Beware False equivalencies - Breitbart and its kind are NOT news

I was reading another ZDNet article this time showing how fake news and siloed information was a danger to U.S. democracy.  The long-winded article went into a treatise, complete with spiffy chart of where on the political spectrum all the various "news" organizations fell.

CNN, AP and Reuters were considered middle of the road, mainstream with Huffington Post and Fox News occupying the left and right of them respectively.  Of course the middle is always under attack as being too liberal by somebody.

Seems the past decade has spawned an outcry for a more "balanced" media view bringing forth what is laughably called Fox "news" and ultimately lending legitimacy to far right wing "journalism" like that purveyed by the likes of Breitbart news (a known proponent of Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist ideologies.)

Folks,  the past 8 years have taught us what happens to a country caught up in in siloed rhetoric.  Men of otherwise good intent are prisoners of the polls and fearful of a vocal minority.  A minority that grows into an immovable majority on both sides sown only with the seeds of propaganda.

We're literally too stupid and too lazy to know any better.

We cherry pick that which we agree with and discard the rest.  You can't help it, the bias is so great, the vitriol so thick that it's nearly impossible to find common ground.

This is not the function of journalism.  Opinions belong on the editorial page not the front page.  But in a world of information overload we don't have time for opposing views especially when they come from those who care to know nothing but their own.

Those who refuse to recognize or even acknowledge the lessons and warnings of history are the real danger.  Degrees don't make you intelligent, being aware of your world does...

"We aren't a democracy - say the Pledge of Allegiance and realize this.  Democracy, as in the Roman Empire, is rule by the mob.  Heaven help us if we get there, as the Roman Empire didn't last as long as the U.S. has."

I'd like to say I made that quote up but I can't.  He's off by at least 300 years and doesn't care to realize it.

So much for "No Child Left Behind."

That quote, by the way, is from the comment section of the same article and sadly it's not alone.  I see it far too often and when the obvious oversight is called out instead of thoughtful reflection there is instead an attack.

Libtard, Butt-Hurt, Elitist.

These are the retorts.  These are the product of faux journalism and if nothing else we need to read the signs.

Is it so hard to form an opinion based on your own views instead of someone else's?

Is that NOT what this grand democracy is supposed to be?

Rhetoric is not governance, it's a campaign and campaigns are about wars.  Warriors are about conquering.  To conquer is easy, governing is hard.

Just ask a Roman...

Thank You! (100K views)

Thank You!

We just broke 100,000 views of this blog.  Yes, it took 5 years to do it, yes, most sites get that in a day but to me it's a major milestone so THANK YOU!

Your support is the catalyst to continue and I intend to.

So whether it's popular culture, TWIT or anything else I cover know that if it's worth writing about I'll be sure to post it here.

Tell you friends!  Looking forward to the next 100,000 views!

TWIT moves to the East Side

I don't do much TWIT coverage anymore mostly because I don't believe in beating a dead horse.  On occasion, however, there are noteworthy events that require no context and no explanation.

Honestly, there's rarely much that comes out of the house the Leo built that's worth covering.  I'll save the morbid voyeurism for sites like totaldrama.org.

Which leads me to the video below.  If anything punctuates the sad state of TWIT it's watching the cadre of TWIT regulars ride an open air bus to a sad little office park.  Listen closely and you'll hear unmistakable subtext of unhappiness.

The long last looks at the old studio,  the constant jokes about the seedy neighbors of the new one and the apologetic tone for everything the new studio isn't once they arrive.

It's a capitulation brought about by a reality check even if the public face of TWIT denies the reality.

Still, it's the most lively broadcast to come out of TWIT in a long time.  So whether you're fan, foe or like me indifferent to TWIT the following should provide entertainment nonetheless.

Kind of like the morbid curiosity one finds at staring at the aftermath of a car crash.

