on it" while your supposed to be working with me.

Every so often one of my friends announces they are taking time off or even eliminating their online social networking activities because it's taken over their lives. Eventually they come back and usually with a little more balance in the amount of time they spend doing it. Integrating technology in our lives is not as easy as we might think. We often spend more time than we should with the technology that is designed to improve our lives and make it easier for us to enjoy life itself.

I'm all for democratizing the creation of technology systems and services in our lives. I'm also for having more time to be human with my family, friends, co-workers and colleagues.

I'm on vacation this week and we brought three computers with us. While on the surface that seems literally absurd to me now as I write this blog.

However, I do recognize the importance of the communication we have with the people in our world and that as long as we're not camping or literally on an island somewhere we are going to want to communicate with them.

I'm just hoping for a world where we won't be considered rude, or treated even worse, if we don't immediately reply to some form of communication in a "timely manner." I believe this is where education comes in to play. We need to integrate the technology in our world but we need to do so in a manner that is reasonable and that there are shared expectations regarding when and how we communicate with each other.

All The News Isn't Much Fit to Print Anymore

2011-04-17T14:25:00.000-07:00

During my recent trip to Detroit I passed by the former home of the Detroit Free Press. Like so many other buildings in Detroit this one was boarded up thanks to the decline in the economy.

Raise your hand if you still read a newspaper . . . I didn't think so. It should be no surprise for people to learn about the continued shrinkage in media outlets. Despite the big business that is the broadcast and publishing media industry the news and information component of this important sector of our society is sadly disappearing.

Advertising continues to be the major income for news outlets but this is a diminishing world for publishers. Revenue for American newspapers fell 6.3 percent in 2010 as compared with the previous year which was the worst on record according to the Newspaper Association of America. This occurred in a time when overall advertising increased especially in Television which went up by more than 10 percent last year.

As a sign of the times, the New York Times recently announced fees for readers of their online edition. With the overall decline in ad revenues for the print and electronic versions of newspapers, the Times decided it needed to charge fees for web readers to view their content.

In his presentation to employees about the fees, NY Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. called the move an investment in the future of the company and the overall existence of journalism itself. "It will allow us to develop new sources of revenue to support the continuation of our journalistic mission and digital innovation."

Matt Smith, columnist with SF Weekly wrote this week about the massive reduction in the number of people in the bay area working at newspapers. According to Smith, Bay Area newspapers cut almost 50 percent of their staff between 2001 and 2010 which compares to newsroom staffs around the country that declined by just over 36 percent.

"We are the eyes and ears of our society" Smith quotes David Weir, Co-Founder of the Center for Investigative Reporting. In the same breath Weir hopes that Americans don't "decide it is better to be blind and deaf than informed."

A few years ago I wrote a short piece referring to comments by Orville Schell who talks about how America was built on the idea that the success of Democracy depends upon an informed population. My question today is are we increasingly removing ourselves from the information we need to be useful, active, and participating citizens in America today?

The Detroit Free Press is now published under a joint operating agreement with the Detroit News. Adorning the Detroit News building are these words:

"Mirror of the public mind . . . interpreter of the public intent . . . troubler of the public conscience . . . reflector of every human interest . . . friend of every righteous cause . . . encourager of every generous act"

The long running New York Times motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print." If their business revenue declines to the point where the paper is no longer viable, who will do this then?

May 1, 2011 Addendum -
This week President Barack Obama gave a speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner in which he made the following remarks:

"You know, in the last months, we’ve seen journalists threatened, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed simply for doing their best to bring us the story, to give people a voice, and to hold leaders accountable. "

"And through it all, we’ve seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea that no one should be silenced, and everyone deserves to know the truth."

"That’s what you do. At your best that's what journalism is. That’s the principle that you uphold. It is always important, but it’s especially important in times of challenge, like the moment that America and the world is facing now. So I thank you for your service and the contributions that you make."

"And I want to close by recognizing not only your service, but also to remember those that have been lost as a consequence of the extraordinary reporting that they’ve done over recent weeks. They help, too, to defend our freedoms and allow democracy to flourish."

GoGo Gets Me Going Online at 35,000 Feet

2011-03-30T16:11:00.000-07:00

I am flying to Detroit on my Spring Break to do some family history research I can't do anywhere else . . . yet. I have been successful over the years in piecing together some interesting information by researching my ancestors through a variety of online resources.

I've located immigrant registration documents:

And, I recently found a list of people who received marriage certificatesin Detroit in 1923:

It truly is amazing what you can find online these days. But there are still so much data not available.

One thing I hope to find on this trip is a listing of a border crossing from Canada to the United States for my grandfather Max. I was able to locate the fact that this document exists by searching the FamilySearch.org website.

In fact, I know the name of the publication, the publication number, and the roll number of the microfiche where the document is recorded from FamilySearch.org. I am hoping I can find the actual film at the reference desk of main public library in Windsor, Ontario Canada.

What is really cracking me up at the moment, though, is the fact that I can write this blog (assuming my battery lasts) while actually flying to Detroit at 35,000 feet. As I am sure most of you jet-setters already know you can get online while flying now. Who knew?!

Flying Delta Airlines this time I decided to pay the $13/flight fee for the right to be online using the GoGo Inflight wireless service. I've tweeted, updated my Facebook, checked and replied to a few of my E-mails, and now I'm blogging.

I'm down to about 30% of my battery right now (somewhere over Iowa). I don't think I'll quite make it to Detroit which is a shame considering the little guy behind me is kicking the heck out of the back of my chair and his little brother is crying pretty loudly. Right now the Wallflowers, Bonnie Raitt, and this blog is getting me through the in-cabin turbulence.

I suppose this is a great way to make it through the 5 hour flight in the future. Of course next time I will probably be flying with all of the family and we'll need to get some sort of package deal or it's going to break the bank.

Or, maybe I won't have to fly there next time to get this information. I'll just call it up in my browser and download it straight away.

Wouldn't that be nice? Seems a bit more sustainable to me. I've got to remember to pay off some of my carbon footprint for this little journey.

For now I'm just grateful for this innovation.

The End of More Than an Era - Say Goodbye to Kodachrome

2011-03-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

In mid-2009 Kodak announced the end of nearly 75 years of production of Kodachrome film. Kodachrome was not just the subject of a famous Paul Simon song. It revolutionized photography on so many levels. In a 2009 NPR interview National Geographic photographer Steve McCurry explains that Kodachrome "was a beautiful film, the tonal range was extraordinary, the vivid colors were legendary."

Steve McCurry

McCurry, who shot more than 800,000 images using Kodachrome film during his career, was chosen by Kodak to shoot the very last roll of Kodachrome film. The 36 exposures he made in the Summer of 2010 appeared February 9, 2011 in an exclusive web article by Vanity Fair magazine.

The images are stunning for their quality as well as the subjects he chose to capture with these final few frames of precious film stock. McCurry switched between New York City street scenes and shots of actor Robert DeNiro, a series of images of Indian film stars and Ribari tribal elders in India, and finished up the roll with a few images taken in Parsons, Kansas home of the last photo shop in the world that developed Kodachrome film.

Ribari Tribal elder in India

I was fortunate enough to shoot a few rolls of Kodachrome film in my early days of photography. Back in the 1970s it was common for people to shoot much of their family pictures on slide film. We would gather from time to time with the slide projector and a carousel loaded up with 80 slides to watch the images on a small screen or blank wall in the house.

