We're pleased that the PBS program “Frontline” is keeping up the good fight to produce important journalism.  And thanks to the Librarian's Index to the Internet for pointing us to:



Private Warriors

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/

Subjects: Government contractors — United States | Public contracts — United States | Private security services | United States — Armed Forces — Management | New this week


Created by je – last updated Jul 6, 2005

Be sure to drill down to the section, “Does Privatization Save Money.”  A nice example of a reporter asking the right questions.

One
of the foundational cross-over disciplines we think are of value to
journalists is Forensic Accounting, at least that's the term used when
applied in business.  (It's “performance measurement” when talking
about government.)



One of
the basic measurements in forensic accounting is to compare the percent
of dollar distribution by type or sector in one instution to the
percent of dollar distribution in a comparable institution.  So it
is that we were please to see Glen Justice dipping into the forensic
accountants toolbox in Wednesday's NYTimes in his story “For a Lobbyist, Seat of Power Came With a Plate.”  The story is about how lobbyist, and Tom Delay pal, Jack Abramoff apparently used his own restaurant in Washington, Signatures, as a place to meet and greet legislators.  He just forgot to give them a check.



Justice wrote:

“…While Signatures was popular, it struggled to make money, according to employees and documents.

'Mr. Abramoff and his companies invested more than $3 million in
Signatures from January 2002 to May 2003, records show. At the same
time, he and his employees gave away tens of thousands of dollars in
food, wine and liquor, the records show. That includes menu prices for
Mr. Abramoff's own food and drink, as well as employee discounts and
free meals given by restaurant managers and staff, according to the
records. Nationwide, the median expense for marketing, including free
meals and drinks, was about 3.5 percent of sales for expensive
restaurants like Signatures that spend the most on such promotions,
according to the National Restaurant Association. One national
restaurant consultant, Clark Wolf, said the figure can go as high as 5
percent.

'At Signatures, free meals and drinks for managers and guests alone
were about 7 percent of revenues for the restaurant's first 17 months,
according to former employees and financial records. Mr. Blum, the
spokesman for Mr. Abramoff, disputed that percentage.”

Seems
like pretty basic reporting, but more reporters would do well to make
that one more call if they want to establish context in their stories.

Using traffic flow data and models to demonstrate simulation modeling
as a learning tool seems to be akin to the Bunsen burner, i.e. a
fundamental implement everyone uses.  The Wall Street Journal
science section reports this:

We
don't read every newspaper in the U.S. or the world every day, so our
survey of the news media's infographics is, shall we say, a bit
flawed.  That said, we continue to be impressed by the ability of
the NY Times infographic team to consistently come up with ways of
showing a variety of concepts. 



There's a 250-year tradition
of illustrating quantitative data, but taking concepts and turning them
into quantitative is more recent.  Yesterday, the NYT gang worked
its magic on the issue of Sandra Day O'Connor and her votes as a
justice. 



Check out:

“Levels of Agreement” and “A Crucial Swing Vote.”

One
of the missions of the IAJ is to appropriate data and methods of
knowing from other disciplines and bring them to the attention of
journalists.  A recent article in the NYTimes (and The American Political Science Review)
demonstrates how political scientists reached into biology and genetic
research to tease out some insights into political attitudes and
behavior.



See the NYT write-up, “Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes” and the original article, “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”

Abstract: “We test the possibility that political attitudes and behaviors are the result of both environmental and genetic factors. Employing standard methodological approaches in behavioral genetics —– specifically, comparisons of the differential correlations of the attitudes of monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins—–we analyze data drawn from a large sample of twins in the United States, supplemented with findings from twins in Australia. The results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies but a more modest role in forming party identification; as such, they call for finer distinctions in theorizing about the sources of political attitudes. We conclude by urging political scientists to incorporate genetic influences, specifically interactions between genetic heritability and social environment, into models of political attitude formation.”

Our fellow traveler Bill Dokosh in Canada tips us to this article in the Toronto Star, “Don't tell anything to anybody,”
discussing what the Canadian information commissioner learned after
seven years on the job.  The post is, essentially, responsible for
ensuring that Canadian citizens get access to government
documents. 

“As
a former Liberal cabinet minister, former opposition backbencher and
former lobbyist for a powerful national association, John Reid thought
he knew what he was getting into when he was named Canada's Information
Commissioner, seven years ago.  
   He was wrong, Reid now admits.
   He
had no inkling that senior bureaucrats reached top-level decisions
verbally to avoid leaving a paper trail. He never expected to fight an
all-out court battle for access to something as innocuous as the Prime
Minister's daily schedule.    Most of all, he did not realize how
hard it was for ordinary Canadians to get scraps of ostensibly public
information, gathered on their behalf with their tax dollars.”

Amen.

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

City must release electronic GIS mapping data

• Publicly releasing electronically formatted
  government maps has not been shown to pose a public safety risk or
  violate a trade secret, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

June 16, 2005  ·   Electronically
formatted maps, which allow journalists to plot geographically
referenced statistical data in studying the adequacy of government
programs and performance, must be released in electronic form to open
records requesters in Connecticut, the state Supreme Court ruled
unanimously Wednesday.

The maps, created from Geographic Information System data and
showing city landmarks, including the location of “security-sensitive''
sites such as schools, public utilities, and bridges, must be open
because officials in Greenwich, Conn., did not show that their release
will violate a trade secret or threaten public safety, the high court
ruled.

Greenwich citizen Stephen Whitaker requested electronic access to
the city's GIS maps in December 2001 under the state open records law.

