Privacy Policy Assignment: An imaginary discussion with the staff of DailyKos.
In researching privacy policies of sites that I use regularly and contribute to, I was intrigued by the brevity of the policy for dailykos.com:
Privacy Policy
Daily Kos will not give out your information to any third parties. Period.
As this was the shortest, most succinct such policy I had ever seen, I initiated a (ficticious) instant message conversation with editor(s) unknown of the site. Following are excerpts from our exchange.
It’s considered good form to provide a detailed privacy policy. What’s with the one-line statement?
It’s two sentences. We leave the verbosity and bloviating for our diaries. And besides, this site is so poorly designed that your average overeducated, underpaid progressive couldn’t find the privacy policy page without a search dog and an intern.
Why is your privacy policy approximately 1/1000th as wordy as that on Salon, or even CNN?
Please. We are bloggers, Not just bloggers, but progressive bloggers. We don’t have to conform to the rules of the MSM.
I’d hardly call Salon mainstream – it’s pretty progressive too.
Progressive? To quote one of our diaries from “Yes We Did Wednesday” (Nov 5th, 2008) Ha. Ha. And again, Ha. We are the keepers of the progressive flame. Well, us and Arianna, but that’s because she can afford to pay a lot more than we do. Plus the b*** gets voiceover gigs now. Not that we’re jealous. Not at all. Nooo way.
Okay, back to the privacy policy. How do I know you won’t sell my information to some outfit that’s looking to sell biodiesel retrofit kits for Saabs, or adorable outfits for ‘pooties and woozles?’
You’ll just have to trust us. Look, we are progressives. We don’t cop the ‘go fuck yourself’ attitude of the Bush/Cheney oligarchy. And DO NOT make fun of ‘pooties and woozles’. We know they have no place on a political site, that they’re infantile and stupid and probably degrading to animals everywhere, but too bad. They are part of DailyKos, and they are as sacred as the First Family-elect.
Okay, but can you at least tell me this: What kind of security does your site use? SSL? Triple-Layer?
We use union-built, made in America security, bub, coded by working people in ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ America. People who care about their country. People who don’t belong to any organized political party, but who instead are Democrats. People who know what it’s like to be in the minority, regardless of their skin color. People who weren’t afraid to stand up to the corporations and the Repugnicans and Vote For Change™. People who have no idea what SSL means, and who think Triple-Layer has something to do with the carrot cake at that fabulous bakery in North Beach.
Why do I get the sense you’re avoiding my questions about your privacy policy?
To quote Barack Obama: “Look.”
This is the last question we’re going to answer, because the Daily Show is about to come on.
Big long wordy privacy policies are written by and for the shit-flinging howler monkeys that run the Republican-controlled mainstream media. We TRUST our community, and we expect you to TRUST us in return. Without that trust, we have nothing. So we’re not about to screw it up.
Wow. Okay. Thanks for your time!
You're welcome. But first, please sign this loyalty oath.
HA! Just kidding!
# # # #
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Libel Assignment
Libel Assignment
In your advice to the site, provide counsel on the following concerns:
• What type of libel plaintiff is the court likely to name Simmons?
• What, then, will be the requisite standard of fault in this case?
• Will Simmons be able to prove the requisite standard fault?
• Are there other defenses the news site might consider?
In the case of Simmons v. MyFacebookSpaceNews.com, Simmons is likely to be named a private citizen, as this case does not meet the qualifications typically required for him to be considered a public figure. As a result, the standard of fault used is negligence.
As counsel to MyFacebookSpaceNews.com, I would have concerns about the professionalism of the reporter, specifically in the use of Ms.Hubier as a source. Her information was unverified by other sources, and she did not actually see the accident. However, the reporter’s lack of professional conduct in this instance is unlikely to be deemed negligent, particularly in light of the other factors involved.
Additionally, the defendant’s claim that he was falsely accused of drunk driving is without merit. A source logically presumed to be reliable – the policeman on the scene – was quoted as saying that ‘alcohol was involved.’ This does not equate to ‘guilty of drunk driving,’ and thus does not prove negligence on this point.
There appears to be no falsity in any of the statements published in the article; the central claim of ‘drunk driving’ is patently contradicted by the quote from the officer at the scene.
Injury will be likely be easy for this defendant to prove; however separating the trauma of the accident itself and its effects on his psychological state will likely be difficult. Should this trial go to jury, we can also expect animosity from the jurors towards an underage drunk driver mowing down good Samaritans.
In this instance, our reporter used generally solid techniques, and did not report any false information. Therefore, the line of defense should be constructed around the comments from the police at the scene and the corroborating evidence of the suspect's collegiate status.