My career as a photographer began in earnest in the Summer of 1974 when I took my first photo class with Waldo Larson at Hanford High School. Sadly, most of the images I captured in those days don't exist any more. And those that still exist are badly damaged from years of neglect.

When I heard about the demise of Kodachrome I wondered about those old photographs. I did have the foresight to save most of my negatives and slides over the years and I am fortunate enough to have access to a Nikon slide/negative scanner. Last month I spent some time exploring some of these old images in the digital realm. I didn't know what to expect but the results were amazing.

Some of the first shots I found were actually some of the first film I ever shot, developed, and printed by myself. Scratched and damaged they still revealed a world of my youth, the town where I grew up, and my high school. This shot of the old main building at Hanford High School is amazing because most people today don't even know that it existed. Some of the older people in town will remember it and the shock that occurred when it was torn down and replaced with the modern brown brick building that is there today. This photo was taken just days or perhaps even hours before it's destruction.

HUHS Main Building 1974

I recall the difficulty the destruction crew had in taking down those beautiful pillars. They were pounding on them with a wrecking ball for hours and hours and the pillars refused to go. Of course they ultimately did go down and I was so amazed at the spectacle of it that I took this picture after they were done.

Demolished pillar from HUHS main building 1974

I found a few other interesting images from this era. There were a set of portraits I took of classmates that includes a wonderful self-portrait:

Self-Portrait

There are so many wonderful aspects to these images. They capture the innocence of our youth and they provide a surprising moment of remembering people you used to know so long ago, and wondering what they are up to now. More people to look up on Facebook!

Doug Brown

Madeline Wing

There was also the realization that I once learned the basics of studio photography from one of my favorite teachers in high school. Of course there was also a wonderful feeling around the fact that these images still exist today and that, through technology, I can capture them again to a digital world.

Getting back to Kodachrome again it truly is amazing the quality of that film. We have surrendered our photographic work to digital cameras now and we rarely print them to paper any more. But how different is that from the days when we shot slides and only looked at them when we took the time to put the carousel on the projector and viewed them on the living room wall?

I suppose it doesn't matter. What matters is that we take the time to view them and to enjoy them for what they are: a capturing of a moment in time, a colorful picture worthy of framing, or simply something to put on the refrigerator.

Grandmere Lyon circa 1978

YMCA Youth and Government 1977

I am just glad I have them. I am glad to have been able to shoot with Kodachrome in a non-digital camera environment. In a short time, if not already, Kodachrome won't even be missed.

How the US Government Paid to Help Create Fox News

2011-02-25T17:01:00.000-08:00

As conservatives make yet another attempt to convince Congress to s hut down public broadcasting I believe it is worthwhile to revisit the history of broadcasting and the development of broadcast media and technology.

We will see that, in fact, the United States Government helped pay for the creation of Fox News and other modern media outlets by paying for the development of the technology they use and by providing preferential treatment in issuing licenses for the broadcasting frequencies they use.

About 30 years ago I wrote a college paper that explored some of the history of modern telecommunications and broadcasting technology. Although the paper isn't well written (I had no computer or the inclination in those days to do edits and re-writes) it does show us how these technologies were all developed by private companies originally funded by the Federal government. First came the telegraph, then the telephone, then radio and television. The paper was written before it's creation but most people today know how government funding helped create the Internet.

The basic story is that the government needed new communication technologies to assist them in various war efforts. Federal funding paid companies like Western Union, Westinghouse, General Electric, Western Electric, and American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) to develop these new technologies.

It all began in 1844 when Congress authorized $30,000 to build the first telegraph line between Washington DC and Baltimore, MD.

Once the government decided it didn't need to develop the technology further these companies had opportunities to develop commercial uses for the newfangled communication devices. At first it was difficult to figure out how to make money selling radios and eventually televisions. What would people do with them?

Westinghouse realized if they provided something for people to listen to there was a possibility that they would purchase radios. Thus it was the need to sell radios that helped to jump start the modern broadcasting industry around 1920.

"From there the beginning of sponsored (radio) programs came about" I wrote in 1980, "with 'brand name' programs such as the 'Browning King Orchestra.' After AT&T's decision to start what they called 'Toll Broadcasting' in 1922 such programs became the order of the day." The shows, paid for by a company or store, carried the name of the sponsor but didn't mention specific products. Also known at the time as "ether advertising," the development of radio programming centered on corporate willingness to allow this sort of indirect and eventually direct advertising which would be used to pay for the cost of production and broadcasting facilities.

With the formation of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), consolidation and cooperation within this new industry was achieved. Western Electric controlled the manufacturing of transmission equipment while General Electric and Westinghouse controlled the production and distribution of radios. All were sold under the RCA trademark. They built transmitting stations all over the USA and thus controlled both ends of the broadcasting industry -- production and sale of receivers and the production and transmission of programming.

There were attempts to put non-commercial broadcasting on the air but in general they failed. Not only did non-commercial broadcasting prove to be economically infeasible but the tremendous economic success of advertising based programming left few people calling for any sort of non-commercial programming.

One such call was the Wagner-Hatfield amendment to President Roosevelt's Federal Communications Act of 1934 which created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This amendment would have provided 25% of all radio frequencies for educational programs to promote public interest content and civic engagement. The Wagner-Hatfield amendment was defeated. There were components of the Communications Act of 1934 that did require companies to broadcast public interest material but those requirements (including what became known as the Fairness Doctrine) were removed during the Reagan Administration.

Edward R. Murrow

Commercial broadcasters did try to provide news and information for it's viewers. But most of those efforts didn't last long. Alcoa sponsored the CBS program "See It Now" which was a groundbreaking news and documentary program featuring Edward R. Murrow. Alcoa eventually withdrew sponsorship for this program and CBS was hard pressed to pay the $90,000 per episode to keep the program on the air. See It Now went off the air in 1958.

It was almost 10 years later that Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In his remarks at the public bill signing ceremony President Lyndon Johnson said "Today our problem is not making miracles -- but managing miracles. We might well ponder a different question: What hath man wrought -- and how will man use his inventions?"

Johnson continued: "The law that I will sign shortly offers one answer to that question. It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a 'chicken in every pot.' We in America have an appetite for excellence, too."

"While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act."

"It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential use throughout the world."

"Finally -- and most important -- it builds a new institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting." Unfortunately it was already too little, too late. More than fifty years of commercial broadcasting success meant it would be an uphill battle for public broadcasters to win viewers and the revenue it needed to succeed.

Today, the federal government allocates about $430,000,000 annually to the CPB. 95% of the federal dollars are allocated directly to public broadcasting stations with television and radio stations splitting this money 75% and 25%. House Republicans hope to slash all of this money from next year's budget in order to address skyrocketing federal deficits.

The federal allocation equals about 10% of the total budget for National Public Radio. The rest is paid for by viewer membership fees and corporate sponsors. By comparison, in 2011 the Fox network received over $270,000,000 in advertising revenue for the Super Bowl broadcast alone. With these kinds of numbers it is no surprise how difficult it is for public broadcasting to compete for viewers with the financial support they get.

Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado told NPR that public broadcasting provides a valuable service and that "No one's talking about eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or NPR. We're just saying let's not have the taxpayer subsidy. The taxpayers just can't keep paying for everything."

Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon disagrees and introduced a resolution to stop the proposed cuts. "There's a reason there isn't a commercial entity that provides local programs the way that NPR does, it's not commercially viable." Small towns and rural areas would be hit hardest.

Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Media Alliance notes that Public Radio has been trying to address this issue for about a decade now through the Station Resource Group which created a plan to accumulate capital if the industry is to expand and remain competitive in an increasingly complex media environment. However, the amount of money and the number of frequencies they have to work with pales in comparison to the amount of money and media outlets commercial broadcasters own.

And then there is the Internet and how it's affecting all broadcasting outlets. NPR.org and PBS.org are amazing sites with tremendous valuable content published and growing each day. But again, how will they compete for viewers and listeners without the revenue necessary to keep the ship afloat?

Why should you care about public broadcasting? Let's let President Johnson have the last word:

"In 1844, when Henry Thoreau hear about Mr. Morse's telegraph, he made this sour comment about the race for faster communication. 'Perchance,' he warned, 'the first news which will leak through into the broad, flapping American ear will be that Princess Adelaide has the whooping cough.'"

"We do have skeptic comments on occasions. But I don't want you to be that skeptic. I do believe that we have important things to say to one another -- and we have the wisdom to match our technical genius."

"In that spirit this morning, I have asked you to come here and be participants with me in this great movement for the next century, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967."

We have indeed reached that next century. It is upon us to decide whether we want that century to be as brilliant as Johnson hoped and envisioned it would be.

If you want to have a say in this matter join millions of Americans in a Response to the call for the end of federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

For the Record

2011-02-17T16:32:00.000-08:00

Driving to Davis a few weeks ago I popped a tape into the audio cassette player in my 1999 van and played Jimmy Cliff's The Harder They Come. After it was finished playing my son Noah said "Dad, you used to have good taste in music."

Forgetting about the jab at my personal music choices and focusing on the music and the media I thought about that "old" van I drive with 170,000 miles on it, the cassette player, and the cassettes I have from back in the day. How much longer would I be able to play those tapes? Do I need to start purchasing digital versions of this music? Most of these cassettes were created by transferring albums and CDs to tape during the 1980s. Who has the time (and the equipment) to do any of that anymore? Maybe I can get a better price for the van when I decide to sell it if I offer the cassettes as part of the deal!

About that same time I heard the Library of Congress announced the largest donation of audio recordings in its history. The Universal Music Group donated thousands of "master recordings -- the final metal discs used to press commercial releases; lacquer discs that were cut in the studio to capture full takes of tunes; and reel-to-reel tapes."

The entire collection dates from about 1930 to 1950 and includes about 200,000 metal masters, 10,000 reel-to-reel tapes, and about 15,000 lacquer discs.

This material is considered so valuable it will be stored underground in facilities once run by the Virginia Federal Reserve and now is the Packard Campus of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center.

National Audio-Visual Conservation Center.

The metal plates have ridges instead of grooves. They require a special stylus to play the sound. After about four months of shipping these materials via tractor-trailer the staff will begin the process of finding out what they have and eventually digitizing it all.

What could be so valuable there and why would we want to preserve it? One example was the SECOND master recording of Bing Crosby's White Christmas. This recording from 1947 had to be created because Crosby's rendition of the song was so popular the record company was no longer able to make copies from the original 1942 recording. It was worn out.

What could be even more exciting is what we do not know is in this collection says Gene DeAnna, head of the Recorded Sound Section of the Library of Congress. "There is so much possibility here of discovery of recordings that have been off the sonic landscape of America. It's gonna be a treasure to mine for many years for the archive."

You might ask why should the United States government fund the storage, restoration, and eventual publication of material that a large corporation like Universal Music Group no longer values. According to DeAnna "90% of what we're taking in here is not commercially viable." In a recent study the Library of Congress found that only 14% of recorded music from between the 1890s to the 1960s is commercially available to the public.

Perhaps that's just this issue. The Library of Congress isn't interested in making money. They are in the business of archiving, preserving, and providing access to the wealth of information that makes up the American Memory. If businesses come and go this material can go along with it . . . if we don't preserve it.

And this is true of our own personal treasure trove of images and sounds. Here is a picture of my Mom's elementary school class in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

Besides me, and my family, who else cares about this image? What makes it valuable and why and how would someone want to archive and preserve it? I'll talk more about that in future articles.

Yad Vashem Partners with Google to Publish Shoah Documents

2011-02-08T11:07:00.000-08:00

As you all know Google is fast becoming a major player in publishing digital books. Add that to their stranglehold on the basic web information resource search mechanisms. Google seems to think it's going to be a one stop shopping center for digital information resources and ideas.

Google has announced a new partnership with Yad Vashem, the Jewish people's living memorial to the Holocaust, to archive and publish the world's largest historical collection on the Holocaust including 130,000 full resolution photographs. Yad Vashem already publishes a number of it's resources online including the Central Database of Shoah Victims' Names. Two years ago Google and Yad Vashem partnered in the creation of a YouTube channel which publishes survivor testimonies and other materials in several languages.

This new partnership is designed to develop better methods of bringing this large amount of data available and searchable to the widest possible audience. In a press release from Yad Vashem, Yossi Matias, Google's R & D Director in Israel says, "(we are) working to bring the world's historical and cultural heritage online. The Internet offers a great opportunity to preserve and share important materials stored in archives."

You Stream, I Stream, We all Scream for . . . Streaming Video

2011-01-28T13:20:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I went to a funeral. It wasn't your normal funeral for a number of reasons.

Being Debbie Friedman's funeral made it unusual because so many people loved Debbie for all the amazing work she did in the Jewish world over the past four decades. The funeral was different for another reason. I went to it online. Debbie Friedman's funeral was streamed live over the Internet via Ustream.tv.

You might ask: "Why would anyone want to go to a funeral on their computer?" In this case technology played a vital role in making Debbie's funeral available to a wide group of people from fans to friends who live all over the world but could not attend her funeral. At one point there were well over 7,000 people streaming the signal worldwide.

Rabbi Stuart Kelman speaks at Debbie Friedman's funeral via Ustream.tv

It was personal too. The Ustream.tv site allows people to join a comment stream alongside the window of the event. At one point there were a group of people singing one of Debbie's songs and the comments came streaming in from the Internet: "singing in Haifa," "singing in New Jersey," "crying in San Francisco." There were so many comments you couldn't take them all in because they went by too fast.

Each of the 7,000 + viewers were not only participating with themselves but many people joined in groups to watch the funeral. Sitting by myself I felt part of a larger community that was both mourning and celebrating the life of Debbie Friedman. The most strange part of the 45 minutes I spent watching the funeral occurred when I started crying at my desk. With co-workers nearby I was very self-conscious.

Having been to a funeral via the Internet now I don't think of it as so strange. I certainly wouldn't want my funeral to be broadcast on the Web. I would be afraid only two people would show up. What a waste! That's the trick with technology, isn't it? When do you know you have the right technology for what you want to do?

Many people are talking about streaming classroom video. The National Association of Independent Schools launched a Task Force to explore the prospect of online learning. I wonder, though, how useful streaming classroom video would be for people other than, perhaps, those who were sick and not able to attend class and those with learning differences that would benefit from viewing it again. How often would students go back to review the class discussion? How much would that be worth versus how much it might cost. How many classrooms would we broadcast? How would all of that data be recorded, stored, and used? What is lost in the translation between being in the class and watching via the Internet? How many students would decide not to attend class and just watch from home later?