UPDATE!  Recent events ( AKA Copyright Strike ) has removed my ability to provide video coverage of the event. Meaning I can only provide a link to TWIT instead of the video that was here before.  This is due to the fact that apparently Lisa Laporte, conservative whip-cracker and all around dynamic personality has decided that nobody was allowed to watch or record an unedited, highly promoted TWIT event for posterity.  Even if it was covered by Creative Commons.

Thanks for the copyright strike!  Karma's a bitch and apparently so are you my dear.  

In the immortal words of Han Solo I say this...."Laugh it up, Fuzzball.."

Sorry, but when faced with Donald Trump type tactics I lose my objectivity....

Here's the link to the "big" event.  TWIT moves...

A shaky foundation - Infrastructure built on the backs of the poor

For the past 20 years we've known there's a problem.  Bridges on the brink of toppling down, pothole infested roads and overcrowded freeways obsolete for the volume they handle from the day they open.

It's a problem of neglect.  One the pundits lay squarely on the backs of a gas tax that hasn't kept pace with inflation.  If only all those giant SUV's rumbling over the earth in the early part of the century had been paying another 5 cents a gallon there'd be no problem.

At least that's the argument.  One that proponents of raising the gas tax to fund public infrastructure find agreeable.  

On Sunday mornings I'm usually traveling over some of those very bridges and freeways that have benefited from public financing.  If I'm lucky I can catch the latest broadcast of the Intelligence squared debates.

This past week the topic was the gas tax with the advocates both for and against it. 

It's rare that I don't line up on one side or the other but this was one of those times.  
The arguments flew back and forth about the sorry state of the country's infrastructure.  That it's a sad state of affairs isn't in contention, the evidence isn't some abstraction it's physical.

What is in contention is how to pay for it.  Conservatives would rather see public funding go away entirely while liberal viewpoints contend that public infrastructure is one of the most basic of government functions.  

I didn't care the arguments of either side.  Not because I don't believe there isn't a problem, there is.  No it's another case of treating the symptom while ignoring the patient.

In this case the patient isn't roads and bridges it's the people being asked to pay to fix them.  

The problem with use taxes is that they weigh heaviest on those who can afford it least.  Sure a few extra bucks is nothing if fueling your ride has no more impact on your finances than your morning latte'.  Unfortunately we live in technologically advanced world dominated by backward thinking.

Dearly held beliefs like: no real work gets done unless it's in a cubicle or a fair wage should be dictated by business and not societal needs.  Even if the people you employ can't afford to buy any of your goods.

That's the disconnect.  The assumption that the answer to every problem involves heaping more suffering on those that can't afford it.  I've got a real problem with that even if the cause is just.  

It's just not realistic to accommodate every public project based on revenue streams that don't take into account the fortunes of those it would affect.   In discussions like these, however, it's always the same dire causation.  That being that funding hasn't kept up with inflation and the only fix is to make everybody pay more to fix the problem.

It drives me insane...

Public funding will NEVER keep up with inflation so long as the workaday Joe or Janet can't afford anything!  You know what else hasn't kept up with inflation?  Wages!  Back in 1988 I could afford a 1 bedroom apartment and keep 2 people safe and warm and dry on 15 grand a year with a car for each of them.  3 decades later you can still end up with that same wage with less than half the buying power.

It's an economic death spiral that far too many find themselves in when meager compensation forces them into the arms of a corrupt credit system just to make (inflationary adjusted) ends meet.  A system that by no accident enjoys a symbiotic relationship with financial interests whose fortunes are built on the hope of default and financial ruin of the powerless.

So when I hear the sad, sad tale of employers who claim they'd be put out of business if they had to pay a "living wage" I can hardly believe that anyone accepts their argument.  That being that paying the equivalent of a slave wage is not only necessary to the survival of their business but a core constituent of its success.

So long as that's the prevailing wisdom in this country there's no way that any discussion of the public good can't first address the inequity.  

Economic inequity is a root cause with many symptoms some of which show up in a crumbling infrastructure, high rates of credit default and sagging economies.  

Stop putting band aids on the economic equivalent of paper cuts and deal with the massive coronary that's going on.  