In summary, this case will pose little threat to MyFacebookSpaceNews.com. I would recommend that reporters for the site be trained more extensively in best practices for reportage, and be reminded to use multiple sources and verify information prior to publication.
In your advice to the site, provide counsel on the following concerns:
• What type of libel plaintiff is the court likely to name Simmons?
• What, then, will be the requisite standard of fault in this case?
• Will Simmons be able to prove the requisite standard fault?
• Are there other defenses the news site might consider?
In the case of Simmons v. MyFacebookSpaceNews.com, Simmons is likely to be named a private citizen, as this case does not meet the qualifications typically required for him to be considered a public figure. As a result, the standard of fault used is negligence.
As counsel to MyFacebookSpaceNews.com, I would have concerns about the professionalism of the reporter, specifically in the use of Ms.Hubier as a source. Her information was unverified by other sources, and she did not actually see the accident. However, the reporter’s lack of professional conduct in this instance is unlikely to be deemed negligent, particularly in light of the other factors involved.
Additionally, the defendant’s claim that he was falsely accused of drunk driving is without merit. A source logically presumed to be reliable – the policeman on the scene – was quoted as saying that ‘alcohol was involved.’ This does not equate to ‘guilty of drunk driving,’ and thus does not prove negligence on this point.
There appears to be no falsity in any of the statements published in the article; the central claim of ‘drunk driving’ is patently contradicted by the quote from the officer at the scene.
Injury will be likely be easy for this defendant to prove; however separating the trauma of the accident itself and its effects on his psychological state will likely be difficult. Should this trial go to jury, we can also expect animosity from the jurors towards an underage drunk driver mowing down good Samaritans.
In this instance, our reporter used generally solid techniques, and did not report any false information. Therefore, the line of defense should be constructed around the comments from the police at the scene and the corroborating evidence of the suspect's collegiate status.
In summary, this case will pose little threat to MyFacebookSpaceNews.com. I would recommend that reporters for the site be trained more extensively in best practices for reportage, and be reminded to use multiple sources and verify information prior to publication.
NRECA Copyright Assignment
NRECA Copyright Infringement Assignment
The claim of copyright infringement made by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) concerning CEI’s use of footage from an NRECA documentary in a public service video is unfounded. Under the ‘Fair Use’ provisions of US copyright law, CEI’s use of the footage fails to qualify as infringement for the following reasons.
1) The nature of the new work is transformative
The original video(s) posted by NRECA on YouTube were clearly produced to promote the activities of the association in bringing electric power to disadvantaged areas in Haiti. Its audience is likely comprised of those interested in aid or economic development, in Haiti itself, or in the activities of the association. CEI’s audience, on the other hand, is US consumers who are concerned about restrictions on energy use both at home and in developing economies. It is highly unlikely that there is a significant convergence of audiences here.
Furthermore, the NCRECA piece is clearly intended to promote the association’s activities, while CEI’s purpose is clearly criticism of the (perceived) hypocrisy of those promoting restrictive energy use policies. This alteration in purpose and appeal clearly exempts the CEI video from infringement.
2) The original work is copyrighted and thus first right of publication was not infringed.
NRECA, by previously posting its video on YouTube, was first to publish the work and to gain copyright. In addition, the NRECA videos are informational works with little artistic merit and thus deserving of less protection.
3) The new work uses an insubstantial amount of the original.
The seven seconds of video used in the CEI production are an insignificant fraction of the original NRECA work, and have no impact on the essence of the original.
4) CEI’s use of the video clip is unlikely to have any impact on NRECA
No commercial impact can be contemplated from CEI’s use of NRECA video. The original video was clearly intended to serve different purposes, for different audiences, in a different context, than the new work. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that many viewers who might happen to see both productions would even realize that NRECA was the source of the footage (there is no indication as such in the footage shown in the CEI video). It is reasonable to assume that the typical viewer would see the footage as simply video reportage and make no presumptions about its origin.
This case demonstrates the need for more flexible, practical and realistic fair use provisions in copyright law. The energy expended in wrangling over this issue would likely light Al Gore’s mansion for weeks, and serves little purpose in the end. Copyright should be used to protect the basic expression of ideas in substantive form – to protect the sandcastle, and not the grains of sand that make it up. The proliferation of digital technology has unleashed a surge of creativity that is redefining, on a daily basis, what expressions are ‘new’ and hence free of restrictive copyright. In this writer’s opinion, ‘new’ content should be defined more liberally, yet more clearly, than in current case law. The result will not be the bankrupting of creative content producers, but rather a ‘digital renaissance’ of more, better content.