Today I watched a little bit of the live streaming by Al Jazeera . They were broadcasting video of tanks and protesters in the streets of Cairo and discussing the possibility of the end of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt. Viewing this event clearly shows the power of streaming video technology to change the world. The question is, how does that technology translate into learning and our educational practice?

Technology can be personal, it can change the world. It can also be the wrong tool for the task at hand. Ask questions, talk with colleagues, learn from experts, try things out. You don't know if something will work until you spend some time figuring it out and giving it a try.

Digital Forgiveness vs. The End of Forgetting

2010-11-26T10:01:00.000-08:00

We all know the Drunken Pirate story of the woman who lost the opportunity to obtain a teaching degree because of a photo on her online social networking profile. While most of us don't know, or can't remember her name, Stacy Snyder knows that "the Internet" won't ever forget her. A seminal event in modern culture, Snyder's denial of a teaching degree by the Millersville University School of Education and the US district judge that upheld that decision, are two stories that will be remembered by many as the moment of proof that privacy doesn't exist on the Internet.

I've been thinking about this topic recently after reading Jeffrey Rosen's article in the NY Times "The Web Means the End of Forgetting."

"We’ve known for years that the Web allows for unprecedented voyeurism, exhibitionism and inadvertent indiscretion, but we are only beginning to understand the costs of an age in which so much of what we say, and of what others say about us, goes into our permanent — and public — digital files. The fact that the Internet never seems to forget is threatening, at an almost existential level, our ability to control our identities; to preserve the option of reinventing ourselves and starting anew; to overcome our checkered pasts."

These ideas hit home when I came across this photo of myself taken by my daughter a few weeks ago. In it I believe I look a little bit like the "nutty" or "absent-minded" professor with my hair and posture.

When I first saw the photo I thought I would just delete it and nobody would have ever seen it. Then I thought, what if someone had seen it? What if someone else had taken this photo and decided to publish it without my consent? How would I feel about it. When I saw the next photo in the series I felt much better about myself and thought I don't look so terrible after all. Still, the first photo doesn't lie about me. That is what I looked like at that moment when the picture was taken. At any time someone could publish a photo of me just like that.

This is, of course, simply an exercise in my own desire to control my personal identity on the Internet. Whereas I might teach others about the need to publish one's own social networking site in order to control how people see you. Increasingly it is obvious that, with the advent of digital recording devices, people can (and do) publish images and video of just about anything they can point their lens at.

Is it naive to still believe that if you work to stay on top of your identity you can prevent any negative images or publications about you? Can new services help you defend your reputation, remove unsightly images, and clean up your digital personality?

One other idea that comes forward in these thoughts is the fact that identity can be manufactured by the user as well. This is where we started on the Internet with people creating fake or embellished identities. The fear associated with digital prowlers seems to have subsided a bit as we now point our attention to protecting our own online identities.

As Rosen states:

". . . the future of our online identities and reputations will ultimately be shaped not just by laws and technologies but also by changing social norms. And norms are already developing to recreate off-the-record spaces in public, with no photos, Twitter posts or blogging allowed. Milk and Honey, an exclusive bar on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, requires potential members to sign an agreement promising not to blog about the bar’s goings on or to post photos on social-networking sites, and other bars and nightclubs are adopting similar policies. I’ve been at dinners recently where someone has requested, in all seriousness, “Please don’t tweet this” — a custom that is likely to spread."

At the end of my 50th birthday party a few people stayed afterward to hang out and enjoy a more intimate time singing and playing a guitar. I handed someone a Flip video camera to record some of the fun. One of the group kept hiding his face in order to "protect my identity." It was a sign to me that posting such video online would be off limits. At the same time, everyone at the party fully expected to see themselves online the next day. One friend jokingly complained that there was no photo of her in my online album. Being able to read these signals is a dicey skill that we are all learning now.

Digital memories are growing. Forgetting them may not be as easy as we think.

Is Your Brain Or Your Life Evolving Because of Technology?

2010-08-01T11:41:00.000-07:00

Matt Richtel, New York Times Technology correspondent, won a Pulitzer Prize for his 2009 series on new technology and it's impact on driving and multitasking. Now he's taking on evolution with claims that research is showing that all this time we spend with technology is changing the chemical and physiological nature of the human brain.

In his June essay "Your Brain on Computers" Richtel proclaims "Scientist say juggling e-mail, phone calls and other incoming information can change how people think and behave. They say our ability to focus is being undermined by bursts of information." And, "these (distractions) can inflict nicks and cuts on creativity and deep thought, interrupting work and family life."

Richtel quotes scientists who are "discovering that even after multitasking ends, fractured thinking and a lack of focus persist." Scientists are using the phrase "rewiring our brain" to describe what they claim is an evolutionary change in our brain activity.

"For better or worse, the consumption of media, as varied as E-mail and TV, has exploded" says Ricthel. "In 2008, people consumed three times as much information each day as they did in 1960. And they are constantly shifting their attention. Computer users at work change windows or check E-mail or other programs nearly 37 times an hour, new research shows."

"We are exposing our brains to an environment and asking them to do things we weren't necessarily evolved to do," says Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco, "We know already there are consequences."

What exactly are those consequences? That's what I want to know and I want us to all think and talk about. What exactly are we gaining and what are we giving up when we spend all this time "online?" I don't really want to know if my brain is evolving I just want to know what's happening in my life and the lives of my friends and family as a result of all the time we spend being interacting with screens.

Gazzaley isn't actually saying he knows the brain has evolved in the last 40 years as a result of technology. He says our brain isn't "necessarily evolved" to deal with all this information. That's a pretty weak claim in my opinion. What are some of the conclusions we can make?

We can look at all these technological distractions and quantify how much time we aren't spending with our family or friends. You have to do that for yourself. Read Richtel's article and see for yourself how much your life mirrors that of the family he follows.

We can quantify the incredible increase in the incidence of obesity in the US. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association the prevalence of obesity in adults had increased 8 percent in adults in the United States between 1988 and 1994 after being relatively stable between 1960 - 1980. "Analyses of data from 1999-2000 showed further increases in obesity for both men and women in all age groups."

We can quantify how much less time we are spending outside.

Obviously the nature of the food we eat has a great impact on the health of our bodies and obesity rates but I would claim that our time spent in front of screens has a great impact on our overall health as a nation. It turns out that research now shows people feel better when they spend more time outside. "We have a natural connection with living things" says University of Rochester professor of psychology Richard Ryan. "Nature is something within which we flourish," says Ryan, "so having it be more a part of our lives is critical, especially when we live and work in built environments."

Having just spent a few days hiking in the Rocky Mountain National Park this Summer I can agree. Here I am with my wife Dena near the end of a difficult 6.5 mile hike. We were tired and our bodies sore. But we were happy and we felt good!

Those of you who know me know that I spend quite of bit of time interacting with technology. E-mail, online social networking, web searching, digital photography and filmmaking are all a big part of who I am and what makes up my life. Again, I worry less about the rewiring of my brain than I worry about the rewiring of my family and social life.