Judicial Watch: A cheap shot at First Responders

Petty, Shallow, Political. 

That's the motto that should be plastered on the front of Judicialwatch.org's website.

Lest you think it's an impartial activist organization focused on judicial fairness I offer the following "Headlines"

"District of Corruption"

"Obama IRS Scandal"

"CDC Official Calls Obama Worst President, Amateur, Marxist After Influx of Illegal Alien Minors"

And most recently...

"Probe Ends Free Labor Union Ads on City Vehicles"

I don't care who you voted for in the last election, that last one is a bridge too far...

The attack on the offending "Ad" in question shocked even the normally blood red populace of planet Arizona.  This may be the land of gubernatorial finger wagging at Presidents but when you go after Firefighters for a sticker on their truck that says...

"Our Family Helping Your Family"

You're just being asinine...

For no other reason than a tiny IAFF logo ( International Association of Fire Fighters) that appears above the motto, Judicial Watch has accused Phoenix Fire Fighters of giving free advertising to the Firefighter's union on the taxpayers dime.

Judicial Watch apparently has a problem with Teachers, Cops, and now Firefighters.  That is if there happens to be a union that supports them.  Well at least that's the takeaway of this latest PR campaign against stickers on fire trucks. 

BTW, most if not all professional Fire Fighters belong to the union.  Calling this sticker "advertising" is like calling a postage stamp "advertising" for the postal workers union.  

How many times have we seen commercials about the pride America takes in those who choose a career in public service?  Should we consider them union advertising too?

Perhaps they'll go after Arizona license plates next.  They do say "Grand Canyon State" which blatantly advertises a popular tourist destination.  One that feeds all those "Private" resorts and hotels.  Imagine all those taxpayer dollars going to promote a big hole in the ground...oh the injustice!

The one thing you have to understand is that the Firefighter's union is not the Teamsters.  For the most part they can't go on strike.  

Really now, it's one thing for Safeway to miss a load of Fruit Loops, quite another when your house is burning down.

Bottom Line: It's about an organization that ensures that people who put their lives on the line every day have everything they need to do it safely and competently. 

That's the mission Period...

So just what the hell is wrong with you Judicial Watch?  Would you prefer we return to the 18th century where all emergency response was done by good intentions and the bucket brigade?  Would you rather have law and order enforced by lynch mobs or policing agencies that are bound to protect individual rights?

What's the end game?  Or perhaps the better question is, How does a 501 C3 non-profit get away with political activism? 

Look up the rules and the IRS spells it out...

"It may not be an Action Organization i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

All I see on their site is a politically charged collection of "Actions" most of which are aimed at a sitting president.

It's like giving the National Enquirer tax exempt status.

That their actions are based on a political agenda is one thing but to use their status to attack first responders is pure cold blood. 

Shame on you and shame on anyone who believes in your so-called cause.

TWIT defines the news

It's official...

This Blog is NOT, I repeat, NOT a news site.

Not that I ever said it was but I digress..

I was informed of this fact by a "helpful" TWIT chatroom moderator who goes by the mysterious moniker of "Dan" during the Sunday October 5th edition of This Week in Tech (TWIT).

The whole exchange came about whilst happily participating in the "G-rated" revelry that is the TWIT IRC chatroom.  As the messages flew by, I noticed somebody asking if a popular TWIT show called, "The Social Hour" was still on.

Realizing that I had recently written an article on the topic I responded to the inquiry with a link and moved on.

Apparently, that was a mistake.

After a few more exchanges on unrelated topics covered in Sunday's show I noticed that TWIT Chat Moderator "Dan" was requesting that I check my "PM's"

So I complied and upon entering Dan's private little IRC channel he informed me that, " Only links from a news site were acceptable in the IRC channel." and " that your blog was not a legitimate news source."  Considering I'd seen this rule violated on more than one occasion by others including show producers, hosts and even moderators I knew I was again running headlong into the TWIT delusion. 

But I let it pass as I knew it was just the grumblings of yet another TWIT chat moderator with an inflated ego.

