Re: newsletter draft

Sorry, forgot to actually paste it:

Thanks to everyone for your interest and participation.

Project PM was originally intended to serve a narrow purpose: to reduce the influence of those mainstream commentators who have done nothing to merit the great influence they possess over the form and content of the national dialogue. This goal itself was prompted by the months I had spent in reading over the work of such people as Thomas Friedman and Charles Krauthammer in the course of writing my next book as well as a series of articles on the same general subject. During this time, it occurred to me that a great number of our most influential commentators have gained that influence despite a demonstrable and consistent tendency towards making predictions that did not actually come true, deploying self-contradictory arguments, accidentally misrepresenting important and verifiable facts, and otherwise conducting their work in such a way as to damage the public understanding. Meanwhile, there exist other pundits whose confidence and honesty are just easily identifiable but who nonetheless have not been granted anything close to the numerical reach of their more incompetent counterparts at such places as The New York Times and Washington Post. The problem, it seemed, is that those who would shift their attention to other, better pundits if they knew about these failures have in fact not managed to learn of them, not being consumers of those information information outlets which are in the business of pointing out such failures.

This problem - all the more significant for having damaged the national understanding, and thus having been at fundamental fault for some degree of the problems the nation has concocted for itself over the years - has already been remedied to a small but noticeable extent by the unprecedented increases in communicational possibilities that have come about by way of the internet. In particular, a portion of the blogosphere has proven itself effective in pointing out these deficits to a considerable audience which has consequently abandoned those pundits who have been shown to exhibit them. I think that this advantageous process can be improved upon; in fact, Id argue that it would be ridiculous to think that it cannot be improved upon.

Project PM originated as a means to identify and implement such improvements in order to meet the aforementioned goal of lessening the influence of those whose influence plainly ought to be lessened. This was to be done by way of a very simple schematic whereby a significant number of participating bloggers would be persuaded to bring up the deficits of some particular commentator all at once and in tandem, thereby prompting attention on the part of those editors and producers working for the various mainstream outlets, who in turn would be hard-pressed not to address an issue being widely and suddenly discussed by a large array of commentators with a high level of collective notability. In this way, the blogger array may in effect take temporary control of the mainstream medias infrastructure in order to get across the general message to its vast audience that the commentators on whom they are depending for information are incompetent and ought to be abandoned.

To this end, I began contacting some of the better bloggers (including traditional journalists who work in part through online media) and explaining that shit be all fucked up and that maybe we could unfuck it to some extent if we all got together and did our thing as described above, or words to that effect. Having recruited a couple of dozen such folks possessed of combined notoriety more than sufficient to prompt the necessary reaction, and having designed a simple schematic by which this would all be carried out, it occurred to me that a similar schematic, backed by simple software, could also be used by bloggers to greatly improve the means by which they communicate with one another. Meanwhile, we had managed to recruit an even greater number of non-bloggers possessed of various skill sets - many with extraordinarily impressive backgrounds - and it occurred to us that such people could not only be of assistance in helping to develop this particular project, but could in fact be organized in such a way as to come up with solutions to any number of related problems, particularly if our schematic could be adapted for their use.

Over the past couple of months, Ive been working with many of our participants in an effort to finalize and implement both the blogger project and the various other sub-projects we have decided to take on as well. This has involved an overlapping tangle of makeshift experiments in online collaboration, the launching of various discussion groups, research on emergent internet dynamics and related items of inquiry, recruitment of additional participants capable of filling in any remaining expertise gaps, determinations of legal framework and other arrangements, and a great deal of pacing back and forth and mumbling. Having finally come to a point at which we have a more specific idea of what we want to do and why and how, we have finally gotten to the matter of when and decided that now would probably work.

As such, Id like to invite you to join one or more of the following working groups by contacting me with your interest:

The Science/Journalism Improvement Project, which seeks to match freelance writers with scientists in order to encourage the production of more accurate science journalism.

The Africa Project, which is concerned with producing self-perpetuating solutions by which to improve education and standard of living in the context of Sub-Sahara, such as a program to distribute guides with plans for locally-implementable engineering techniques and to encourage the further distribution of those guides by the recipients themselves.

The Software Project, members of which will hammer out details regarding the proposed software for the Project PM blogger network.

Wed also like to bring a few other people in to our weekly online meeting during which we plan and scheme. If youd be interested in joining us, please e-mail a brief account of how you would go about setting up a series of shared Google Docs for use by a dozen or so people for discussing and planning out some particular task.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see anything either. I say we bank the others' activities for the next newsletter so this way we have some good material to include and this gets sent out sooner than previously expected.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not finding the changed version here---

But I have a pretty good idea of what it is. Scott, what do you think, should we add some stuff about others' activities or not?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's the changed version with the tail-end. Clark, do you want to have a section on this newsletter in which you point to a few interesting posts by our associates and whatever else you might be interested in adding?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, that makes sense. I'll make these changes, add in the rest, and send along again.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:

I too was confused by the usage of former and took it to mean the audience of NYT and washpo audience. I wonder if using former in the possessive would help alleviate some confusion.

After thought, I agree also about the firmness as to the what, where, why, and how. I too understand that presenting a strong front is important but maybe out should be reworded to ensure comprehension that while we've accomplished a lot, there is still more to be done. This fits well with our request for participation.

On Sep 14, 2010 10:53 AM, "Clark Robinson" <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:

I think this is really well stated and self-evidently honest, so I do not have significant revisions to suggest.

I did get hung on up on the term "former audience" in the last sentence of the first long paragraph--at first I thought it referred to 'the first of the pair mentioned previously' but going back I did not find such a pair, so I presumed it refers prospectively to the audience who would be inclined to disregard the less worthy NYT and WaPo pundits if they were more conscious of the alternative pundits, but it confused me to describe a current audience as a former audience. Of course, you make perfectly clear in the next paragraph that a current blog audience now includes a former print audience, but at the moment I got puzzled by the phrase I had not yet read the next paragraph.

In the last long paragraph I am skeptical of the statement that we have a 'firm idea' particularly about some of the 'how' aspects, but I suppose strategically it would be unwise to say otherwise. But certainly we are more firm than formerly if not fully firm. (Esp about implementation issues such as programming, writing the governing board constitution, engaging in activities that have monetary costs or income, if at all.)

Quibbles aside, this is as always nicely written and for me it is useful, in that I will use it as guidance when I write up some thoughts about use of the free website to send to you tomorrow.

Clark

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Here's the bulk of the actual content of the newsletter, to be followed by the list of our worki...

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302