The claim of copyright infringement made by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) concerning CEI’s use of footage from an NRECA documentary in a public service video is unfounded. Under the ‘Fair Use’ provisions of US copyright law, CEI’s use of the footage fails to qualify as infringement for the following reasons.
1) The nature of the new work is transformative
The original video(s) posted by NRECA on YouTube were clearly produced to promote the activities of the association in bringing electric power to disadvantaged areas in Haiti. Its audience is likely comprised of those interested in aid or economic development, in Haiti itself, or in the activities of the association. CEI’s audience, on the other hand, is US consumers who are concerned about restrictions on energy use both at home and in developing economies. It is highly unlikely that there is a significant convergence of audiences here.
Furthermore, the NCRECA piece is clearly intended to promote the association’s activities, while CEI’s purpose is clearly criticism of the (perceived) hypocrisy of those promoting restrictive energy use policies. This alteration in purpose and appeal clearly exempts the CEI video from infringement.
2) The original work is copyrighted and thus first right of publication was not infringed.
NRECA, by previously posting its video on YouTube, was first to publish the work and to gain copyright. In addition, the NRECA videos are informational works with little artistic merit and thus deserving of less protection.
3) The new work uses an insubstantial amount of the original.
The seven seconds of video used in the CEI production are an insignificant fraction of the original NRECA work, and have no impact on the essence of the original.
4) CEI’s use of the video clip is unlikely to have any impact on NRECA
No commercial impact can be contemplated from CEI’s use of NRECA video. The original video was clearly intended to serve different purposes, for different audiences, in a different context, than the new work. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that many viewers who might happen to see both productions would even realize that NRECA was the source of the footage (there is no indication as such in the footage shown in the CEI video). It is reasonable to assume that the typical viewer would see the footage as simply video reportage and make no presumptions about its origin.
This case demonstrates the need for more flexible, practical and realistic fair use provisions in copyright law. The energy expended in wrangling over this issue would likely light Al Gore’s mansion for weeks, and serves little purpose in the end. Copyright should be used to protect the basic expression of ideas in substantive form – to protect the sandcastle, and not the grains of sand that make it up. The proliferation of digital technology has unleashed a surge of creativity that is redefining, on a daily basis, what expressions are ‘new’ and hence free of restrictive copyright. In this writer’s opinion, ‘new’ content should be defined more liberally, yet more clearly, than in current case law. The result will not be the bankrupting of creative content producers, but rather a ‘digital renaissance’ of more, better content.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
FAQ Page Assignment
NOTE: Fixed upper-case Maverick, added title, fixed a spacing error.
Assignment:
Create an interactive FAQ help page for some entity (publication, company or organization), preferably one with which you have some formal connection. Suggested is the entity you selected for the assignments for Chapter Five. This frequently asked question section should anticipate common problems and questions users might have about that publication, organization or company.
The objective is to think for our audience(s) and anticipate their questions and needs. It is, therefore, the process that is most important, not the product. This means that you do not have to worry too much about design or layout or aesthetics.
The page should have:
• Clear, comprehensible instructions
• Clear organization
• Thorough consideration/anticipation of user questions
• Informative, helpful answers to FAQ questions
• Design that promotes, rather than impedes, page usability
Note:
I chose weirduniverse.net, a site with which I have no real connection except for being a member and occasional contributor. It is a site that has no current FAQ page, which I feel helped make the exercise more challenging. Weirduniverse, as one might expect, has an irreverent tone, which I attempted to reflect in this FAQ page. It's also a simple site, so I did not see a need for a great deal of technical support questions. Hence, these focus more on submissions, usage, philosophy and personality of the site. All in all, this FAQ page will contribute the overall brand of www.weirduniverse.net.
FAQs: Our attempt to answer your questions about how the Weird Universe works
There’s a lot of weird stuff here, but how do I know if it’s true?
Thanks for the compliment! We work hard to verify that every post on Weird Universe is not only weird, but accurate. Most of our content is stuff that we’ve found ourselves, either in our own collections of weird stuff, or online. We give links and attribution, and if we’re wrong, we’re not too proud to admit it, so let us know.
Our “News of the Weird” items are gathered and vetted by Chuck Sheperd, who’s been doing this for over twenty years. Or approximately as long as that take-out container of moo shu pork has been at the back of our office refrigerator. Chuck cheerfully admits that he depends on reporters for his stories, so they may not always be factually correct, but it’s not his fault.
One final note: our man Alex Boese runs a site dedicated to uncovering hoaxes, so we have a darned-good truthiness filter right here.
Can I submit weird stuff?
Of course you can. But if it’s really good, we’ll try to take credit. (Okay, not really.) Just use this form and we’ll take it from there.