He went on to inform me that this was my only "Warning."

A little stunned but not really surprised given my checkered past with TWIT chatroom moderators I replied, " I'll keep your warning in mind" 

That wasn't enough for good ol' Dan, however, and he proceeded to go into half a paragraph of how he set the rules for the TWIT chatroom and was the final say in all things TWIT IRC, and he alone set the tone etc, etc...

Which after a brief pause brought out my inner 12 year old resulting in a response of...

"You really enjoy your little power trip don't you?  You know what Dan, Fuck Off...bye"

Being a mature male I probably could have handled that exchange better but I tend to respond as a child when treated like one.  Especially when it's undeserved....

To hell with turning the other cheek...

I'll be damned if I'll let some IRC moderator with a Napoleon complex get the better of me.  Besides, it's the first opportunity I've had to blindside the SOB the same way he blindsided me the last time I got kicked for some unknown, ambiguous sin.

I'm probably banned for life from TWIT chatrooms now but to be honest, the quality of TWIT programming has me finding less and less need of the convenience.  What it does bring to mind, however, is just what the definition of news is.

Dan's little admonition to me reeks of hypocrisy.  A close look at TWIT's "news" coverage finds it  largely comprised of rehashed content from other so-called "legitimate" news sources like TechCrunch, Engadget, Reddit and the occasional tweet.  TWIT's "news" programming is best described as a collection of editorial magazines aggregating someone else's content.  Which may have triggered my response. 

The articles in this blog that have been written about TWIT are no less valid if TWIT's "news" coverage is held up as the standard.  While they may be more editorial in nature they're always researched, sourced and unlike much of TWIT's news content, original reporting.  The difference is, the subject is TWIT which is likely what got dear old Dan's feathers ruffled.    

Dan can do whatever he wants with his chatrooms but his motives appear less about upholding journalistic integrity than censorship of anything that denies the delusion that currently pervades TWIT. 

The definition of "news" no longer meets the definition that "Dan" subscribes to.  How a "progressive" medium like TWIT fails to realize that is hypocritical bordering on the ridiculous.  Hey guys, we're not limited to 3 TV networks and some disembodied voice on the radio to tell us what's going on anymore.   

As far as TWIT goes, I've yet to see anything original come from them that had a Reuters or Associated Press tag attached to a story.  Meaning if we accept TWIT's definition of "news" coverage then what they provide is little more than editorials aggregated from so-called "real" sources.

Leading to the conclusion that they have no more value than what you'll find here...

Doing articles on Kupeesh

If you enjoy what I do here, check out my articles on Kupeesh.  It's a new news site with a bit of an edge which suits me nicely.

The latest article I've done for them can be found here.

Has TWIT finally thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

I'm not sure what's going on at Leo Laporte's TWIT network but it seems change is in the air again.  This time, however, it seems it's more than a minor schedule shakeup. 

2013 has seen a number of changes at TWIT the most obvious of which is Laporte's handoff of hosting duties on shows including "Know How" and the relatively new "This Week in YouTube" and next year "The Giz Wiz."  The year has also seen an increasing presence of Father Robert Ballecer hosting the new "This Week in Enterprise Tech" as well as co-hosting "Know How" with Iyaz Akhtar.  (Update: Akhtar has since left TWIT for CNET)

Another new arrival, Chad Johnson, originally showed up as a board operator for the ill fated "Game on!" and has been slowly groomed for host and producer duties over the past year.  He now produces "This Week in Tech" and hosts "OMGcraft" as well as co-hosting "This Week in YouTube" with Lamarr Wilson. (Update: The show has been put on hiatus) Johnson will be picking up hosting duties for "The Giz Wiz" alongside Dick DeBartolo.

Laporte has long said he wants the network to be less reliant on his star power but in the process it seems the programming has been in a constant state of upheaval because of it. 

That's somewhat understandable.  After all, a broadcaster devoted to technology subjects has to stay as nimble as the newsmakers they cover.  Change is part of the DNA but lately it seems to be a self-serving entity at TWIT.

