COVID-19’s effect on work footprints has created an unprecedented challenge for IT and security staff. Many departments are scrambling to enable collaboration apps for all — but without proper security they can be a big risk.
Mobile Security – Threatpost
For many years we’ve talked about the silly position that many journalism organizations take, in which their interpretation of being “objective” is to have what Professor Jay Rosen has called “the view from nowhere.” I understand where this inclination comes from — with the idea that if people think you’re biased or one-sided that it taints the legitimacy or credibility of what you’re reporting on. But in practice it often comes off as bland nothingness, and reporters willing to repeat any old nonsense that politicians and others put forth. Indeed, I’d argue that many people in the politics realm have learned to use this to their own advantage, and to say any old bullshit, knowing that the press will repeat it in a manner that only gives the original claim more validity and attention — rather than calling it out as bullshit.
Similarly, such a bland “view from nowhere” creates a standard of “objective” reporting that is not there. Journalists always need to make choices — choices about what to include and what not to include, who to quote and who not to quote. And, of course, journalists do have opinions and pretending otherwise is just silly. As such, we’ve long called out why this kind of view from nowhere is ridiculous, and journalism outlets that do silly things like ban reporters from stating opinions are not being “objective,” they’re denying reality.
The NY Times is running a new series on “Understanding the NY Times,” which I think is actually a great idea by itself. A big part of the problem with the way people (don’t) understand journalism today is that so much of how journalism works is set forth in an effective code of unwritten rules that many journalists learn as they get into the business, but which the public has no clue about. Non-journalists often impute a kind of motive to journalists that is laughable if you know actual journalists (or happen to be one). So, it’s good (if unlikely to impact much) that the Times has chosen to do something to open up some of the details and explain things.
And yet… a recent piece in this series about how journalists “try to stay impartial” really seems to show just how silly this particular policy is. A bunch of people on Twitter commented, in particular, on a short comment provided by the NY Times’ White House correspondent Peter Baker. In response to a discussion about whether or not reporters should even vote, he says the following:
As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I don’t belong to any political party, I don’t belong to any non-journalism organization, I don’t support any candidate, I don’t give money to interest groups and I don’t vote.
I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private, much to the frustration of friends and family. For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong.
Many people are calling out the not voting part as ridiculous — and I agree. I have no problem with people choosing not to vote, as I believe that’s a personal decision that everyone should make for themselves, using whatever rationale they think appropriate, no matter how crazy. Yet, to think that this is somehow noble of a reporter or some sign of objectivity is just silly. It feels more like putting on a performance of objectivity.
But the much crazier part of this is not the lack of voting, but the final point he makes, that his job as a reporter is not to say “that one side is right and the other wrong.” That’s basically his only job as a reporter. As we’ve pointed out multiple times in the past, figuring out the truth is the key job of a journalist. And if you think that failing to say when someone is wrong makes you a better journalist, you’re wrong (and I’m not afraid to say that).
Of course, there may be a larger point that Baker is getting at here, and he just failed to explain it well. So many political debates do get dragged down into questions of “right” or “wrong” on issues of opinion — where “rightness” or “wrongness” is not something that can easily be assessed. The line between facts and opinions can get a bit fuzzy at times — especially with policy issues. Will this particular policy accomplish what its backers claim? Well, who knows? We can look at past data or other evidence that suggests one outcome or the other, and that would be useful to report on. But every situation may be different, and different variables may be at play. So, calling certain claims right or wrong can be challenging in the best of times — but simply swearing off saying if something is right or wrong seems to suggest not just a cop out from doing your job as a reporter, but also a fairly cynical take on what the role of a reporter actually should be.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Techdirt.
This very morning, I paid $ 5 for a breakfast burrito at a place near where I work. To be frank, I regret to say that it was ultimately disappointing. How in the world do you construct a steak breakfast burrito that lacks salt? The great news for me is that there are roughly a gazillion places around me that also advertise breakfast burritos, so I currently have other places to get them. The bad news, however, is that someone out there is taking a run at trademarking “breakfast burrito”, so that might not be the case in the future.
Recently, the Twitter account for Timberlake Law—a North Carolina based specialist in trademarks and copyrights—posted a link to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website for an application to trademark the term “Breakfast Burrito.”
Though most people will inherently sense that this seems ridiculous, Timberlake does a good job of spelling out the reason: “While it’s true that the drawing and specimen should match, the mark and the goods shouldn’t,” the tweet explains. To put it another way, the application seeks to trademark the phrase “Breakfast Burrito,” but in the section where the applicant explains what the trademark is for, the answer is “Breakfast burritos; Burritos.” Basically, if the only way you can describe what you’re trying to trademark is by using the same phrase as the trademark, then there’s a solid chance that the phrase is common enough that it can’t be trademarked in the first place. It doesn’t take much legalese to understand that.
Put more simply: a trademark can’t be for the generic name of a product or service. This should be obvious to all, as the point of trademark law is absolutely not to narrowly limit the choices consumers have for a given product or service. Still, this concept seems to elude some people.
The whole thing should remind you of the whole “Taco Tuesday” fiasco that is continuing to date, where Taco John’s somehow got a trademark for a phrase that describes serving people tacos on Tuesdays. In fact, that analogous trademark issue is useful as a marker for how the Trademark Office is complicit in fostering an environment in which people think they can trademark something like “breakfast burrito.”
As to who is actually trying to do so in this case, it’s something of a mystery.
So who exactly wants the rights to eggs wrapped in a tortilla in the morning? Eater attempted to get to the bottom of this application and, unsurprisingly, didn’t get very far. The site “reached out to the person listed on the application,” whose address “matches that of a personal injury law firm in LA,” but “did not hear back on requests for comment made over email and the phone by press time.”
So what’s this all amount to? Likely very little. Anyone with a few hundred bucks can attempt to trademark anything. Receiving a trademark and then protecting it is far more difficult, and based on the assessment of Timberlake and findings of Eater, this attempt to register “Breakfast Burrito” appears to be a random shot in the dark.
A shot that should, and likely will, fail. Still, we have a Taco Tuesday trademark, so how much of a stretch is it to see the USPTO rubberstamping one for “breakfast burrito” as well?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Techdirt.