Send us as much information as you have – where you found the item, when it was posted or published, anything you know about the source, and we’ll check it out. If we end up using it, you’ll get credit. If not, we won’t blame you.
Who’s weirder, Weird Al Yankovic or Frank Zappa?
Wow. Tough question. We are of course huge admirers of both, but it is incumbent upon us to point out that calling oneself weird (or a maverick) does not weird (or maverick-y) make.
Can I use stuff from your site?
We’d rather you didn’t. C’mon, how hard is it to link? But if you must, please respect that we do this for a living, and there are laws about such things. Please provide proper attribution if you use anything from our site on your own personal page. If you’re a commercial entity (and yes, non-profits count too), contact our syndicator, United Features.
I noticed there are members on this site. What does becoming a member do for me?
Besides making you infinitely more attractive to members of the opposite sex, improving your IQ by at least 30 points, and virtually guaranteeing financial success, the only thing membership allows you to do is post comments and submit ideas. As if that weren’t enough, you’ll also find a bunch of information on our unique community. It’s not exactly Facebook, but it’s a start.
My work computer blocks all the cool sites, including this one. What can I do to stop spending my work hours wondering what’s in WeirdUniverse world?
You’re in luck. (Pathetic, perhaps, but in luck). We’ve just added an RSS feed so as long as you’re online, and you can get a feed on your blog or homepage, you’ll be just as instantly and constantly weird as the rest of us.
What’s with the sidebar with the WORDS in different SIZES?
That’s called a tag cloud, and it’s one of the newest, neatest things here on the intertubes. If you see a word that appeals, click on it, and you’ll find all the posts that are tagged with that word. Pretty cool, huh?
Are the people in ‘Your Daily Jury Duty’ feature always as guilty as they look?
Yes.
Really?
No. All we report is what they are charged with. The rest is up to the legal system. And we know it’s foolproof.
How do you decide what’s weird enough to post on the site?
We use a complex formula first espoused by Potter "I know it when I see it" Stewart.
Beyond that, we draw on our status as old dudes who’ve seen, done, read, dated, mated, inhaled, injected or otherwise experienced just about everything weird this world has to offer. So yes, we do ‘know it when we see it.’ Trust us.
Assignment:
Create an interactive FAQ help page for some entity (publication, company or organization), preferably one with which you have some formal connection. Suggested is the entity you selected for the assignments for Chapter Five. This frequently asked question section should anticipate common problems and questions users might have about that publication, organization or company.
The objective is to think for our audience(s) and anticipate their questions and needs. It is, therefore, the process that is most important, not the product. This means that you do not have to worry too much about design or layout or aesthetics.
The page should have:
• Clear, comprehensible instructions
• Clear organization
• Thorough consideration/anticipation of user questions
• Informative, helpful answers to FAQ questions
• Design that promotes, rather than impedes, page usability
Note:
I chose weirduniverse.net, a site with which I have no real connection except for being a member and occasional contributor. It is a site that has no current FAQ page, which I feel helped make the exercise more challenging. Weirduniverse, as one might expect, has an irreverent tone, which I attempted to reflect in this FAQ page. It's also a simple site, so I did not see a need for a great deal of technical support questions. Hence, these focus more on submissions, usage, philosophy and personality of the site. All in all, this FAQ page will contribute the overall brand of www.weirduniverse.net.
FAQs: Our attempt to answer your questions about how the Weird Universe works
There’s a lot of weird stuff here, but how do I know if it’s true?
Thanks for the compliment! We work hard to verify that every post on Weird Universe is not only weird, but accurate. Most of our content is stuff that we’ve found ourselves, either in our own collections of weird stuff, or online. We give links and attribution, and if we’re wrong, we’re not too proud to admit it, so let us know.
Our “News of the Weird” items are gathered and vetted by Chuck Sheperd, who’s been doing this for over twenty years. Or approximately as long as that take-out container of moo shu pork has been at the back of our office refrigerator. Chuck cheerfully admits that he depends on reporters for his stories, so they may not always be factually correct, but it’s not his fault.
One final note: our man Alex Boese runs a site dedicated to uncovering hoaxes, so we have a darned-good truthiness filter right here.
Can I submit weird stuff?
Of course you can. But if it’s really good, we’ll try to take credit. (Okay, not really.) Just use this form and we’ll take it from there.
Send us as much information as you have – where you found the item, when it was posted or published, anything you know about the source, and we’ll check it out. If we end up using it, you’ll get credit. If not, we won’t blame you.
Who’s weirder, Weird Al Yankovic or Frank Zappa?
Wow. Tough question. We are of course huge admirers of both, but it is incumbent upon us to point out that calling oneself weird (or a maverick) does not weird (or maverick-y) make.