It all makes me wonder if the whole exercise has TWIT throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Of course I'm talking about the imminent departure of one of the few hosts on TWIT capable of shepherding the network toward Laporte's vision of a self sustaining entity without his presence.

Tom Merritt will be leaving the TWIT network at the end of the year.  With him goes the popular show "Framerate" he co-hosts with former "Game On!" and "NSFW" host Brian Brushwood. 

Merritt, the host and creator of the popular and award winning "Tech News Today" who was once referred to as "Leo 2" is by far the most professional and popular of any of the personalities on the network.  Unfortunately, the writing was likely already on the wall over a year earlier.  I'll get to why I say that in a minute...

On a posting on the "Inside TWIT" blog Laporte wrote,

 "After some soul searching, I've decided that we do need an in-studio anchor for Tech News Today, and a News Director who can help us build the kind of organization you can count on for authoritative tech news and information."

At the beginning of 2013 Merritt was forced to move to Los Angeles when his wife and former producer of the "This Week in Tech" podcast accepted a position with Google.  That change dictated Merritt's appearances on TWIT be "phoned in" instead of in studio.

Laporte has often said that he prefers in-studio hosts and his investment in a million dollar production facility supports that.  Still, in the new media, location should have little to do with the quality of the content.  It would seem on this point, Laporte has conflicting visions.

More than half of TWIT shows rely on hosts connecting in via Skype but Merritt's former status of TWIT heir apparent became diminished by it.  As early as June 2012 Merritt became less of a fixture with Laporte when Laporte began solo hosting of "Triangulation" saying that the "Tri" in triangulation was the guest, Leo and the chat room.

Around the same time "Fourcast," Tom Merritt and Scott Johnson's (frogpants.com) quirky techno-clairvoyance hour, found itself cancelled.  Although both hosts claimed declining viewership (a death knell to any TWIT show) the timing seemed less than coincidental.

The changes were subtle but there was no doubt that either Laporte or Merritt (or both) began distancing themselves from the other as Merritt's move to Los Angeles grew closer.  As they say, long distance relationships rarely work out and 400 miles is a pretty long distance.  As TWIT heir apparent it would be unacceptable for Merritt to oversee daily operations with only skype and a dropcam to survey the minions.

Fast forward to the present...

With the now imminent departure of Merritt the question of who would fill the void needed an answer.  It came with a second posting on the Inside TWIT blog,

"We are pleased to announce that Silicon Valley technology journalist Mike Elgan has joined TWiT as our News Director and the Lead Anchor of our daily news netcast, Tech News Today (starting January 2, 2014).

His hiring is part of a planned 2014 transformation and expansion of TWiT’s News Division, which includes our Breaking News coverage, as well as the launch of our new evening news show Tech News 2Night on January 13, 2014."

Elgan is a frequent guest pundit on Laporte's "This Week In Tech" podcast as well as other shows such as "MacBreak Weekly."  While his news credentials surpass those of the TWIT staff, his previous appearances on TWIT have projected anything but an affable presence.   

A no-nonsense and sometimes abrasive personality that seems to run counter to TWIT's culture.  He often exhibits a dismissive tone to those that he disagrees with.  As a news director those characteristics may serve him well but as a host?

The premise of expanding the news component of TWIT is also questionable.  Considering the bulk of tech news found around the Internet is comprised largely of editorials scraped from other outlets and fluff riddled press releases written by marketing departments, it seems an exercise in redundancy to have even more of the same on a daily basis. 

Many of the more targeted tech shows on TWIT already include topical news on their subject, the addition of a tertiary presentation seems unnecessary.

Unless Elgan's expanded news department will field journalists collecting actual news instead of just hipster personalities parroting information his selection seems like overkill. 

It wouldn't be surprising to see the departure of other popular TWIT personalities over the next year as a result of the change.  Elgan is a hard news man, most TWIT hosts are not. (Update:Akhtar left TNT and TWIT)

Merritt is a popular personality outside of the TWIT arena and it's likely his future pursuits will be fruitful if the outpouring of support from his fans is any indication.  Many of which vow to abandon TWIT precisely because he won't be there.

