Archives for April 2004

Che and chess

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

From the BBC (one of the best–if worst–news sources in the world):

Cuba has broken its own world record for the most people playing chess at the same time. About 13,000 chess fans gathered in the central Cuba city of Santa Clara for the mass game.

Ah. The “mass game.” Anything is possible at the point of an AK-47.

Apr 30, 2004 | 2 Comments

Even more of the same (or the value of anonymity)

Joanne inadvertently points me to a Washington Post article from a couple of weeks ago by James Marcus, a former Amazon.com editor. As it happens, a glitch in the Canadian version of Amazon uncovered the true identity of anonymous book reviewers for a couple of days. Among the bugs crawling under the lifted rock were many authors tooting their own horns.

Marcus’ point in the article, however, is to question the value of anonymity that sites like Amazon afford netizens. As is apparent from Amazon reviews or postings to your average message board or blog comments section, there seems to generally be an inverse correlation between quality commentary and anonymity. And this brings up the editorship problem that Dan Gillmor is thinking about. Marcus writes:

In a sense, it’s now the audience, not the editor, shouldering the burden of culling out the good stuff. Whether this represents a seismic shift in the cultural terrain or merely a fresh division of labor remains to be seen.

I’ve always been adverse to anonymity because it allows the authors of worthless comments to get equal billing with the writers of informative comments without ever putting their reputations on the line. But then I think of how well anonymity served the Founding Fathers in their writings. Ultimately, I think that private forums like Amazon and blogs will have to make a choice between quantity versus quality and thus decide whether to allow anonymity.

Marcus concludes hopefully by saying that the best amateur reviews and information will be found with bloggers, who usually aren’t anonymous and have “a name to besmirch, a reputation to smudge.” And as Gillmor would say, this is so even if they don’t have editors.

Apr 22, 2004 | Comment

More on free books

Dan Gillmor, technology columnist at The San Jose Mercury News, is writing a book on the future of journalism in a networked age. Some critics deny blogs can be realiable sources of information because they are unedited, but Gillmor points out that the community of readers become the editors. We all know how an unfairly partisan or factually mistaken blog post will be assailed in comments to the post or in competing blogs.

Like Lawrence Lessig, Gillmor is putting his money where his mouth is and is posting the chapter drafts of his book on his website. He is encouraging people to read them and offer criticism so he can make the finished product better. Not only will Gillmor reap the benefits of loosening the grip on content that I’ve discussed previously, but he’ll also get access to free fact-checking and research. We also don’t just get a free book, but a better book in the end. The book should be in stores by July.

Apr 22, 2004 | Comment

Bardach to Stone: You’re an idiot, aren’t you?

One of my favorite writers on Cuba, Ann Louise Bardach, has interviewed Oliver Stone about his new documentary on Fidel Castro. The interview is really breathtaking for the idiocy and ignorance that Stone spouts. It is especially sad because I think Stone is representative of so many people who want to believe the myth of a just Cuban revolution. Here are some choice snips:

ALB: But Cuba’s leader for life is sitting in front of these guys who are facing life in prison, and you’re asking them, “Are you well treated in prison?” Did you think they could honestly answer that question?

OS: If they were being horribly mistreated, then I don’t know that they could be worse mistreated [afterward].

ALB: So in other words, you think they thought this was their best shot to air grievances? Rather than that if they did speak candidly, there’d be hell to pay when they got back to prison?

OS: I must say, you’re really picturing a Stalinist state. It doesn’t feel that way. You can always find horrible prisons if you go to any country in Central America.

ALB: Did you go to the prisons in Cuba?

OS: No, I didn’t.

ALB: So you don’t know if they’re any different than, say, the prisons in Honduras then?

OS: I think that those prisoners are being honest.

…

ALB: Did it strike you as interesting that at one point in the scene with the prisoners, Castro turned to the prisoners’ defense lawyers, who just happened to be there, and he says, “I urge you to do your best to reduce the sentences”?

OS: I love that. I thought that was hilarious. Those guys just popped up.

ALB: Is there a show-trial element here?

OS: Yeah. I thought that was funny, I did—the prosecutor and Fidel admonishing them, to make sure they worked hard. There was that paternalism. I mean “father knows best,” as opposed to totalitarianism. It’s paternalism, that’s what I meant. It’s a Latin thing.

Apr 15, 2004 | 1 Comment

  •  
  •