Yesterday I listened to an excellent Radio Open Source podcast episode. Christopher Lydon interviewed Mark Blyth, a political economist at Brown University, about what he’s been learning about the Occupy movement by talking to protestors in Boston — and putting it into a global economic, social, and historic context that I found sobering.

So give it a listen:

Mark Blyth (6): Going to school on “Occupy Wall St.”

One point Blyth made that particularly struck me — and that I especially wish every journalist would take to heart — is this: The labor movement didn’t come out of nowhere. It didn’t spring into being fully formed with collective bargaining and arbitration procedures. It coalesced gradually, in fits and starts, from a society struggling with the “volatility constraint” that comes with rampant inequality.

Birth is messy. Infants aren’t born talking in complete sentences. So don’t look at the Occupy movement expecting this:

botticelli-birth-venus

Boticelli's "Birth of Venus"

After listening to all the context Blyth offered, I suspect we’re watching the earliest phases of a different kind of labor movement: the labor pangs that precedes the birth of something that might eventually walk and talk. Something that probably won’t go by the name “Occupy.”

I only hope the world can collectively raise this baby right.

CNN tech Writer Amy Gahran talks to CNN about… by BeyondPixBroadcast

And here’s the transcript.

Now that you’ve seen the finished product, here’s the backstory….

My interview was scheduled for 11:40 am. CNN arranged to have a car pick me up at my home in Oakland to drive me across the Bay Bridge to a TV studio in San Francisco. The pickup time was 9:30 am — a bit on the early side, but you never know about bridge traffic, even on a weekend holiday. The driver actually came early, and there was no traffic, so I arrived at the studio around 9:45 am.

I rang the buzzer on the building’s outer door, which was locked. No one answered. Tried again a few minutes later, and nothing. Ten minutes later, still nothing. I verified I had the correct address, but saw no signage indicating a TV studio was in that building.

So I called CNN headquarters to see if they had an on-site contact for the studio. They gave me a number that sent me to the voice mail for their Los Angeles bureau. Not helpful. After three more calls to CNN, I finally learned that this building wasn’t their studio — it’s an independent studio they lease time at (pretty normal for TV).

CNN staff was apparently searching around for an on-site contact, and I was getting a bit nervous at that point. Since a lot of media & CNN people follow me on Twitter, I posted for help there too. But didn’t get much response. Hey, it was a holiday for many…

Nearly an hour after I arrived, someone finally came down to let me inside. I waited in the studio (alone, surprisingly) for a bit. Then around 11am the makeup artist arrived. Shortly after the engineer walked in. Then a second engineer arrived — who, as it turned out, was redundant, so he went home.

cylon CNN

This is who.. er.. what was interviewing me at CNN. I now suspect that the "C" in CNN stands for "Cylon".

The interview itself was pretty quick. But I wasn’t actually talking to Fredricka Whitfield. She was just a disembodied voice in my ear. I was sitting in a chair in front of the CNN backdrop. I snapped a photo of what I was actually talking to (see left).

Once everyone was on site, it all ran smoothly. And that’s my point here — TV people often pull things together at the last minute, but they do manage to pull it all together, on a daily basis, and it works. I just happened to be unfamiliar with their process.

Now I know to expect that unless you’re going to a full-time network studio, people may not show up until the last minute. Which makes sense if a network is leasing studio time — which I gather does not come cheaply.

After my interview, the driver was kind enough to drop me at Dolores Park, in time for the annual Easter celebration of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Here are my photos. (Note: Some are not safe for work.)

It was a blast! I especially loved the Hunky Jesus competition. (The winner was “Jesus F*cking Christ”, but my favorite was “Son of Godzilla.”) And of course, there were many exultant cries of “He is risen!” and “Ahh… men! Ahh… women! And Ahhheverything in between!”

I only regretted that I was wearing full-on business attire. But at least with the TV studio makeup overload still fairly fresh on my face, I did blend in a bit with this crowd. At least in spirit. I definitely felt like I was playing dress-up.