Richtel does back off a bit from the evolutionary claims by quoting Steven Yantis, a professor of brain sciences at Johns Hopkins University. "The bottom line is, the brain is wired to adapt," says Yantis. "There is no question that rewiring goes on all the time" Yantis concludes. Richtel then admits that it is not clear if changes from interaction with technology are different from other changes in the past.

We can fight this change if we want. Anne Lamott wrote a beautiful piece on Finding Time in the April 2010 edition of Sunset Magazine. She challenges us to think about taking time out from all the "busyness" in our lives to explore our own humanity.

Let's all remember that the technology is here to help us be human and not simply to take up all our waking hours. That way perhaps we can evolve the use of technology to suit our needs as a species rather than it change our nature.

Cell Phone Sex

2010-07-05T17:06:00.000-07:00

A student at school sent an E-mail message to all other students recently because he'd lost his cell phone. He didn't care so much about the phone, he said, but "if you took it, at least put my SIM card in my box."

I thought about it for awhile and wondered how important a memory card in a cell phone would be to a anyone much less a teen in today's mass mediated world. Is it the database of contacts that he would have to recreate?

One recent study by the the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows the wide spread importance of the use of cell phones for teens to stay connected with family and friends. It's not surprising, then, that this young man would be hoping to get that card with all his contact information back. Teen life is so centered around cell phone use and texting that it's difficult to imagine their life without a cell phone.

But we knew already that. Teens depend on cell phones for their daily communications. However it is ironic that parents first began purchasing these devices for their children for safety reasons. Another recent PEW study on Teens and Sexting shows that a growing number of teens send and receive partial or fully nude images of themselves to friends. Also not surprising is the fact that social pressure is a big part of this new activity.

One young woman is quoted in the study saying: "Boys usually ask for them or start that type of conversation. My boyfriend, or someone I really liked asked for them. And I felt like if I didn't do it, they wouldn't continue to talk to me. At the time it was no big deal. But now looking back it was definitely inappropriate and over the line."

But that's just the beginning of this growing problem. Now the legal system is getting involved with teens getting charged in child pornography cases. One 18 year old Florida teen is now listed as a registered sex offender after being convicted of sending nude images of his 16 year old girlfriend to family and friends after an argument. Legislatures across the country are looking at how they can protect teens from over zealous district attorneys and at the same time protect them from the real dangers of child pornography and online predators.

The PEW study and many others point to the ease at which these images and video can end up in the wrong place. School yard dramas play out to the degree that could leave teens either in trouble with the law or much worse.

To me this is yet another place where adults who are responsible for young people in this world need to step in and make sure their charges are educated, knowledgeable of the issues, and that they know how to be safe. Once again, it's not the technology that causes the problem. It's how the technology is used. Keeping track of teen texting and online activities is a healthy and important task for parents, guardians, and schools.

Being a Father in America - Father's Day 2010

2010-06-20T13:15:00.000-07:00

Tony Pandola wrote a nice piece this week on "The American Father" for KQED FM in San Francisco. His perspective includes a lovely set of comments on the problems in our society with regard to the common image of Fathers, manhood in general, and the relationship between parents and children. This is not just a problem for Dads but Moms too. It is also a problem for children of all sorts, those without parents or other adult role models, and those with one or both parents or guardians.

This image portrayed of the American Father is also a problem in a society that marks so many special days in the calendar. We have sales at the stores, special events (usually athletic) on TV, days off from work, and, of course, the typical greeting card or a balloon with some silly catch phrase. These images and catch phrases do not generally match either the reality of our relationship to the person(s) we are celebrating or what we would like it to represent about them -- which is the most important thing the card should do.

Personally I find it difficult in the space of a greeting card to write what I want to say to a person. That's why I prefer to make my own cards with blank insides and lots of room to write. Over the years though, I've written less of these cards because the whole business of it seems insincere or I simply can't find the time to do it. Now, of course, we can send our friends and family good wishes with the click of a mouse and the typing of a few words on their Facebook page or an E-mail.

What I take away from Tony's perspective is the fact that the best way to tell your Dad you love him, and how much you appreciate him, is to do it directly. Pandola also reminds us that it is important simply be aware of who your Dad is and what kind of a person he is toward you and others.

But I also take away the fact that the image of the American Father today is not what it should be. We can do better in what we do as men and in how we see and describe the expectations of men in our society.

I'm celebrating my second Father's Day without my Dad this year. Sometimes I wish I could still send him a card again but the truth is I rarely ever mailed him such a thing. I would just drive there with my family and visit.

My Dad died suddenly in late 2008 after a bad car accident. He was 78 but still young enough to get out there and volunteer in his community. Just the type of Father who would go out and do things to make the world a better place for the sake of doing the right thing with your time on this planet. He enjoyed his sporting events and watched lots of TV. But he wasn't like all those lazy beer drinking images of men we see in greeting cards today.

As a Father myself I try to emulate some of those characteristics whenever I can. My Dad wasn't perfect, nor would I be so bold to suggest I'm any better with my own family and what I do in the world. But I do keep trying and, thankfully, I have a great role model to follow and guide me in my own journey of manhood and fatherhood. I volunteer on school boards and coach in youth athletics. I never miss a parent/teacher conference.

And on Father's Day I make sure my kids get to spend a long period of time with our family doing something where we get to talk and just be together. I also am quick to remember the fact that every is Father's Day. Everyday is Fathers Day because every day we can create opportunities for each of us to make a difference with our children, friends we know and love, and with the rest of the world.

Today we walked to the local mall and had bagels for breakfast. It was a three hour tour and a five mile walk. We stopped in the local (Marinwood) park and sat next to Miller Creek where there is still a little water trickling down from the Spring rains. Mia talked about all the memories she has of playing games in the park during Summer camp over the years. We remembered some of the fun times we've had in the park since moving to this neighborhood. And I thought about all the good times I had like that growing up. That felt good and I didn't need a greeting card to let me know that my day was special.

Here's wishing all the Fathers and Mothers and children in the world a happy day today, and everyday.

eReaders Loose Out to Paper and Ink?

2010-04-20T08:52:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to a study of eReaders at Reed College. In his E-mail message he stated that "Looks like real paper and ink wins...."

I didn't get the same impression from reading this article. In fact, the only real educational issue raised in the study was related to comprehension. It turns out that not being able to highlight the text made students more passive in their reading of the material and, therefore, were less able to comprehend and retain the information. However, the authors noted that new technology (already in the iPhone and iPad) will allow for electronic highlighting which they suggest will, in the long run, improve comprehension over traditional paper and ink methods.

"Both faculty and students agreed that this problem, though critical to the academic use of eReaders, could be easily addressed by technology that would allow quick and easy text highlighting and annotation. Indeed, they pointed out that effective digital highlighting and annotation would have the benefit of being easily searchable, shareable, and usable for doing research and writing papers. While the Kindle DX had a negative impact on content comprehension, there was considerable optimism that future eReaders would be able to overcome this problem and might actually help to increase comprehension."

The days of the Kindle may be over, but not electronic readers. I can't remember where I heard this but I believe that most of the traditional texts students read in English course are already available via the Gutenberg Project and other eReader options.

In the end the authors of this study conclude:

"In closing, we may note that while students and faculty in Reed's Kindle study were unanimous in reporting that the Kindle DX –– in its current incarnation –– was unable to meet their academic needs, many felt that once technical and other issues have been addressed, eReaders will play a significant, possibly a transformative, role in higher education."

