ARTS & FARCES internet

Ever since last Sunday morning, I’ve been trying to find the words to describe last Saturday’s (9 December 2011) show by Dean Magraw’s Red Planet at the Artist’s Quarter in Saint Paul. I don’t have the words—the show completely blew me away.

Dean Magraw is one of the best guitarists on the planet. He studied classic guitar at the University of Minnesota and then at Berklee. He’s serious about his music. In some 30 years, he’s been playing music of all genres, but truth be told, his Red Planet configuration—with Chris Bates on bass and Jay Epstein on drums—is one of my favorites. Because you’re never sure what you’re going to hear or what you just heard. Because it’s informed a whole lot by John Coltrane.

Shortly after the tracks were recorded in 2008 for Red Planet’s first release, Space Dust, Magraw got sick—real sick. Last spring, the trio began performing again and Magraw hasn’t slowed a bit.

Saturday’s show was among the best of the year—and at US$10 (we always pay double because, well, it’s the Artist’s Quarter) it was the absolute standout bargain of the year. The first set was supposed to begin at 9PM, but Epstein and Bates were up the block playing klezmer music, so we got a treat of a brief Magraw solo on the white Strat to open the show. I remember a “Jesus On the Mainline” in there somewhere. I love it when Magraw plays that white Strat, but damned if the weird Jerry Jones sitar isn’t growing on me.

The entire show was incredible, but the standout highlight had to be the second set opener; more than an hour of at least one Magraw original, at least two reading’s of Coltrane’s “Amen,” and I can’t remember what all else. Red Planet’s read of Thelonious Monk’s “Waltz Time”—Monk’s only recorded exploration of waltz time—was also a very pleasant surprise.

Dean Magraw’s Red Planet at the Artist’s Quarter, 9 December 2011.

A special bonus: Claudia Schmidt has been at several recent Magraw shows and says she’s moved to the Twin Cities. This should get really good, really fast.

The producers of the television show Law and Order Special Victims Unit painstakingly recreated a simulacrum of the original Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Zuccotti Park encampment in Foley Square for an episode of the series. Within hours, the simulacrum was, well, occupied.

The simulacrum included the OWS kitchen, library, and a collection of tents and tarps. Josh Harkinson, writing for Mother Jones, breaks the story with a quote from Jake De Groot, one of the OWS organizers: “They’ve delivered us this perfectly wrapped Christmas present with a bow on top: They rebuilt our camp. How could we not go and take it?”

Here’s Harkinson’s video of the re-occupation:

In a decision that will have ramifications for anyone who writes online without a corporate benefactor, US District Judge Marco A. Hernandez in Portland, OR has drawn a clear distinction between “journalists” and “bloggers.” And that distinction is much more expensive than one might think.

Curtis Cartier, writing for the Seattle Weekly, reports that Hernandez awarded a financial firm US$2.5 million in its defamation lawsuit against Crystal Cox, a blogger who wrote articles critical of the business and one of its co-founders. Hernandez threw out all of the business’s complaints except one that he found defamatory because it was more “factual in tone” than Cox’s other articles and a reasonable person would likely consider it factual.

Cartier reports that Cox “argued in court that the reason her post was more factual was because she had an inside source that was leaking her information.” Oregon, like Minnesota, has a media shield law and Cartier cites the relevant section of the Oregon law:

“No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by ... a judicial officer ... to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise ... [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]”

Cox refused to disclose her source. Hernandez ruled that Cox “did not qualify for shield-law protection not because of anything she wrote, but because she wasn’t employed by an official media establishment,” writes Cartier who provides the relevant passage from Hernandez’s opinion:

“... although defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.”

So much for the vaunted “rule of law.” The Oregon shield law clearly covers Cox’s activities, as does the Banamex v. Narco News ruling by the New York Supreme Court, extending the findings of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case to online media.

Update: Wednesday, 7 December 2011 2:27AM CST: To be clear, as Dan Gillmor points out, journalism is—or should be—a function of those who practice it, not a class of employment.

Update: Thursday, 8 December 2011 7:02PM CST: Kashmir Hill, writing for Forbes, digs a little deeper into this case and discovers that Cox offered the financial company “reputation services” after setting up numerous websites containing content critical of the company and one of its co-founders. While this is despicable behavior, it’s at best only tangentially relevant to the issues at hand.

As Kevin Padrick, the financial firm co-founder subject of Cox’s writings, tells Curtis Cartier, writing for the Seattle Weekly, “And even if Cox was entitled to heightened First Amendment protection [via the Oregon media shield law] we are confident the jury would have found in our favor using a higher standard given the lack of any proof of the truthfulness of Cox’s statements.” The truth is an absolute defense against libel, and apparently Cox didn’t have any; therefore she would have lost anyway.