Can I use stuff from your site?
We’d rather you didn’t. C’mon, how hard is it to link? But if you must, please respect that we do this for a living, and there are laws about such things. Please provide proper attribution if you use anything from our site on your own personal page. If you’re a commercial entity (and yes, non-profits count too), contact our syndicator, United Features.
I noticed there are members on this site. What does becoming a member do for me?
Besides making you infinitely more attractive to members of the opposite sex, improving your IQ by at least 30 points, and virtually guaranteeing financial success, the only thing membership allows you to do is post comments and submit ideas. As if that weren’t enough, you’ll also find a bunch of information on our unique community. It’s not exactly Facebook, but it’s a start.
My work computer blocks all the cool sites, including this one. What can I do to stop spending my work hours wondering what’s in WeirdUniverse world?
You’re in luck. (Pathetic, perhaps, but in luck). We’ve just added an RSS feed so as long as you’re online, and you can get a feed on your blog or homepage, you’ll be just as instantly and constantly weird as the rest of us.
What’s with the sidebar with the WORDS in different SIZES?
That’s called a tag cloud, and it’s one of the newest, neatest things here on the intertubes. If you see a word that appeals, click on it, and you’ll find all the posts that are tagged with that word. Pretty cool, huh?
Are the people in ‘Your Daily Jury Duty’ feature always as guilty as they look?
Yes.
Really?
No. All we report is what they are charged with. The rest is up to the legal system. And we know it’s foolproof.
How do you decide what’s weird enough to post on the site?
We use a complex formula first espoused by Potter "I know it when I see it" Stewart.
Beyond that, we draw on our status as old dudes who’ve seen, done, read, dated, mated, inhaled, injected or otherwise experienced just about everything weird this world has to offer. So yes, we do ‘know it when we see it.’ Trust us.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Multiple Source Assignment
NOTE: I've made some revisions to the copy (minor fix to clarify who was speaking in one graf, caught a typo). I've added extensive links, and gave my best shot at building a slide show (with stock images) but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to get &%^$#@! Blogger to display it. I am using WordPress from now on. :)
Military families find ways to cope with deployment
Getting by with a little help from their friends
Gail Dawes, 40, of Wake Forest, NC has just become a single mother again. Not through death or divorce, but through deployment. Her husband, Chris, 44, has been called up and his National Guard unit will train for a few months prior to heading overseas in early 2009.
Not far away, in Youngsville, NC, Patti Elliott, 43, will soon be saying goodbye to her son, Lucas, 19. An Army reservist, he will deploy early in 2009 to serve a year overseas.
In Durham, NC, Captain Mark Ford, 38, is back from his tour of duty in Iraq and has settled back into a normal routine with his wife Amy, who faced deployment largely alone.
What these families have gone through – the soldier going off to war – is a story nearly as old as civilization itself. What is new are the unique challenges that come with a military faced with two wars, a shortage of manpower (especially officers) and that is now forced to draw on its reserve forces for the first time in decades. Add to that the lengthy conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and many soldiers are finding themselves deployed two or more times in just a few years. To better cope, soldiers and their families are developing support groups and other ways to share the burden of deployment.
From paperwork to machine gunner
Mark Ford entered the military via the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) while in college in 1990. He figured the chances of being deployed to a shooting war were slim, a hunch that seemed to be borne out by the ‘peace dividend’ that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. As a result of staffing drawdowns, many officers were placed on Individual Ready Reserve, which meant they were exempt from the usual requirement to train one weekend a month and two weeks every year.
Ford was eventually called to active reserve status in 1998 and became an administrator supporting basic training of troops at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. “We were training support troops there, so even after 9/11, we didn’t think there was a big likelihood of being deployed,” he says.
Not long afterwards, Ford’s unit was designated as a donor unit, meaning that it would supply soldiers – usually just one at a time – to others that needed replacements due to attrition or reorganization. “It was about the worst way to be deployed because you’re going to war with a unit you didn’t train with, so you don’t know anyone, and often the units are either newly-formed or have had management problems,” Ford says.
While serving as the unit’s personnel officer, where he was tasked with telling other soldiers they were being deployed, Ford got the call himself to go to Iraq. The unit had 45 days of training at Fort Hood (Texas), then went to Kuwait and eventually Iraq. Ford’s team was stationed on an Iraqi military base where they trained Iraqi Army troops in combat techniques. The mission included going on patrols to fight insurgent forces. “It was stressful. I went from doing paperwork to a machine gunner up in the turret when we went out on convoys,” he says. “One minute, you’re inside the wire (on base), where you can call home and go online. Then all of a sudden you’re getting called to run a convoy down a road where they’ve told you there are IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and where you know you’ll be in a firefight.”