I usually don't like to predict the future. In this case I can see this technology reduce paper use, decrease the weight of backpacks as well as the cost of class materials, and quite possibly improve the educational outcomes of our course work.

Online Learning -- Is It Right For Schools?

2010-04-15T11:06:00.000-07:00

I am somewhat bothered by current discussions to take our school's courses online. Part of my concern is that some people see it as a money making opportunity. I'm not opposed to the idea but too often the opportunity to make (or save) money overshadows the pedagogical choices we make in how we design our schools.

I have a hard time getting my arms around the idea that our classes can somehow be taught better online then they are taught in the classroom. I have yet to see that be the case.

Mostly I don't believe we should loose the direct contact our teachers have with our students.

All of us, especially young people, spend an increasing amount of time online:

"Average number of hours a U.S. child aged 8 to 18 spends using an electronic device or watching television each day: 7.6" - Harpers Index, April 2010 (from Kaiser Family Foundation study 2009).

What we need in education is more time spent engaging with each other as humans and less time engaging with each other via electronic media.

Do I believe we should be using more interactive tools in education then we currently use? Yes, of course we do. This does not necessarily mean we ought to be teaching our courses entirely online. Are there opportunities to open a new world of learning through online courses? Yes, but this does not mean all or even most of our courses make sense being taught online.

Even though the tools of online learning have improved significantly over the past two decades they still remain simply that -- tools. Tools for the educator to use (or not use) depending on the subject and content. We should use these tools wisely and make sure we stay in touch with our human side.

Film as Art or Medium to Convey Information?

2010-03-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

Last week a student asked me if I thought their was value in film as an art form or as a medium to convey information. I answered that we use it in class every day, we connect with it online or on TV at home all the time. It's a great way to communicate your thoughts and ideas. Students should learn how to communicate this way now and for their future life.

With the advent of highly popular online video sites, the use of video is proliferating at an exponential rate. According to one report posted in April 2009 YouTube alone hosted over 120 million videos with 200,000 being added each day. A TechCrunch report from July 2009 says over 1.2 billion videos are viewed each day via Google and YouTube. In fact, the TechCrunch report states that video viewing reached 80 billion videos viewed each month. Surely by now the numbers are much higher.

But what's the point of all this video production, uploading, and viewing? Are we just entertaining ourselves, fulfilling a need for amusement?

Educators have taken to showing videos on a daily basis in class. While they are not intending to entertain their students they are mindful that the younger generation has become used to life on the screen to such a degree that sitting and just listening and discussing is not a common practice in their lives. In fact, the word boring is now a regular part of the conversation when I ask my own kids how school was today. That is, unless they got to watch a video in class.

When you think about the impact of James Cameron's Avatar it's difficult to deny the influence of film as an art form with an ability to convey important information. However, when you consider the cultural appropriation in that film I have to wonder about just what sort of influence films like this have on our society. To me, this film is a combination of FernGully and Dances With Wolves with a little Jar Jar Binks on steroids thrown in to placate all those who would otherwise be bored with the story. It seems as though if things aren't blowing up or people aren't being killed the lack of action in a film makes it boring for our younger generation.

Being a documentary film maker who loves to go to the movies I can appreciate a good film with a strong message like The Blind Side. Personally I wish more people would go and see films like Food Inc., The Cove, and the Most Dangerous Man in America three Oscar nominated documentary films from 2009. In fact, I would like to see more people make films like this so everyone would get the opportunity to learn about what's going on in our world. Young people don't watch the news and spend more of their time with the "news" of their friends on Facebook then gathering the news of the world or even their own local community. That is, unless they are assigned such a task by a teacher.

When Michael Moore started making films about the problems he saw in our society everyone thought he was crazy. Who would watch such a thing? Why would anyone want to know about a cab company in Madison, Wisconsin?

It turns out that lots of people do want to see that. Despite the fact that Sacha Baron Cohen co-opted Moore's concept with his wacky Borat movies for entertainment purposes I believe Moore will have a much greater impact on society because he has managed to make documentary film entertaining. Borat is an attempt to take entertainment and make it seem like documentary. Even though he Cohen raises lots of important issues from our culture the spoofing of these issues makes them seem like fiction to most viewers. He is so outrageous that it's difficult to believe that all of his subjects are not staged as he is in the films.

Is there value in film as an art and as a way of conveying information? Sure. Do we have enough good film out their that goes beyond simply entertaining the masses? Not even close. Go out and communicate your ideas, we need more people to do that so the world will be a better place in the future.

Rushkoff Cringes About Our "Digital Nation"

2010-02-09T20:24:00.000-08:00

I am sure that not enough people watched the new Frontline documentary film Digital Nation by Douglas Rushkoff last week. If you watched the show you would know why nobody else was watching it. Everyone is online or otherwise just too busy to sit and watch a 90 minute documentary on live TV.

Sure you could watch the film online as it was being produced over the past year. The producers even posted rough cut footage as they shot it and gained feedback from viewers. Video blogs sent by visitors actually made it into the final version of the film. But, I didn't even know this film was in process and I'm on Rushkoff's mailing list! I literally happened upon it while channel surfing through our local PBS station KQED-TV late that night.

Really, who watches live TV any more? OK, 106 million people watched the Super Bowl, but what else?

If you watch the Frontline show "Digital Nation" you will see something amazing. Rushkoff has spent the last two plus decades promoting the uses and benefits of technology in our lives (we used to use the word evangelizing . . . I'm glad people have stopped using that word). Rushkoff has written extensively and produced several documentaries about virtual worlds and the future of a society and a world immersed with technology in our daily lives. His last Frontline piece called "Growing Up Online" explores how young people spend their time online every day.

In Digital Nation you see him literally cringing at different points in the show as he witnesses (and brings us face to face) with many of the problems technology creates for us as humans and for our society. At one point early in the show he is almost apologizing for his previous work promoting technology.

However, as Rushkoff points out some of the pitfalls in the way we use technology in our lives, he also draws our attention to success. For example, one middle school in New York was literally saved from itself when laptops were introduced into an environment that was spiraling out of control. Then we get the chance to watch the vice principal monitoring student screens. We see them off task looking at themselves in the "mirror" of the built in web cam doing their hair. They are also chatting online, watching You Tube videos, and playing computer games. Everything except what they are supposed to be doing. In the end, I believe you could argue that this particular school community is better off dealing with those problems then the ones they had before computers were introduced (fights, gangs, drop outs, and school wide dismal academic achievement).

This conversation brings me back to something I wrote last year when discussing technology and literacy and how it made me think of the National Rifle Association's slogan. The key word in this conversation is how we use the technology. "Technology doesn't make people stupid, people using technology makes people stupid."

To me the lesson for us is that people, especially parents and educators, need to promote a balance of integrating technology and not. The benefits for learning are obvious and many. The pitfalls are also obvious and many. I believe it is possible to draw ourselves into a place where we can gain most, if not all, of the benefits of technology and maintain a semblance of order that allows us to reach our goals as educators and people without turning into mindless consumers of digital entertainment.

As Rushkoff says "The trick, at least for me, is to unplug from the digital for long enough to regain my bearings; re-establish myself as an organic life form, primarily, and a virtual presence only secondarily. And during those interludes, to remember what it is I want in the first place -- for myself, my loved ones, and my society."

