Sunday, 22 April, 2012 — government
education
If you haven’t heard, the University of Florida has proposed cutbacks in its Computer Information Science and Engineering department.
Essentially, the department is being broken up and moved into other departments at the university as part of a budget cut. From the above-linked Gainsville Sun article by Nathan Crabbe:
Lawmakers have slashed state university funding since 2006, making $300 million in cuts to the system as part of the budget that Gov. Rick Scott is expected to sign today. While lawmakers made cuts in part with the expectation that universities would tap reserves, UF Provost Joe Glover said last week that university officials don’t believe these are one-time cuts.
“Some believe that the Legislature will restore that money next year,” he said. “We don’t agree with that belief and we don’t think that it’s prudent to bet on that.”
I have the bias of being part of the industry, but of any degree program to cut, computer science is one of the last. I’m at a loss to explain how it makes sense to cut academic programs while expanding athletic programs. Without getting into whether sports at universities are worthwhile, I really have to wonder about prioritization when an academic program that could easily expand to fill a skills gap faces cuts, but student athletes don’t.
I’m sad that legislatures seem interested in divesting state institutions from research specifically and cutting back on support for higher education in general.
This is very unsettling and likely damaging move.
Update: Rafe Colburn points out that the Gators athletics program is self-funded. So, it would not be a matter of sliding dollars over. I should know better than to assume or imply that the dollars are fungible from one area to another. They’re not. Still, it’s telling that state-financed academic programs are at risk and cartel and market-supported athletics programs are not.
Thursday, 19 April, 2012 — career
I’m attending a leadership workshop next month, and part of the preparation materials is providing advice to an earlier version of myself on lessons I would have appreciated knowing or having reinforced as I was assuming new responsibilities.
Here’s a modified version of my write-up.
1) Get comfortable holding yourself and others accountable for commitments. Make your commitments smartly and encourage your direct reports to do the same. Count on the fact that there’s going to be some resistance to that accountability. Be patient and helpful, to a point.
2) Help the business get more comfortable with agile processes by encouraging teams to push back on commitments they can’t own or are insufficiently defined.
3) Get over discomfort with providing constructive feedback to your peers, managers and direct reports. Take a step back from frustrating situations, distill the feedback to its critical essence and give it. In some cases it won’t work, in others, it will be welcome and overdue.
4) Understand and acknowledge the status quo, but don’t accept it. It wasn’t always the status quo and health means moving. Get comfortable with being unsettled and coach others on the same.
5) Time’s precious. If things seem like they’re too easy, it’s probably a good time to make a hard effort on something near and dear because that time will not always be there.
6) Counsel others on balancing “fire fighting” and “forest management” mentalities. They are complimentary but not the same thing and, too often, one takes precedence over the other (usually fire fighting).
7) Consult with others frequently and proactively, but don’t accept inaction. Buy-in is important. So is follow-through.
8) Examine and refine your practice frequently. What are you avoiding doing and why? What would need to be different to keep work at work? How are you going to get it there? What’s been tingling at the back of your mind, but you haven’t yet been able to tease into words?
9) Eat right, sleep well, exercise. It all really, really helps.
10) Never forget to say thank you to the people who work on your behalf.
Monday, 02 January, 2012 — journalism
Finishing a thought on beat reporting I started to have working on my previous post.
Sustained writing about a topic leads to a level of expertise that allows the writer (reporter) to synthesize facts, develop an analysis and – crucially — show what follows from that.
An example of this has been the News & Observer’s work on the intersection of misconduct at the state crime lab, an erratic District Attorney in Durham County and the request by Michael Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife, to get a new trial. That request was granted Dec. 14, 2011.
Because of the depth of reporting on both the SBI and Tracey Cline, the N&O is free to take more license in the news article itself (not just on the editorial pages). In the retrial decision, reporter Joseph Neff can write the following without finding a source to say it for him (emphasis added below):
The Peterson hearing provided evidence that SBI supervisors knew from the start of Deaver’s career that he had a strong bias toward the prosecution. In 1988, soon after being hired, Deaver participated in a mock courtroom exercise to prepare him for testifying at trial.
His supervisor at the SBI crime lab noted several weaknesses, including “a strong bias towards the prosecution.”
That was inappropriate; forensic scientists are tasked with being unbiased, using science to find facts irrespective of whether the truth helps prosecution or defense.
In stories on Cline, J. Andrew Curliss could leverage his reporting to write the following on Dec. 6, 2011 (emphasis added):
Coleman said the motions seem to relate to Cline’s efforts in voluminous court filings recently that allege the senior judge in the county, Orlando Hudson, is out to punish her because she would not dismiss a murder charge.