Ford’s team was fortunate; they came under mortar fire and were shot at a few times, but suffered no casualties during his deployment.
Wife faces medical challenge
Back home, Ford’s wife Amy was facing her own challenges. “Because I was in a reserve unit that draws personnel from all over the country, there really was no support for the families – it’s just too hard to do. So Amy was kind of on her own, except for her own network of friends,” Ford says.
When Amy was diagnosed with a serious heart arrhythmia, that isolation was thrown into sharper relief. “Fortunately, I just happened to be home on leave when she had surgery, and was able to extend my leave to be here for her,” he says. That surgery was unsuccessful, but Amy was eventually able to recover.
“My impression is that the regular Army, and the National Guard units, have better support networks for their families, largely because they’re geographically concentrated,” Ford says. “We tried to develop some support in my unit, but we were never able to get anywhere.”
Deployment leads to involvement
Experience with her husband’s first deployment led Gail Dawes to get involved to help avoid situations like the one Amy Ford found herself in.
Her voice trails off and her eyes glance downward as she recalls her husband’s first deployment, in 2002. “We weren’t married yet, but we were in a very serious relationship. Even when we did talk, there are so many things the soldier can’t tell you, but you can hear the stress in their voice, and you just want to know what’s going on in their world.”
“It’s not like your soldier is just going off on a business trip,” Dawes says. “They are putting themselves in harm’s way every day, no matter where they’re stationed. Your life – as the family at home -- becomes very stressful. It becomes waiting for phone calls, letters, sitting and waiting for word, not wanting to miss anything.”
Dawes has become actively involved in the Family Readiness Group for her husband’s unit (the 30th Armored Brigade). “Our group exists to support each other, to help relay news, to have someone to call in the middle of the night when something’s wrong in their house,” says Dawes. “It’s much different for reservists than regular military. Reserve soldiers are working regular jobs, home every night, then all of a sudden, they’re deployed. The support networks haven’t been there, and the families often don’t know what to expect.”
The FRG provides everything from the mundane – such as phone trees to share information rapidly – to the creative and entertaining. For the last three years, the group has held a craft fair to raise money for families for whom deployment means financial hardship. They also work with the unit to coordinate Kids on Guard, a series of day or weekend camps where soldiers’ children drill, camp, rappel, and do physical training under the guidance of Guard members. “Activities like this are really good for helping the kids understand what Mom or Dad does when they’re training or on deployment,” Dawes says.
The biggest challenge Dawes’ group faces is involvement. “Our families are spread all over the state, and it’s tough to get everyone together. We have a hard time getting people to participate in our training sessions, which makes us concerned that some of the families might not know what resources are available to them,” she says. “But, with the unit being deployed now, we expect that there will be a lot more involvement.”
From tears to Google to Blue Star Mothers
Patti Elliott is one military family member who isn’t waiting for her soldier to deploy before she gets involved. “When the recruiter came to pick Lucas up to go to basic training two years ago, I stood in the yard and cried. And then I went back in the house and Googled “military mom support group,” Elliott says. “Two weeks later I was at my first meeting and I’ve been involved ever since.”
The group Elliott found in that search, Blue Star Mothers, traces its roots to World War II, and is named for the blue stars hung in the window of soldiers’ homes. Bound by the belief, as Elliott says, ‘that no one understands what a mother is going through like another mother,” the group engages military mothers in a wide range of activities.
“One of our main things is just try to keep busy,” Elliott says. “We do things like put together care packages for troops. We typically don’t send them to our own children, but instead find out from them what soldiers in their unit don’t have the support from home. Those are the ones we try to get the packages to.”
The group also visits wounded veterans at nearby VA and base hospitals. “So often, those kids – and we call them all our kids whether they’re 19 or 49, they’re still someone’s kid – just need someone who will listen. And it helps us mothers to have someone to be a mother hen to,” Elliott says.
How the groups help
While Elliott’s son has yet to deploy, she’s already seen the benefits that being involved in Blue Star Mothers has brought her. “I’ve learned a lot about perspective. Like when Lucas was in Missouri doing basic training, and I was worried about that. Then I met mothers whose children were in Iraq, and others whose child never came home,” she says.
Even though her son hasn’t been deployed yet, there’s no doubt in Elliott’s mind that Blue Star Mothers will help her cope. “There’s nothing like having another mother who knows what you’re going through to help you with it,” she says.
Having survived one deployment, Dawes is now finding reward in sharing those lessons with others. “One of the commanders in Chris’ unit has a mantra: If not me, who? That sums up a lot of what being involved in FRG means to me. I get frustrated sometimes, and want to throw in the towel. But then I think, if I don’t help these families, who will?,” she says.
