blog.ecorrado.us

There is an interesting column on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Web site today about “No Turtles: Faculty-Media Relations.” While librarians aren’t usually high on the totem pole for media interviews, it can still happen. I agree with the author. Michael C. Munger. that we should not act like a turtle and go into our shells when and if the media come a calling about a topic we are experts in. He offers some good advice on how to deal with the media and some tips including:

• Ignore the question: The premise of this one is that often the reporters aren’t experts, so they don’t know what to ask. He says you should ignore bad questions and just say what you really want to say… that is what they are looking for anyway.
• Every answer stands on its own.: The premise here is unless it is a live interview, expect t only some answers to be aired, thus do not answer questions with phrases similar to “”As I already said,” The viewers won’t know what you already said if it has been cut out!
• Watch the end chat: Always consider the camera and/or audio is still rolling and what ever you say is “on the record.”
• Silence is power: Gather yourself: The idea is that unless the interview is live, you should take time to gather your thoughts and come up with a clear concise answer.
• Let the editor edit: The concept here is that producers are looking for some things they can use, so let them do there job and take the answers they thought were best.

I think this is all good advice but I would add at least two caveats. One is that if there is some sort of event like a campus shooting, it might be a good time to go into the shell if approached (unless you talk to the campus PR department first), Really it is a probably good idea to talk to them before giving a media interview if it is about any news story that is happening on campus.

The second caveat is I thinkthat many of these (esp. “Let the editor edit” apply more to established news organizations then they do to marketing/trade publications – you know those glossy thigns with lots of ads they send out for free. I’ve seen a number of trade publications do a horrible job writing up an article and using quotes from an interview. In fact I’ve actually been quoted as saying something that I never said in one. In those cases I’ve learned to always ask for a copy before publication so that I can clarify anything that may come up. Typically I won’t even suggest any changes, but it may save you from being horribly mis-quoted or completely taken out of context.

There is an interesting opinion piece today on the Wall Street Journal’’s Web site that discusses Why Technologists Want Fewer Patents. Basically, the subtitle, We shouldn’t grant monopolies on concepts, sums up what many technologists believe. Patents on concepts, ideas, and software do very little to help innovation. Software, at least, already has copyright protections, so extended patent rights is, IMO, overkill. Patents are supposed to spearhead innovation and while maybe in some cases they do, it is hard for me to see an argument that they do in the case of software and of business concepts. In fact, just the opposite is true. If I have to worry about whether or not an emoticon some concept or method that has been in use in thousands of other computer programs has previously been patented, I have no hope of ever building a better computer program. I know some people who favor software patents will point to patents being a way of protecting income streams, but as the column points out, studies have shown that “aside from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the cost of litigation now exceeds the profits companies generate from licensing patents.”

I’m not saying there should be no patents, but they need to be limited to real things. Not code. I hope that the Supreme Court rules to servilely limit what can be patented after they review Bilski v. Doll. If they don’t, the expressed goal of patent law in the United States Constitution — “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” will be defeated.

The Chronicle of Higher Education had an interesting article about the WolframAlpha Web site. WolframAlpha has gotten some attention in library circles, understandable so, since according to the Web site, it “is the first step in an ambitious, long-term project to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable by anyone.” An ambitious goal, no doubt.

This article, “A Calculating Web Site Could Ignite a New Campus ‘Math War’” focused on how WolframAlpha will not only supply answers to complex mathematical problems, but will also list the steps out on how to do them. Mathematics professors are obviously taking notice. Is using WolframAlpha cheating? Is it a teaching tool? Is it both? I’m not sure, but it is a game changer. I know I would have liked to use it when I was getting my undergrad degree in college – not so much tofsolve a problem, but to double–check my assignment before handing it in.