Fans of Leo, Tom or any other of the TWIT hosts know full well that the information provided can be obtained in triplicate from multitudes of sources.  People chose to be informed by those they feel most comfortable with.  The news may be the same all over but a Fox news viewer won't easily switch to getting his content from MSNBC. 

It's far less certain what the future holds for TWIT with such radical changes.  Keeping a very fickle online audience engaged in your content is difficult enough under the best of circumstances.  Alienate them at your own peril.

History is peppered with brilliant concepts ultimately brought to fruition by someone other than their creators.  It's the reason why most company founders rarely hold the reigns after their company goes public.  Innovators are all about advancing the concept but not necessarily the best candidates to handle the execution.

Now that the prototype has been created, perhaps it's time for someone other than TWIT to bring the dream to reality.

Consider your perception

Perception...

It's an interesting word and about as ambiguous as they come.  If you've ever heard the old phrase about "rose colored glasses" then you've got the general idea.  Our perceptions color our world and help form our personal biases. 

Let's try an example.

Say you're sitting at a table at your favorite lunch spot when a rather large burly man walks through the door.  He's dressed in biker gear, has a few tattoos and looks like he's been on the road for days.  Other than his appearance he offers no clue to his intentions outside of the possible desire to have lunch.

What's the first thing that comes to your mind?  For most  it would probably be a little fear followed by a mental note to find a new lunch spot.  In the end our opinion probably leans toward a less than favorable view of our hungry friend. 

So what if I told you our burly biker guy was actually an esteemed Superior Court judge who happens to be a motorcycle enthusiast...

Your perceptions are affected by societal norms and anything that goes against them causes us alarm.  Depending on how conservative or liberal your social views are will have a direct relationship to your world view.

The problem with perception is that it's based on faulty logic.  We first apply whatever we accept as societal norms, then our own personal biases and with very little additional information render judgment.  And that's where it gets dangerous. 

Marketing is all about perception whether it's trying to convince you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi or one political view is superior to another.    Create a popular enough advertising campaign and you can effect a change in what society finds acceptable with virtually no credible information to support it.

Remember the Romney presidential campaign and all the rhetoric that swirled around about the "takers?"  Into that group went anyone deemed unworthy due to their reliance on public assistance of any kind.  The circumstance that landed you in that position was irrelevant, only the perception mattered.  For the true believers it was black and white and anything in a gray area was considered black. 

Create a label and you're on your way to influencing perception.  Repeat the label enough and it gains power even if it contains no substance.  So if a message could be crafted to sway public opinion against those branded with your new label you could disenfranchise an entire swath of the population.   Especially useful in silencing groups that expose the flaws in your point of view.

Our lives are cluttered with irrelevant noise.  Even the news isn't particularly informative anymore since it's become an entertainment medium.  Entire nations may be plagued by hunger and disease.  Civil rights curtailed by corporate influence and the efforts of many now benefit a privileged few. 

Hey, who cares?  None of that is as interesting as the latest celebrity gossip or news about an upcoming mobile device.  Rampant consumerism and distilled information rule the day.  Our perception of normal has been co-opted and corrupted with nonsense and it extends to more than just our consumer habits.

And there's the danger.  It's easier to consume than to deliberate, especially with so many seemingly important demands for your attention.  We allow someone else's version of reality to dictate our own without even realizing it. 

So the next time you make a snap judgment take a moment to really consider where your opinion comes from.  You may find a truly uncomfortable truth.  One that could alter your perception.

Taking the tech pundits to task

If you're at all like me you'll find yourself regularly sampling the tech podcast offerings from places like TWIT, Revision 3 and whatever strikes your fancy on YouTube.  Being interested in tech not to mention making a living from it, I'm an obvious part of the target audience. 