Long, complex engagements, all-volunteer armed forces, and increasing dependence on Guard and Reserve units have created challenges for both the military establishment and the families affected. But in the finest military tradition, families have adapted and found ways to blunt the pain of deployment. In the end, it all boils down to a very simple philosophy, according to Dawes: “We just have to be there for each other.”
# # #
Intended audience:
This is a feature article for a local (central NC), general interest publication such as The News & Observer or The Independent.
Questions I asked the sources:
-General background on military involvement
-Biographical information (age, general ‘life story’)
-Patti Elliott: how her son came to enlist at 17, what her reaction was, how she got involved with Blue Star Mothers, what the organization does – examples.
-Gail Dawes: her husband’s first deployment – what was it like? How did it affect your children? What does the FRG do? Why is it important? What are the challenges? How has your opinion about our continued involvement in Iraq changed over the years?
-Mark Ford: what were the challenges of being deployed? What was it like for your wife? What was lacking from the military in terms of support? How could that be addressed?
Other sources considered:
This story originally was intended to be more political – I wanted to draw out what veterans and their families were thinking about the conflict in Iraq. This was inspired by hearing Jon Kuniholm, a former Marine, speak at a Democratic rally a few weeks ago. I was not able to arrange an interview with Kuniholm, and I found that the sources I did talk to were largely apolitical. They view the role of the soldier as being to serve whenever and wherever needed, regardless of policy.
And as I got deeper into the interviews, the angle of the support systems being built (mostly by the families themselves) seemed very compelling, and in fact more so than the original proposed angle. As the conflict(s) have dragged on, interest seems to have waned and I felt it would be worthwhile to give the families who are still making huge sacrifices their due.
Facts I checked:
- Verified National Guard unit
- Verified Blue Star Mothers history, founding date
- Verified Individual Ready Reserve details
- Checked spelling of names
- Verified 30FRG Craft Fair details
How to webify the story:
-Slide show using photos provided by the soldiers and families, in a timeline format (e.g., Lucas Elliott was 12 when he decided to join the military – show his 6th grade picture)
-Links to National Guard, FRG, Craft Fair, Blue Star Mothers websites
-Photos of the interview subjects – b/w, stark portraits I think would work best to show the emotions on the mothers’ faces. Would also consider a ‘gap’ family photo – w/the family posed with a gap where the soldier would be.
-Interactive table showing average length of deployment and comparing the percentage of reserve forces that are being used in these wars vs. prior conflicts.
-Sidebar on NC military involvement – remind the reader just how many soldiers, in regular, reserve and Guard units – are based here.
-Extended quotes from the sources. I had many quotes that were powerful insights into the military (esp from Mark Ford) that simply didn’t fit this story, but would be interesting to many readers.
-Feedback mechanism – not only to allow readers to comment on the story, but to link the families who simply aren’t aware of the available resources to the people who can help them.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wikipedia edit
I barely feel qualified to act as an adult most days, let alone edit a Wikipedia entry, but I took a shot at it. After 20+ years in the business, if there's one 'technical' thing I know pretty well it's herbicides, so I tweaked the herbicide page and added an entry on pendimethalin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide#Major_herbicides_in_use_today
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A bridge too far: live-blogging the Democratic rally and chili cook-off
It's now been several days since my live-blogging exercise at the Wake County Democratic Rally and Chili Cook-Off, and while I'm no General Bernard Montgomery (or even Cornelius Ryan), the analogy of a 'bridge too far' comes to mind.
Detachment is a given
Much like traditional reporting, it's difficult to become part of the moment when live-blogging it. Not only was I occupied with listening, and taking notes, I was also either typing in a post or thinking about the next one. Even for a natural multi-tasker like me, the 'processing power' required to do all this was such that I never felt engrossed in the rally itself.
The only exception to this was Jon Kuniholm's talk, where the power of his words and delivery overwhelmed all other distractions and compelled me to focus almost solely on him.
I wouldn't consider this detachment a problem or a disadvantage, but it did make me experience the event very differently than if I were not blogging. At the time, I felt I had missed a lot of content, but after reflection I see that I actually absorbed more than I would have as a mere spectator.
Accuracy can suffer
I learned very quickly that true live-blogging has its perils, especially when it comes to the cold, hard facts of the story. This event was fairly unstructured. The only speakers announced in advance were Jon Kuniholm and Jerry Meek, and there were no backgrounders (or even a program) provided. Thus, I found it challenging to catch people's names and titles, especially since there were so many speakers (12 in all) in less than two hours.