After the Hunky Jesus competition, I strolled over to Revolution Cafe on 22nd street to enjoy some live jazz…

Revolution Cafe Jazz

Live Jazz at Revolution Cafe, SF, Easter 2011

Give these a listen and you’ll see what I mean:

• Tech Nation interview with Bill Bryson, author of At Home: A Short History of Private Life.
• Radio Lab: What does technology want? “In this conversation recorded as part of the New York Public Library series LIVE from the NYPL, Steven Johnson (author of Where Good Ideas Come From) and Kevin Kelly (author of What Technology Wants) try to convince Robert that the things we make—from spoons to microwaves to computers—are an extension of the same evolutionary processes that made us. And we may need to adapt to the idea that our technology could someday truly have a mind of its own.”

Recently Kellie O’Sullivan, a third-year communication student studying at the University of Newcastle in Australia, asked me some questions about citizen journalism for a class assignment. I get questions like this a lot, so she said it was fine if I answered her in a blog post.

The way she framed her questions made me wonder: Why are folks from news organizations and journalism/communication schools still so hung up on building fences to divide amateur from professional journalism? Does this reflect insecurity about their own status/worth, or simply a lack of understanding of how much these endeavors mostly overlap and complement each other?

Seems to me that we’d all gain more by focusing on the practice of reporting and journalism (especially being transparent and open to discussion, correction, and expansion of news and information). In my opinion, doing journalism is more important than what kind of journalist you consider yourself to be, or how others label you.

With that caveat, here’s what she asked, and how I answered…

1. Do you think that citizen journalists such as Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton put pressure on professional journalists to be more accurate and credible in their reporting?

I don’t follow either Matt Drudge or Perez Hilton, so I can’t really speak to those two examples from experience. And I don’t know that I would call them “citizen journalists” — as far as I know, they’re both entrepreneurial news/information providers, not unpaid amateurs.

I also know they’re both very popular and have developed large, devoted communities online. From what I hear, they interact with their community members regularly and personally. That probably contributes to their popularity.

Reporters who are inclined toward viewing other media players who become popular in the communities that they would like to reach — and who are inclined toward a scarcity mindset of community (“If you get more attention, that means I’ll get less!”) — may indeed view Drudge and Hilton primarily as competition and feel pressure from that.

Personally, I think it’s more constructive to view nearly anyone else in media as a potential ally or collaborator, and look for ways to approach them and their communities that will benefit everyone.

Also, watch what they do and learn from them. If you want the results they get, then look for constructive ways to emulate or adapt how they work.

2. Daily blogger and citizen journalist Matthew Hatton thinks that citizen journalism and professional journalism could work together. Do you believe this is something which could happen?

I not only think this kind of cooperation could happen — it should and does happen, every day, in all kinds of venues.

Sometimes it happens through controlled, hierarchical programs like American Public Media’s Public Insight Network. Sometimes it’s formal or informal crowdsourcing. Sometimes it happens through blogs, or comments to news stories, or social media. It’s more about sharing information than sharing bylines.

3. In 2007 you wrote: “In journalism, the ‘ism’ is more important than the ‘ist.’ ” Therefore, do you believe the general public are simply more interested in news stories, and not necessarily the author of the stories?

Not quite. In my experience people are interested in news, information, perspectives, and context — and most of all, relevance. I also think many people (perhaps most) prefer to choose their own sources for these things, not just blindly turn to a mainstream news outlet as the last or best word on anything. And I also find that the kind of information people want is much broader than traditional packaged “news stories.”

This is why most people rely heavily on people they know and trust to find news and information — both original information and pointers to news and information published online and elsewhere. That’s a big reason why social media has become so popular.

People do care about where and who their information comes from. Who authored or published a news story can be part of that, but it’s definitely not the whole picture.

This is why the traditional practice of mainstream professional journalists hiding their personal views, opinions, or interests can actually undermine credibility, not promote it. Transparency has become more desirable and useful than a veneer of objectivity fostered by concealment.

4. Do you consider yourself a citizen journalist or a professional journalist? Why?

Neither. Both. It doesn’t matter to me. It may matter to other people, but that’s up to them and they’re free to label me and my work as they will.

I do journalism, among many other things. That’s how I think of it. That makes it much easier to get the job done.