Unless we get to that point we are most certainly in trouble as a society and the human race. Perhaps one day we can say that we helped society reach a place where the use of technology does not turn into an all-encompassing world that keeps us from being who we really are -- human.

When Will We Know How Much Technology Is Too Much Technology?

2010-02-01T20:31:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid my brothers and I went outside with our friends and built forts out of huge tumbleweeds. We rode our bikes out in the country along the irrigation ditches and dove into the water to cool off from the hot Summer sun. When it was time to eat our parents went outside and yelled for us to come home. It was a big event to go to the big Fox Theater downtown to see a movie. When I think about it those were very good times. If there were a computer invented at that time we didn't know about it until 2001 - A Space Odyssey came out in 1968. I was eight years old at the time.

In college I used a Tandy (Radio Shack) computer a roommate of mine had to write my term papers -- when I wasn't typing them on a typewriter. We used to go to the student center and play pinball at a quarter a pop. Sure, it was a game but it was physical. You had to go someplace where they had the machine and we had to use our body to make the game go. No couch potato for us.

The pervasive technology we now have has helped us improve life in so many areas it's hard to complain about it's overall impact on our lives and our society and the world as a whole. Things change, sure, but how do we know they've changed for the better?

Last week I began to wonder how Steve Jobs sleeps at night. We heard about how he believed this would possibly be the greatest new technology he had ever introduced. When you look at the new iPad it seems pretty obvious that Jobs and Apple have created one of the greatest portable gaming machines every invented. And, when users aren't playing games on this device they will most certainly be consuming other media. What happened to creating insanely great devices that help people communicate their ideas? Is Apple giving that up? Between the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad the vast majority of their product line is now a consumers paradise.

It turns out things are as bad as they looked when I wrote about how many hours the average 21 year old in the US spends consuming media (through technology) in their lives. A new study (one of the largest and most comprehensive publicly available sources of information on the amount and nature of media use by American youth) describes in detail how "media are among the most powerful forces in young people's lives today."

According to the New York Times, this study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, reports that the "average young American now spends practically every waking minute -- except for the time in school -- using a smart phone, computer, television or other electronic device." The evidence indicates a correlation between media consumption and behavior problems and lower grades. "47% of the heaviest media users -- those who consumed at least 16 hours a day -- had mostly C's or lower compared with just 23 percent of those who consumed media for three hours a day or less."

This is the third installment in a long term Kaiser study. When they last reported media use statistics five years ago the authors felt they had reached a ceiling and that young people couldn't possibly be consuming even more media per day than before. Now however, with the advent of portable digital devices many youth are interacting with multiple electronic devices at any given time thereby doubling the number of hours spent with media each time they use more than one device.

"This is a stunner." said Donald F. Roberts, a Stanford communications professor emeritus who is one of the authors of the study. "In the second report, I remember writing a paragraph saying we've hit a ceiling on media use, since there just aren't enough hours in the day to increase the time children spent on media. Now it's up an hour."

To me the scariest part of this discussion is the impact of multi-tasking with media. Media publishers now integrate multiple, complex information sources on any given screen. Our brains must sift through all the information (pictures, text, animations, pop-ups, etc.) and capture what it needs to help us understand what we are watching. Even PBS does this.

Kind of makes me want to go on an outing . . . give me a beautiful redwood forrest please. I'm feeling like I need to get outside.

Lakritz Family Scholarship

2010-01-05T11:21:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends and Family,

I hope this letter finds you well during the holiday season. May the new year bring you good health, much happiness, and strong friendships and family ties.

As most of you know Dena and I lost both our fathers in late 2008. We spent most of 2009 recovering from the loss and I can honestly say that this was a good year for us despite all the trials and tribulations we’ve gone through this past year. We have our close family and friends to thank for holding us up and carrying us through the difficult times. Thank you for all that you did for us. We love you all. We know now that 2010 will be a very good year and we hope it will be for you too.

As we reach the time of a new year I am writing to bring you up to date with our family and how things are with all of us. I am also writing with an appeal for more help.

One of the most amazing things happened when my dad was badly injured in a car accident last year. A group of citizens in our home town of Hanford, CA got together to create a scholarship in his name. They planned to honor him for his fifty years of service to the community at the first fundraiser held in late September 2008. Unfortunately he passed away just a few days before the event.

In the meantime so much has happened. We’ve raised over $5,000.00 and created the Lakritz Family Scholarship in honor of Si and Mimi Lakritz. More importantly we awarded our first two scholarships to students graduating from Hanford High School in June 2009.

I’ve included links to more information about the scholarship fund and how our parents had such a vital impact in the community. I know it’s easy for a son to be proud of his parents contributions but I am confident you’ll be as amazed as I was while compiling all this information. In fact, my son Noah was so moved by this scholarship he donated a portion of his Bar Mitzvah money to the fund.

That’s where you can help. Our goal is to raise $50,000.00 over the next five years to ensure this fund will last and to continue the good work of helping the community that my parents began in 1958 when they moved to Hanford to start a new life and raise their family. Click here to download a gift form.

I know it sounds like a large sum of money but the truth is it’s very little. Our daughter Emily is now in college at UC Davis. Believe me when I tell you that these two $1,000.00 scholarships will go a long way to help students in need. Any amount you can give is wonderful, even just a note to support the effort will make a difference.

Thanks for listening and thank you all so much for the love, support, and strength you’ve given us over these past months. With your help 2010 will be a very good year indeed.

With Much Love Always,

Brad, Dena, Emily, Noah, and Mia

Is Facebook Private?

2009-12-17T15:07:00.000-08:00

Lately people are talking about the "new Facebook privacy settings" and I wonder, once again, why anybody still thinks Facebook, MySpace, or any other social networking site (much less any other data you have stored on someone else's computer) is private in any way, shape, or form. After all, the basic premise of the web and the Internet is that you store data on a computer or computers that other people can access.

Social networking is the latest example of Orwellian 'newspeak' in action. Facebook's "privacy settings" take that to another level in an attempt to provide the feeling of security when placing one's personal information on the Internet. When I read the discussion of these new features I can't help but be further convinced that nothing you put on the Internet is private. (Let's not even talk about what people might be doing with the information that we all freely give away every day.)

To take the Orwellian metaphor even further consider these quotes:

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

It is truly difficult to see what risk you take when it's so much fun doing something. Sometimes you can't know the problems you are facing because they have not surfaced. Still, if you read about the pitfalls of social networking it's hard not to think of them as an accident waiting to happen. Which leads me to this Orwellian quote:

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it."

I think about this all the time being a teacher at a modern, college prep, high school filled with high tech students who are living large online. Having grown up living in a house with a high school teacher I recall my own sense of being smarter than my parents and the teachers in most of my classes. Today I see the folly in those thoughts. However, I do see that the younger generation has something for us to see and use in the world today. We just need to find a balance between the true wisdom of those who came before us and the new knowledge and intelligence gathered by young people today.

Here is a note I sent out to all the staff and students at school this week. I hope you take the time to think about what you decide to put out there on the Internet.

---------------------------------

Hi Everyone,

I hope you are all doing well and getting ready to enjoy some down time from school and all the pressures of exams. During the coming weeks you may find that you have some extra time to enjoy some entertaining moments with your Facebook friends.