My work-around for this was to fact-check after the event and correct a few mistakes. I also at one point enlisted my son to jot down notes. Having an assistant when live-blogging would be a major advantage for anyone trying to cover an unstructured event.
Even a chili cook-off is not above politics
The chili cook-off unfolded far differently than I expected. In other events of this nature, I've simply plopped the slow cooker on the table, put up a sign, and left. At this event, however, the cooks were expected to stand by their product, dispensing it to judges and attendees, and answering questions. As a result, the chili entries were not anonymous. When the winning entries were announced, every one of them was from a candidate (or support group), even though such entries made up less than half of the total. Coincidence or conspiracy? Just sayin'. If only I had Sean Hannity on my speed-dial!
The multi-media element
My years in public relations and advertising have actually provided good training for live-blogging in one regard: photography (especially at events like this) is very familiar territory. While I was pressed for time due to the cook-off demands, I did find the opportunity to grab a few shots of the venue, the chili, and my 'blogging outpost' (a table near an outlet). I didn't have the necessary cable to download my pictures live, but with a little better planning next time, that would not be an obstacle. I was reminded just how difficult it is for one person to keep track of all the elements -- the computer, wireless card, camera, SD cards, notebook -- AND operate all of them. Another place where an assistant would be very useful.
The bottom line
Live-blogging is fun, in a mascohistic sort of way. In the future, I think I would not be so concerned about truly 'being live,' but I wanted the experience, and it was a good one. I felt 'deadline gut' (that tight ball of editor/boss/client-inspired bile and muscle contraction that is the best short-term motivator known to man) every couple of minutes, which is undoubtedly why I was exhausted after just a couple hours. The fact that I got up at 5 a.m. to make chili probably contributed as well. I will definitely live-blog again, but I won't try to live-blog and compete in a culinary competition at the same time. That's taking multi-tasking just a little too far.
Detachment is a given
Much like traditional reporting, it's difficult to become part of the moment when live-blogging it. Not only was I occupied with listening, and taking notes, I was also either typing in a post or thinking about the next one. Even for a natural multi-tasker like me, the 'processing power' required to do all this was such that I never felt engrossed in the rally itself.
The only exception to this was Jon Kuniholm's talk, where the power of his words and delivery overwhelmed all other distractions and compelled me to focus almost solely on him.
I wouldn't consider this detachment a problem or a disadvantage, but it did make me experience the event very differently than if I were not blogging. At the time, I felt I had missed a lot of content, but after reflection I see that I actually absorbed more than I would have as a mere spectator.
Accuracy can suffer
I learned very quickly that true live-blogging has its perils, especially when it comes to the cold, hard facts of the story. This event was fairly unstructured. The only speakers announced in advance were Jon Kuniholm and Jerry Meek, and there were no backgrounders (or even a program) provided. Thus, I found it challenging to catch people's names and titles, especially since there were so many speakers (12 in all) in less than two hours.
My work-around for this was to fact-check after the event and correct a few mistakes. I also at one point enlisted my son to jot down notes. Having an assistant when live-blogging would be a major advantage for anyone trying to cover an unstructured event.
Even a chili cook-off is not above politics
The chili cook-off unfolded far differently than I expected. In other events of this nature, I've simply plopped the slow cooker on the table, put up a sign, and left. At this event, however, the cooks were expected to stand by their product, dispensing it to judges and attendees, and answering questions. As a result, the chili entries were not anonymous. When the winning entries were announced, every one of them was from a candidate (or support group), even though such entries made up less than half of the total. Coincidence or conspiracy? Just sayin'. If only I had Sean Hannity on my speed-dial!
The multi-media element
My years in public relations and advertising have actually provided good training for live-blogging in one regard: photography (especially at events like this) is very familiar territory. While I was pressed for time due to the cook-off demands, I did find the opportunity to grab a few shots of the venue, the chili, and my 'blogging outpost' (a table near an outlet). I didn't have the necessary cable to download my pictures live, but with a little better planning next time, that would not be an obstacle. I was reminded just how difficult it is for one person to keep track of all the elements -- the computer, wireless card, camera, SD cards, notebook -- AND operate all of them. Another place where an assistant would be very useful.
The bottom line
Live-blogging is fun, in a mascohistic sort of way. In the future, I think I would not be so concerned about truly 'being live,' but I wanted the experience, and it was a good one. I felt 'deadline gut' (that tight ball of editor/boss/client-inspired bile and muscle contraction that is the best short-term motivator known to man) every couple of minutes, which is undoubtedly why I was exhausted after just a couple hours. The fact that I got up at 5 a.m. to make chili probably contributed as well. I will definitely live-blog again, but I won't try to live-blog and compete in a culinary competition at the same time. That's taking multi-tasking just a little too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)