Thanks for your questions, Kellie

According to Nieman Lab, “Media Cloud is a massive data set of news — compiled from newspapers, other established news organizations, and blogs — and a set of tools for analyzing those data.

Here’s what Berkman’s Ethan Zuckerman had to say about Media Cloud:

Ethan Zuckerman on Media Cloud from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.

Some of the kinds of questions Media Cloud could eventually help answer:

• How do specific stories evolve over time? What path do they take when they travel among blogs, newspapers, cable TV, or other sources?
• What specific story topics won’t you hear about in [News Source X], at least compared to its competitors?
• When [News Source Y] writes about Sarah Palin [or Pakistan, or school vouchers], what’s the context of their discussion? What are the words and phrases they surround that topic with?”

The obvious use of this project is to compare coverage by different types of media. But I think a deeper purpose may be served here: By tracking patterns of words used in news stories and blog posts, Media Cloud may illuminate how context and influence shape public understanding — in other words, how media and news affect people and communities.

This is important, because news and media do not exist for their own sake. It seems to me that the more we learn about how people are affected by — and affect — media, the better we’ll be able to craft effective media for the future.

(NOTE: I originally published this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

This is a better deal for me, since generally I don’t talk on the phone much — except last month. I was working on a magazine feature story that required many interviews. And also, since I got known as a source on the role of Twitter in covering the Mumbai terrorist attacks, I was called by several reporters (including ABCnews.com) to give interviews on that topic.

Last night I got my cell phone bill. It was about $70 more than I expected — because I’d exceeded my allotted minutes. Ouch.

That’s the trouble with being in the media business, and many other fields: You can’t always control how much time you’ll have to spend on the phone in a given month. Which means you can’t always control the number or timing of the minutes you’ll use. Which is why cell-only folks need other options for making and taking calls that allow you to control costs.

Enter Skype…

I’ve used the VOIP phone service Skype for a couple of years, but mainly for conversations with people who also are already comfortable with Skype. But most of the time, the people who want to call me and talk for a while, or who I need to call, either don’t use Skype or prefer to talk by phone. Which means all those calls count toward my cell phone bill. And when too many of them pile up in the same month — Ouch!$!

It seems to me that these days everyone with broadband access should get a free Skype account and learn how to use it to make and receive voice calls. All Skype-to-Skype calls are free on both ends. It costs you nothing to extend this money-saving courtesy to your cell-phone-only, Skype-using contacts.

Once you’re set with that option, then when you’re scheduling or starting a voice call that might last more than a couple of minutes, you can ask people whether they prefer to talk by phone or Skype. Why should they end up paying for you to call them?

You can use Skype on any computer with broadband access (as long as the service isn’t blocked, which I suppose could be the case from computers at some companies, libraries, net cafes, etc.). You’ll need either a built-in microphone, or a wired or Bluetooth headset connected to the computer.

So far Skype not really something that will work from a cell phone. Understandably, cell carriers are averse to supporting Skype calls, since they can’t charge for those minutes. Skype and other VOIP services are a huge, looming threat to cell carriers and landline providers.

Quality and reliability: The sound quality of Skype calls is often startlingly clear. In my experience, Skype calls overall have far superior sound quality to cell calls. As for reliability, the frequency of sporadic problems (weird echoes, brief delays or audio gaps, or dropped calls) seems no worse than that of cell phones. I’ve found if Skype starts getting flaky in the midst of a call, if both speakers pause for a few seconds, the trouble usually clears up.

Here are some other ways you can use Skype to save money:

• SkypeOut. You can make calls from Skype to landline or cell numbers. This currently costs 2.1 cents/minute, with no limit on minutes. You can pay as you go by depositing money into a Skype Credit account (which you can set up for automatic recharge if you like). Or you can get a Skype subscription for no per-minute charges, which costs $3/month for US/Canada only ($6/month to include Mexico, $10/month to call landlines and cells around the world).
• SkypeIn gives your Skype account its own phone number which can be dialed from any landline or cell phone. This way, anyone can call you from any phone and you won’t have to worry about paying for cell phone minutes. It costs $18 for three months to get a SkypeIn number, or $60 for a year. You get free voice mail with this. UPDATE: It’s even cheaper than that. People who purchase Skype’s Unlimited U.S. and Canada subscription currently can save up to 50 percent on buying an online number (now called SkypeIn) for a year. Details.