The town refused to give Whitaker electronic access to its GIS
system, arguing that the records qualified for public safety and trade
secret exemptions to the state's public records law. Whitaker sued and
obtained rulings in favor of release from the Connecticut Freedom of
Information Commission in 2002 and the Connecticut Superior Court in
2004. Greenwich appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, but the
Supreme Court stepped in and transferred the case onto its own docket
before the intermediate appellate court could rule.

Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, writing for the court, rejected
the argument that the trade secret exemption could apply to the
electronic GIS maps. All of the information contained in the maps is
available piecemeal from other town departments, so there is nothing
secret about them, she wrote.

Vertefeuille found the town's asserted public safety exemption
equally unconvincing. Although witnesses — among them the Greenwich
police chief — had testified that public safety would be jeopardized
if the GIS data were released, little concrete evidence of that was
presented. “Generalized claims of a possible safety risk” are not
enough to satisfy the government's burden of proof on an exemption
claim, Vertefeuille wrote.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by the
Society of Environmental Journalists and Investigative Reporters and
Editors, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in November urging the high
court to order the GIS data's release. In addition to its legal
arguments, the brief highlighted the issue's relevance to the news
media by compiling stories that would not have been written without
electronic mapping.

Greenwich has 10 days to ask all seven supreme court justices to
reconsider the decision, which was decided by a five-member panel.

(Director, Dep't of Information Technology of the Town of
Greenwich v. Freedom of Information Comm'n; Access Counsel: Clifton A.
Leonhardt, Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission; Hartford,
Conn.)
— RL

Related stories:

• Greenwich man wins first battle for access to town's mapping database (10/30/2002)

Measuring
risk is one of the topics/disciplines that analytic journalists
track.  Those folks have multiple methodologies that we can apply, and this one takes a mapping approach.



Recently, super-researcher Gary Price, of “ResourceShelf,” pointed us to this:



“Filmmaking–Risks–Map

  Source: AON

  2005 Risks in Global Filmmaking Map
“Every filmmaker, from major studios to independent producers,
experiences some element of risk while filming in foreign
countries.  That is why, each year, Aon/Albert G Ruben, the
largest entertainment insurance broker in the world, comprehensively measures
and maps the risks filmmakers face across the globe. The 2005 Risks in
Global Filmmaking Map measures crime, corruption, kidnap and ransom,
disease and medical care risks, and references terrorism and political risks.”



Direct LINK to These ResourceShelf Posts http://digbig.com/4dqyn

For our friends in Texas….

June
9, 2005
Contacts:  Kip Humphrey, 713.956.8792

                 Seth Johnson, 212.543.4266

For
Immediate Release

Attn:  Political assignments desk

PRESS
RELEASE:

ELECTION
ASSESSMENT HEARING JUNE 29TH, HOUSTON, TEXAS

Evidentiary
Hearing of Electoral Process Failures

WHO:
Technical and professional experts, computer engineers and experts,
statisticians, researchers, attorneys and journalists who have been
investigating and analyzing problems with election processes in the November
2004 elections will gather from around the country for a citizen-initiated
Election Assessment Hearing to deliver preliminary testimony of their findings
to an independent panel.

WHAT:
The goal of this non-partisan event is to bring to light critical election data
not previously publicized, but necessary to repair and safeguard our democratic
election processes. The Hearing will address critical issues not being covered
by the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Electoral Reform, which will hold its
second and final hearing in Houston the following day.  Intended as an initial survey offering a
more accurate and complete picture of issues observed in our electoral
processes, the Election Assessment Hearing seeks to understand the breadth and
diversity of concerns, to identify the current quality of election processes,
to review and analyze the evidence and to facilitate the sustainable
improvement of electoral processes by election administrators, policymakers,
advisors, voters and other participants in the production of vote counts.

An
initial compilation of prepared statements with supporting documents will be
released and distributed the day of the hearing, and will be delivered to the
Carter-Baker Commission the next day. 
In following weeks, a group of information experts, spearheaded by
information quality improvement specialist Larry P. English, will survey the
testimony and supporting documents, both presented and submitted to the hearing
panel, and provide an objective quality assessment that will be distributed to
State election officials around the country. 
Organizers are soliciting submissions from any and all expert sources
with information relevant to problems in the election and election systems.

WHY:
No comprehensive survey and assessment of 2004 election process failings has
yet been presented in a public forum. 
The Election Assessment Hearing will be the first opportunity for the
public to hear preliminary findings in this area.  Currently, every State is grappling with the Help America Vote
Act (HAVA) without the benefit of this vital information, and facing important
decisions that may fundamentally affect our election processes.  The results of the Election Assessment
Hearing, combined with submissions from around the country, will be made
available to state election officials to aid them in making more effective and
informed decisions.

WHERE:  Houston, Texas  (location to be announced at a later date)

WHEN:  Wednesday, June 29th, 2005, 8:30 am – 5:00
pm

SUBMISSIONS:
Contact Kip Humphrey at kiphumphrey@electionassessment.org

PRESENTERS:
To be announced

PANELISTS:  To be announced

Ah, yes, the origins of us all (who are interested in the Digital
Revolution).

It was supposed to be a promotional event last Wednesday night for John
Markoff's new book, “What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry,”  but it turned out to be a reunion of the Homebrew Computer Club
and a tribute night for Doug Engelbart, another one of those guys with
a broader vision than most of us.  And Tom Foremski, writing for SiliconValleyWatcher , supplies a fine account of the evening. 




Read the story, but be sure to check out the link: “This is the seminal 1968 demo
that changed the lives of those that saw it, or just heard about it.
Lee Felsenstein said 'The demo changed my thinking and I wasn't even
there, I had heard about it third-hand.'”

These film clips (only available in the Real Player format) of Engelbart's 1968 show-and-tell have the historic import of the films of Edison describing what's going on in his lab.