Hill goes on to reference another attempt to define “media” by Judge Hernandez toward the end of his ruling:

“Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not ‘media.’”

If allowed to stand, this ruling sets a dangerous precedent. Some of the best journalists I’ve known were not educated in journalism, did not hold credentials, and rarely played the he-said, she-said, “other side” game. They did, however, adhere strongly to journalistic standards, honored confidentiality, and kept copious notes. As Hill closes her piece for Forbes, “Yes, there are bloggers who are journalists. But just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that what you do is journalism.” I’m not suggesting that Hernandez should have thrown the case against Cox out—she was clearly unable to prove the truthfulness of her statements. I’m arguing that Hernandez was misguided to use who is and isn’t a journalist or “media” to underpin his ruling. The case could have—should have—been decided on the merits of defamation.

What do Utne Reader and the Westboro Baptist Church have in common? Why, Topeka, Kansas of course. The venerable figurehead of the alternative press has announced its move from Minneapolis to Topeka after two more issues. Predictably, none of the Minneapolis staff will be making the transition.

Topeka-based Ogden Publications purchased Utne Reader six years ago from Nina Utne. I was the publication’s webmaster and online managing editor at the time and figured the writing was on the wall when Bryan Welch, Ogden’s publisher and editorial director, came into town and opened a meeting by telling the executive staff how to prevent dogs from killing chickens. I think there might have been a metaphor in there somewhere, but it went over my head. I liked Welch fine, but I was gone within days of the deal closing. Welch comes across as a country boy—he and his family farm 50 acres in Lawrence, KS—but he’s no hayseed, with a master’s from Harvard in media policy and management.

Neal Justin, writing for the Star Tribune, broke the story and cites Utne Reader editor-in-chief David Schimke as saying, “It’s a bummer. Everyone around here is in shock.” But much more interesting is Justin citing publisher Bryan Welch as saying “the magazine has yet to be financially successful under Ogden’s ownership.”

The magazine was started by Eric Utne—who still writes for the publication—in 1984 as a sort of Reader’s Digest of the alternative press. Nina took over in 1999. Circulation topped 300,000 in the mid-1990s and has currently dropped to 115,000. Justin reports that Welch acknowledges that the move is a consolidation play, but Schimke is more blunt, telling Justin that “he thinks Ogden wants to cut the editorial budget from about US$500,000 to US$250,000.”

Two big things I’m going to miss with Utne Reader leaving town: The friends still on staff there and the remarkable, incomparable library (the biggest benefit of working there). Turns out the friends remain; here’s hoping each one of them lands well come spring.

[Disclosure notice: I was employed by Utne Reader 2002-06 as webmaster and online managing editor.]

Last spring, seemingly everyone was wound up about LocationGate: Apple was tracking the whereabouts of iPhone users. Never mind that in order for this to happen, the user had to agree to allow the tracking to take place. The situation was quickly addressed with an iOS update. At the time, Apple accused its competitors of tracking their users, but it wasn’t Appleicious, so the corporate media paid scant attention.

Until now.

Now comes Trevor Eckhart, a Connecticut-based systems administrator, who discovered data-logging software installed on most mobile phones during his research. The software, Carrier IQ, is installed on millions of Android, Blackberry, and Nokia handsets and secretly sends information to the network carrier about installed apps, numbers dialed, text messages sent and received, and other user data. Eckhart re-published the Carrier IQ software manuals on his website and subsequent reports indicate that the various carriers use this data to different levels of granularity.

The Carrier IQ software is what’s known in security circles as a “root kit,” software installed at the deepest level without the user’s consent, knowledge, or control. It cannot be turned off without rooting the smartphone and replacing its operating system.

When Carrier IQ discovered Eckhart’s research findings and that he’d re-published its documentation, the company sent Eckhart a cease-and-desist letter notifying him of breach of copyright. Carrier IQ also removed the manuals from its own website. According to David Kravets writing for Wired, the company demanded Eckhart retract his claims about the software, a clear attempt to suppress Eckhart’s research.

Eckhart refused to comply with the terms of Carrier IQ’s cease-and-desist demand and within a few days, Carrier IQ, as it came under growing scrutiny, apologized to Eckhart and retracted its cease-and-desist demand.

By the end of November 2011, Eckhart had produced a video detailing how the Carrier IQ software works, reporting virtually everything a user does on her smartphone to the carrier.