Working At The White House

Well it's not every day a girl like me gets to moderate a discussion panel at the White House with the Vice President and Director of Domestic Policy Counsel! I got to do just that this week and it was VERY exciting for me! You can find the video on this landing page or watch the YouTube video embedded below.

I made the mistake of reading the comments on the White House's YouTube page. Note to self: ignore the asshats who propose my skirt is too short. It's a below-the-knee skirt! And to the person who asks why they let a 16 year-old host this, thanks!! 

Maternity Leave Update

I am on the other side of parenting now. My son was born on July 26. I chronicled my birthing experience here, if you are interested.

Thank you all for your encouraging words on my previous post. You were all right! Parenthood is worth it! Every pain, worry, and frustrating minute of it is worth the joy of being this little guy's mommy. I wouldn't trade it for anything!

I'll see you back in the working world soon! (But not too soon!) 

Maternity Leave: I'll Be Back

I start my maternity leave on Monday, July 26. This means that I will be taking a 10-12 week hiatus from Loaded, The 404, and my work with The CBS Early Show. For those of you who watch those broadcasts, first of all, thank you! Second of all, they are well covered so please continue to watch! 

I am grateful for a small break in the daily grind. I love my job but life is more than work...or so I am told. A friend of mine said this when I told him that I was pregnant: "I just don't know what life is about if it isn't about family." It is time for me to find that out for myself and give my new baby my undivided attention for the next few months. 

I am nervous that the news business will leave me behind. Or forget about me. I know that sounds silly but I have vested myself heavily in my career. For so long it was all that I had, living all the way out here in New York City, so far away from my family in San Francisco. It is only natural to have some separation anxiety. 

I can admit that I am sometimes caught up in the publish-fast-publish-first world of technology news. If I read something and see that 5 people in my feed have already Tweeted that news, I feel woefully behind. How am I going to feel when I am a day or two behind a story because I am on an infant's sleep schedule!? I really don't know. But in my experience, when you let go of something you are obsessed about, you normally find its true value in a way that you had not anticipated. 

So I'm letting go of Natali, the workhorse. Not forever. Just for a few weeks. I hereby dub myself Natali, the mommy. And that is forever so I want to start it off properly. I have been blogging about the experience on my Mommy blog, aptly named Mommy Beta, which I hope you will read, subscribe to, comment on, and enjoy.

Wish me luck! I'll see you Twitter or Facebook or somewhere in between. I'll be back shortly and I promise to be able to talk about more than just baby monitors and spittle! 

My Festivus Grievances: 2009

Last year I made a list of all of the technologies that worked my nerves for Festivus. Well ladies and gentlemen, Festivus is among us once again and I am just cranky enough to take another crack at a 2009 list. So sit back and don your Oscar the Grouch demeanor because I'm about to complain. I am in just such a mood since an old lady snapped "Move it!" in Fairway Market today because I took too long to find the saffron. Holiday shopping makes me hostile. Bah humbug. Happy Festivus. Natali's Tech Letdowns for 2009
  • MobileMe. The service is mostly fine except for the fact that it doesn't sync shared calendars from iCal. So if I want to sync my Google Calendar to my iPhone, I am SOL. Yes I know there are other solutions to work around that so please don't email me about them. I shouldn't have to find a workaround. I pay $100 per year for MobileMe. I want fully-functional synced calendars on my iPhone gosh darnit!
  • Google Wave. Seriously, WTF? I can't figure out the purpose of this program other than for people to bug me in a new way. Pass.
  • Mobile chargers. The European Union now has a law that mandates standard mobile chargers. Why can't we have that? I'm sick to death of carrying different chargers. We have czars that are in charge of our electronic lives now. Can't one of them fix this?
  • AT&T Wireless. Their crappy coverage is the bane of my existence. It makes me want to shout profanities into the universe for minutes on end. It makes me behave unladylike. I #$%&ing hate you, AT&T!
  • Earbuds. Why can't they be retractable and indestructible. Is that too much to ask for?
  • iTunes. Actually, I don't have a problem with it as much as my mother does and I cannot offer her advice or support from across the country over the phone. When I get a call from her asking about iTunes, I blame the dropped connection on AT&T.
  • Windows Mobile. I want to like these devices, I really do. But why does it take me 53 clicks/pushes/steps to accomplish what the iPhone can do in one swipe? Way more complicated than is has to be.
  • Facebook. Over it. Sick of it. Can't add any new friends anyway so I'm on information overload. Need to take a break from caring. Facebook and I may get back together in the new year.
  • The Barnes and Noble Nook. What a letdown. Such great promise, such bad execution.
  • Apple rumors. This is the thing that I hate the most about my job: pretending that I care about Apple speculation and having to postulate an opinion. "What do I think about a tablet? Oh I think...(insert BS here)." I hate that. I have better things to do with my mental CPU.

That's all I've got now that I've sufficiently worked myself up into a frenzy. Tomorrow, I'll throw off the grumps and get back to the holiday spirit but this has been a fun and much-needed vacation from that. Air your grievances in the comments if you have them!

Read More

Technological Determinism Is False

I read that today in Yochai Benkler's book "The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom." He defines "technological determinism" as the expectation that technology will produce a new social structure. I have thought this for a long time in my career as a technology journalist, although I had not articulated it quite so eloquently. Just because you can build a new product, Web site, social network, or gadget, does not mean that you should. A nascent technology, in and of itself, will not change the world. So what are the tools that do evolve our communication? I have been reading a lot about the democratization of information through "new media," which I assert is quickly becoming a throw-away term. Some academics believe that the Internet does not at all level the playing field like we expect it could/should. Matthew Hindman argues that the Internet actually preserves the patterns of concentrated control that have existed in the media for decades in his book, "The Myth of  Digital Democracy." All of this literature is starting to dull my enthusiasm for the power of social media, or at least make me want to play a little hard to get with technological determinism. Hindman acknowledges that there is a lot of talk on the Internet by the Average Joe. But Average Joe is not being linked to, commented on, or otherwise memed. So is Joe yelling into a tunnel? If Joe blogs in a forest, does he make an impact? Of course I am approaching this from the standpoint of a news reporter. The word "news" implies that information is new or novel. That is very seldom the case in news reporting. I am under no illusion that the news I bring to my viewers is 100% something that they have not heard of before. Broadcast simply can't compete with the Internet in that way. So in this time of communication evolution, we must ask ourselves which technologies will be deterministic and which will be filed away in the history books as no more than an artifice. Barry Glassner argues that the media's love affair with any given phemenon is cyclical. He writes about this in "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things," a book which I helped research in its second edition. I am afraid that this applies to the Internet's love affair with new-ness. We get excited about anything novel but our burning love cools all too quickly as we look for the "next Facebook." It is as if we are in a constant state of digital anomie. I wish I could wrap up this blog post with some declarative theoretical assertion but unfortunately these thoughts are still in progress. But it has been WAY too long since I blogged here and I figured unfinished thoughts would be better than no thoughts at all. So consider this media theory ad lib. Feel free to fill in the blanks with your opinions in the comment section.
Read More

The Value of Voice

I just finished Jeff Jarvis' book, What Would Google Do? I have so many thoughts about it but one in particular keeps rolling around in my head like a loose marble. Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry? Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all. I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots." I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good? Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy." But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more. Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't. I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts. Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas? In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.
Read More