You should all be aware that Facebook has announced and will be implementing new privacy settings for all accounts. These changes will make it much easier to broadly share your personal information. If you accept Facebook's recommended privacy settings, Facebook will make your status updates, links, photos, videos, and notes available to the entire Internet via all the major search engines.

I recommend that you explore your settings and manually adjust them to your own personal needs. Select Settings -> Privacy Settings from the blue menu bar and review the options in there.

In addition, you should be aware that Facebook will now share a standard set of your personal information both on the Internet and with third-party Facebook applications. This includes your name, profile photo, gender, current city, networks, friend list, and pages. This information is now considered visible to everyone and you do not have control to change that setting (unless you close your account).

The attached article explains the change in greater detail.

I encourage you to raise this topic with your friends and relatives. Let me know if you have further questions.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays to one and all,

Brad

===============================

Save the Redwoods

2009-12-15T20:03:00.000-08:00

Dan Burgess, a long time friend of mine, lives in Crescent City, CA near the Oregon Border. For many years he has worked on the forest whether it was restoring salmon spawning areas, clearing invasive species from stream areas and lakes, or even searching for the famed spotted owl. For the past several years now he's been doing what I think is the greatest work of his life. Saving the Redwood forests of the Northern California Coast.

Not only is Dan helping to restore the forest but he's doing it with a variety of different people and organizations all working toward the same goal. Making the forest back into what it was before humans began cutting it down. Personally I can't think of anything more important one can do in life.

You can learn more about it by watching this video:

Forest Restoration in the Mill Creek Watershed

When You are done, you can see more by visiting film maker Thomas B. Dunklin's site to learn more.

Children who use technology are 'better writers'

2009-12-10T21:40:00.000-08:00

Recently at work we've had a discussion about an article from the BBC claiming that "Children who use technology are 'better writers'." Some of the comments people made were great. They made me think of the National Rifle Association and I came up with this slogan:

"Technology doesn't make people stupid, people using technology makes people stupid"

Actually, I don't really believe that but the numbers are staggering. In one recent presentation I heard these statistics:

An average 21-year-old in the US today has:

- Watched 20,000 hours of TV

- Played 10,000 hours of video games

- Sent or received 250,000 E-mails and/or text messages

If you have read Malcolm Gladwell you would know that he believes it takes approximately 10,000 hours to master something like playing an instrument or a sport or almost any complicated human skill. He cites Bill Gates and The Beatles as two examples of people who spent countless hours developing their skills in a single area and how that helped them become so successful at what they did in life.

If we can agree with Gladwell, and these statistics are correct, then we are, indeed, raising a generation of people who have mastered skills in areas that many of us might not consider useful (at the expense of opportunities to become skilled in other more important areas).

When I speak with parents and educators who are calling for us to do more to integrate technology in the educational experience I always describe how I believe it's all about what you do with the technology. The statistics above indicate that most young people focus their use of technology on social and entertainment behaviors. Our job as educators is to take the lead and design a curriculum that takes advantage of the technology but that also focuses the student's energy in a direction we believe will help them grow intellectually and academically. I see that happening everyday. We can certainly do more, but it does happen everyday.

Some people are advocating for the elimination of books in schools. Libraries should be electronic they say. I'm not sure the jury has made that decision just yet. I have worked with many teachers over the years who combine technology with the reading of books. The simplest and perhaps most profound experiences are those where E-mail discussion groups or blogs are utilized around what the class is reading. This allows discussion to expand beyond the classroom and gives new opportunities for people to share their thoughts in another context. Others have combined the creation of multimedia with the text of poetry and books. These are wonderful ways to integrate technology and maintain the traditional experience of reading.

Please let me know if you are interested in exploring these ideas in more depth. I would love to work with you on them. Educators learn best from each other and I often lead teacher technology share-a-thons for faculty. If you have something you'd like to share please join in the conversation.

Thanks! Brad

Online Experiences Increase Civic Participation

2009-12-10T13:50:00.000-08:00

This article and video is from Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning

Produced by Ben Wolff

Research by education professor Joe Kahne shows online experiences—such as participation on fan sites—can help make kids more active offline citizens.

Joe Kahne, professor of education at Mills College and director of the school’s Civic Engagement Research Group, has studied the connection between students’ participation with digital media and their level of civic engagement. He finds that kids who participate in community activities online are more likely to later get involved with civic actions offline, even if their online activities appear to be only social or for fun.

Kahne notes that young people who use digital media are picking up skills on how to find, assess and share information. New media provides opportunities for young people to be active participants—as opposed to old media, such as newspapers, which provide learning opportunities but no way to immediately share or add input.

More good news: Kahne also found that participation in online communities doesn’t isolate or distract young people from other forms of social life.

Joe Kahne on Civic Participation Online and Off from Spotlight on Vimeo.

2009-11-04T11:11:00.000-08:00

So, you want to integrate technology? Why? What are the pedagogical reasons for doing this? What do you hope to gain from an educational standpoint?

Here is a collection of articles, videos, and other resources that explore the use of technology in the curriculum. Some argue for using technology some suggest teachers should consider not bringing technology into a lesson. I will be adding materials to this page as the year goes on so please come back and visit.

The discussions are broad and general but I think you'll get the sense that they are saying you should be able to know when it's right to integrate technology and how to think about changing the lesson or the environment for the lesson to make sure the learning you are planning for will actually occur. This is as opposed to going with a tech-centered lesson no matter what.

If you'd like to comment, please click the discussion link to type out some of your thoughts here.

Enjoy!, Brad

RESOURCES:

Making Your Chalk (I mean computer) Teach?

This set of powerpoint slides includes highlights from a 1951 filmstrip created for a professional development program with educators using chalkboards.

How is this relevant today? Are there parallels with using websites, blogs, interactive whiteboards? What can we learn about the tools we use today from the way we taught about the tools we used in the 1950s?

Making Your Chalk Teach

Getting Attention in a Laptop Classroom (November 2008)

Schools Drop Laptop Program But Are They Dropping the Ball As Well? (May 2007)

Bill Gates remarks at the National Summit on High Schools (February 2005)

Orville Schell on Information Democracy

2008-11-11T11:11:00.000-08:00

Information, News, and the Survival of Democracy in America

Orville Schell talks about how the founders of America believed that the success of Democracy depends on an informed population. In the days of the creation of the country and the writing of the Constitution that information would be received through reading newspapers. The question he asks is whether or not Democracy can survive after the demise of newspapers and even television news as we know it today? Does the Internet provide the same range of voices and information we need to be well informed? Are we informed as we should be as a people in this country and if not, what might be the consequences of this new reality? Does Democracy really exist anymore?

Orville Schell speaking at the Marin Academy Conference on Democracy in October 2008

Communicate Your Ideas

2006-11-11T23:11:00.000-08:00

If the 1980's was the decade of the Great Communicator then the 1990's spawned an entire generation of great communicators. With the advent of new technologies communication takes on a new look. There is less and less passive viewing of pre-packaged information and more interactive transmission of information that goes in multiple directions . . . a web flow that has no set pattern and seemingly no end.

This blog is designed to explore the way in which technology interacts with human communication and how humans interact with and through technology. How we use it to communicate and how it modifies our communication. If you have ideas to communicate about this . . . do so here. Enjoy!