If you've read any of my previous articles it's likely I may seem a bit, "snarky" in my views.  It's not that I'm some disagreeable "troll" rather I'm just annoyed at the sheer volume of BS that comes out of the tech punditry.  It seems the Internet is a haven for insecure egomaniacs with just enough personality to attract a following.  There's so much of it that it's hard to separate real content from all the parroted noise and groundless opinion.

The worst offenders are in the tech "news" sphere.

It's good to keep abreast of new developments but I've learned to take tech news with a grain of salt.  Don't expect to find much objectivity in podcasts even if the presenters profess high minded, journalistic ideals.  They don't exist simply because they can't.  The topic of discussion won't allow it. 

Keep in mind that most tech journalism is based less on factual information than press releases and personal opinion.  The sad truth is that every tech podcast is little more than a poorly researched editorial.  The dearth of real information and an imagined "nanosecond" news cycle has prevented anything resembling journalism.

No matter how professional the delivery, the minute they start quoting some article from Ars Technica or The Verge it's no longer journalism but rather an op-ed piece.  Journalism requires tracking down real sources and verifying a story before reporting it.  Anything less is just parroting somebody else's information.

This is the trap many podcasters fall in to, especially the ones that make a good living at it.  Pick a tech news podcast and you'll undoubtedly find 3 or 4 pundits tossing topics around the set and playing journalist.  That's all they're doing by the way, playing.  Their opinion is no more valuable than the guy in the Blue shirt at Best Buy.  And why not? Their information comes from the same place, a carefully prepared marketing brief designed to be easily digested and regurgitated. 

It's not that an opinion is a bad thing so long as you have a foundation of knowledge from which to form it. 

Most pundits don't and it drives me nuts.  

I don't cut any slack to the so-called tech "veterans" either.  Just because you've been practicing a pseudo-journalistic binge and purge for decades doesn't make your information any more valuable.  If in the course of your reporting your viewpoint becomes the most critical component of the story, you're of no use to me.  Op-Ed pieces get a pass on this but you have to make it clear that's all it is right up front instead of passing it off as news.

Look,  nobody cares about your opinion on the merits of replaceable CPU's on Intel motherboards if your experience with CPU's is limited to reading copy off your MacBook Air.  I'd also rather not hear about "value" from someone with a six figure income.  I'm sorry but whether you spend your vacation in Paris or Greece for the holidays is not a dilemma your viewers would identify with. 

I understand why this happens, though.

Let's face it, most people in the technology industry (no pundits allowed here) have the personalities of a brick.  That doesn't make for an interesting podcast unless you're in dire need of a cure for insomnia.

It's the same on the cable news networks where we suffer the glittering "personalities" fronting seriously named news "programming" like "The Situation Room" or "On the record".  Devotees undoubtedly care more about the presenter's Facebook page than the veracity of the "news" being reported on any given day.

In a world that tolerates an ever decreasing attention span it's really no surprise.  30 second sound bites are even too long now, unless we can use part of it as a ringtone.

They drone on and on and the longer they're in the "biz" the more convinced they become of their legitimacy.  When they finally reach the exalted ranks of "the punditry" their egos begin to trump the value of their reporting.  They are the geek equivalent of rock stars living the in the bubble of their hipster fantasy, drunk on their own popularity. 

Oh but when they fall...

And they will. 

Cronkite, Murrow and Winchell are the standard by which journalistic integrity will be measured for at least the next century.  Nobody will ever hold up Leeza Gibbons in the same light.

Yes, you've likely already guessed where I'm going with this. I am in fact saying that most tech podcasters are no more relevant than Leeza Gibbons.  You're not as attractive either.  When the fickle tastes of the Internet no longer have use for you, your day if not your "career" is over.

Perhaps it's wiser to be more Cronkite than Felicia Day.  At least reserve your "enlightened" opinion for those topics in which you're really enlightened.

If you do a podcast on social networking and you actually use it, your information is relevant.  If, however, you do the same podcast and offer "expert" commentary on the merits of fuel injection over carburetion you're just polluting the topic. 

Remember the basic tenet of any presentation, consider your audience first.  We're a fickle bunch...