One of Cline’s filings runs more than 99,000 words and contains a string of unsupported or disputed allegations against Hudson. It also contains verifiable errors. Another filing by Cline says Hudson has “raped” victims in dismissing charges while finding that defendants’ rights were violated by Cline and others.
Cline seeks to remove Hudson from all criminal cases in Durham while she pursues a complaint against him with the state commission that oversees judges. Her complaint has not been made public.
In both cases, the reporter is making a statement, backed by significant experience with the cases at hand and source material, that makes a clear statement of fact.
I have greatly appreciate the N&O’s reporting across this entire convoluted mess of situations. Even if the stories don’t specifically tell you what reporter knows and believes, the depth and care in the reporting and writing should help the reader reach a conclusion. That conclusion may be, but is not necessarily, the writer’s own.
My argument is that the weighty topics at issue at the beginning of 2012, the ongoing fallout from the economic crash of 2008, climate change, how government acts and holding public figures to account requires the level of care that went into the these examples. Even less weighty topics can get the same treatment. Tech industry reporting and writing, for instance. Sports reporting.
Writers should feel comfortable stating, unequivocally, where their reporting takes them and what their experience provides them in terms of insight.
Saturday, 31 December, 2011 — journalism
My last post on the “view from nowhere” and how it relates’s to John Gruber’s writing of Daring Fireball triggered an email from a friend and former coworker, asserting that Gruber was, in fact, an Apple fanboy.
I wrote the following in response, “A lot of what he writes in terms of trying to understand Apple’s behavior and motivation is interpreted as if he wholly approves of their actions. There’s a lot of overlap, certainly, but they are not the same thing.”
I clarified for myself a point broader than the one I was trying to make back to my friend. Frequently, people interpret in-depth analysis of motivation of actions as approval or disapproval. Politics is an easy target, hence why the “view from nowhere” is popular.
For purposes of example, I’ll use sports coverage. A beat writer covers a local team. You follow the team all season. You get to know the players, the arena, the organization. You get to know your fellow writers. You can start to write with authority, on the foundations of your previous reporting, on not only what the team is doing but why. Although what can get enmeshed in debate, why is a far trickier proposition, because its moving beyond strict fact reportage into synthesis and analysis.
The writer is trying to explain the motivations behind the actions. This might be less tricky with immediate post-game coverage, but exceptionally so when trying to write about why a team is pursuing a trade, going to fire a coach, seeking a new arena and so on.
It’s very easy for readers to see the writer as a cheerleader if the coverage is “positive” or someone who has it out for the team if the coverage is “negative.” Stipulated, these can be congruent, but they are not causal. It’s trickier for the writer to fully convey a point that comes from an executive’s or player’s thinking and not have the audience associate the writer with that point.
It is all the more difficult for a writer, if she is an independent reporter, to be seen as truly independent, if other writers are not, or are not independent in the same way.
Friday, 30 December, 2011 — journalism
apple
gruber
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen uses the term “view from nowhere” to describe how a significant segment of America’s news media presents news, analysis and opinion. If you’re unfamiliar with the premise, please go read Rosen’s explanation of what he means with the term.
I see frequent references to what ends up being false equivalence in several arenas. Political coverage is a big one, particularly around the differences between Democrats and Republicans. James Fallows has an exemplar dismantling of how the Senate minority is acting, and how the media is writing about it. Climate science, the healthcare debate and the global financial crisis all have their examples where the “view from nowhere” pervades reporting and actively obstructs a layperson from understanding of what’s actually happening. It’s also harmful to news organizations committed to the “view from nowhere”, say NPR, when their opponents are willing to leverage that policy against them.
I finished college and started my career in journalism, so I have a deeper interest that I suspect most folks might in the sausage making of reporting and commentary. So, over the couple of weeks, I’ve really appreciated how John Gruber has been trying to get a splinter out from under a fingernail regarding the claim he’s a mindlessly pro-Apple fanboy, after his appearance on “On The Verge”.
I’ve followed Gruber’s writing, with relish, for years and I’m in agreement with roughly 90 percent of what he writes. I like his sarcasm and the fact that it’s generally crystal clear if he likes or dislikes something. It’s also not hard to find when he thinks Apple is off-base. I usually go back to late July 2009, a period when Apple rejected Google’s voice apps from the App Store, but more recent examples abound.
What really clicked in my head and went, “Yes, that!” was listening to his post-appearance debrief with Dan Benjamin on The Talk Show, Ep. 71. Starting about nine minutes in, Gruber takes the “fanboy” premise and goes on a nice discourse on objectivity vs. fairness, using his appearance on the show and the rest of the show segments as examples for why the “view from nowhere” is dishonest to the audience.
If you’re familiar with tech, and you’re familiar with Gruber’s grasp of his areas of interest, listen from minute 9 to minute 30 or so and imagine where else commentary and reporting could benefit by not being watered down by false balance.