Skype makes even more economic sense if you telecommute, travel to locations with broadband Internet access, talk a lot to friends or family who aren’t local, or are self-employed. Even if you want or need to keep your landline, no long distance or international calling fees apply to Skype calls (whether to other Skype users or regular numbers).

Skype also offers video calls, conference calls, and lots of other features — even with a free basic account.

You don’t need to use Skype for every call — just consider it an option to control your cell or long-distance bills, and to offer a courtesy to the people you call.

If you don’t like Skype, there are plenty of other voice-over-Internet (VOIP) services you can join. I’m sure some of those vendors will leave comments to this post promoting them. But Skype has a big advantage: the huge global popularity of free basic Skype accounts means you probably have more opportunities to make and take calls that are free on both ends (Skype-to-Skype) than with other services. Also, Skype is dead easy to install and use on any computer platform — so the setup and learning curve is minimal.

I can’t think of any reason not to at least get a free Skype account and learn it. Even if Skype someday dies or other free VOIP services become more popular, learning to use this kind of communication tool is as important as learning how to send and receive e-mail, or dial a phone number. Plus it won’t cost you anything — and it might help you control costs.

(NOTE: This is a rewrite of an article I originally published yesterday on Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits. That version was written specifically for journalists, and including information on recording calls via Skype.)

For a change of pace, here’s an audio podcast. My good friend and environmental journalism colleague Dale Willman just got back from a three-week trip to Indonesia where he was training radio journalists there how to do an environmental radio show — and just how to do radio production, period.

Yesterday Dale and I had a fun conversation about his trip, the state of media in Indonesia, and why text messaging is so popular there.

Listen now! (Or right-click to download)

Dale Willman

In the studio: One of the Indonesian radio journalists Dale helped to train.

Here’s what Dave has to say about where he thinks journalism might be heading, and what he wants to do to help it get there:

…Oh, and in this interview, Dave called me a "force of nature." I’ll assume that’s a compliment:

Thanks, Dave

Fortunately afterward I caught up with one of the panelists, Geneva Overholser, who’s about to take the helm at USC’s Annenberg School of Journalism. She was kind enough to offer some thoughtful answers to Khan. Here’s what she had to say.

(Note: My apologies for the different audio levels between the intro and the interview. I recorded on two different devices and edited in iMovie HD, which I don’t yet know very well, so it’s a little clunky. I’m still learning.)

Here’s more info about who was on this panel…

From the SPJ event info page:

KEYNOTE: New Money, New Media, New Hope

• Rose Aguilar hosts the daily public affairs show Your Call on KALW-FM. Her forthcoming book, “Red Highways,” will be out in September. The book collects political interviews with people living and voting in so-called “red states,” and calls for a more thoughtful and productive dialogue in the media and between people with differing views. She will speak about what the public wants from journalism, and what it gets.
• Persephone Miel is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at The Harvard Law School where she directs the Media Re:public project, examining the impact of participatory journalism on the information environment. Prior to joining Berkman, she spent more than 12 years with Internews Network, an international NGO supporting independent media around the world.
• Geneva Overholser is the newly appointed director of the School of Journalism at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications. She previously held the Curtis B. Hurley Chair in Public Affairs Reporting for the Missouri School of Journalism, in its Washington, D.C., bureau. She is a frequent print, broadcast and online media critic, and the author of “On Behalf of Journalism: A Manifesto for Change.”
• David Talbot, the founder and former editor-in-chief of Salon.com, is also the author of New York Times bestseller “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.” He recently launched a media and entertainment company called The Talbot Players with his brother Steve, executive producer of PBS’ Frontline World. He is also helping develop the San Francisco Free Press, a nonprofit Bay Area news engine that aims to combine the best of professional and citizens’ journalism.
• Moderator: Cynthia Gorney is a professor at the Graduate School of Journalism, U.C. Berkeley, a magazine writer (with regular contributions to National Geographic, The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, Oprah, Runners World and Harpers, among others), an occasional radio host of KQED-FM’s Forum, and the author of “Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars.”