The fog of news in the 2020s
http://scripting.com/2025/12/26/155628.html?title=theFogOfNewsInThe2020s
Sarah Kendzior is a political writer who I greatly admire. Her frustration sounds a lot like mine. I wrote in 2017 that the bankers in tech should watch out because Twitter had just elected a president, and its market capitalization was so low that it was bound to get bought by someone who saw that you could buy the presidency of the United States for a few billion dollars. Was it worth that? Absolutely, as we're learning. All I got were pats on the head, stories about PE ratios, which of course I understand. What it did show is they didn't understand that the presidency could and would be monetized.
Yesterday Kendzior posted a tweet about how frustrating it was that all the "new" details of the Epstein scandal were known in 2020, and published in her book Hiding in Plain Sight. Sounds like what I've been saying about how tech and news works, we just come at it from different perspectives.
I don't know if there's a way around the ownership of news in the US, if there's still a way to route around it, but I'm sure that publishing on Substack, which is owned by the same people she doesn't trust with other journalism, is not the answer.
In order for news to have a chance of working we need to be using only the web, commodity services that are completely replaceable, and we keep our own writing, and route it to everyone who's interested via the open protocols of the web. That's the only way people with important ideas and info can get it out there.
I think in order for this to work we have to have people like Kendzior, and Heather Cox Richardson, Paul Krugman, publishing via the web, not via Substack. It should be fine for Substack to continue to publish their stuff, no problem with that, but they shouldn't be the only place their stuff is published. That gives them near-total control of the writers.
Our bigger problem is news distribution that works, and not depending on system we have. It may be too late to fix it, but we have to try.
PS: The story Kendzior was writing about was not covered yesterday on CNN or MSNOW, as far as I can tell. It got dumped on Christmas Day, I guess -- and that's probably the best day in the US to dump a story you want to get lost in the haze.
PPS: The title of this piece recalls a great documentary, The Fog of War, about America in Vietnam.

Sometimes you think of things 22 years too late, like this time. I wish I had thought of meeting with the Harvard Crimson people in 2003 and made the same offer to them that I had made to NYT the year before, ie we should offer blogs to everyone on staff, and anyone they quote, or basically anyone they want to be writing on the web, which was still a new thing -- and we'd host them alongside the ones we were hosting at the law school. Had we done that there would be a scholarly and intellectual equivalent to Facebook which was also booting up on the same campus at the same time as blogging and podcasting. Love and intellect, that's a good combination for young super-achievers.
Does anyone know how to get ChatGPT to upload files to a publicly accessible place? I'm tired of having to copy/paste the data files it comes up with for me, they're good. Another weird thing, they can't run JavaScript code in web pages. I had to look up the API endpoint for the data that's behind a FeedLand timeline. I didn't mind doing it, but can't imagine it's very good at scraping the web if it can't run code in pages.
I hate to see AT Proto use up creativity of web developers that imho haven't realized that they're pouring their ideas and work into someone else's platform, and that in the end they will control every bit of content that flows through their network. They might let you in, but I doubt they would do that until they had a feature that competes with your add-in.
I generally am not a podcast reviewer, that is I don't review individual podcasts, except when I'm choosing one for Blogger of the Year, as I'm thinking of doing this year. But there's a whole class of podcasts that I am prepared to love that do it just plain wrong. Current example: The official podcast for Pluribus. Previous example: The official podcast for Severance. The reason: It's a bunch of people laughing about how funny they are and how they are the best in the world at what they do. Or some seriously unfunny thing that happened or almost happened on the set. If a friend told you these stories you'd roll your eyes and ask them kindly then desperately to just move along please. They never criticize. Today I listened to the NYT best-of 2025 in TV podcast by their critics, and it was imho exactly the way the official podcasts of hit shows should be. There has to be at least a possibility that they will say something critical, or funny irreverant even inconsiderate things, and not are not 100% self-promotion. The Pluribus podcast is just not interesing. Which is stupid because Pluribus is a very interesting series. I can't imagine too many people listen to the podcast, but then I can't imagine why lots of people do lots of things.
ChatGPT is getting smarter. Just did a project, where I was setting up a playground just to ask ChatGPT how to get CSS to do something like what I want. While CSS is impossible imho for me to ever understand, it has mastered it, and was able to answer the question I brought before I asked it. It got it right. I asked how did you figure out that's what I came here to ask about?? It gave me an exact technical reason. If we keep going this way soon we're going to wonder at the human hubris to think we could develop systems that could in any way equal the systems it can develop. We've been thinking about this eventuality for my whole life, now it's here.



Maybe a good name for dynamic OPML on the web is "feed sharing." It's definitely an extension of the web. Meaning you get to the list via the web, and the web takes off from there because the whole point of the OPML is to give you a collection of web addresses of feeds, that can change. Machine-readable. And it'll be very useful once there's a little more adoption. What large product is so strong that it won't mind if it's easy to move data into their system from outside their walls? Not just data, but pointers to places were over time there will be more data. There's still more power to explore in the web, but the web is made of people, because until people choose to explore, nothing happens.
You have been warned, spoilers follow...
BTW, I might love a podcast of just the writers of the show every week, perhaps interviewed by writers who did not write it, asking questions. It might suck as much as the one they do now, but it also might be great. It would stick to the story, not about praising everyone, kind of like interviews of sports heroes (which are mostly nauseating, except for the few have the gift of gab, who are fun while never saying anything remotely bad about anyone). The people they'd talk about are the people they created. 
If a new CEO of Mozilla took an oath to restore the web to its former greatness, they would find a lot of business models open to them. Instead, they’re trying to be part of the tech industry which places no value on the web being a place for open development. I am pretty sure I know exactly what would get the ball rolling now, upgrading the web platform so users can buy their own storage and let software tools access it. So we can have all kinds of editors working on Markdown text, without the developer having to become a reseller of storage, and without limiting its use to people can figure out how to create an S3 bucket, and map a domain to it, etc. Dropbox came close to doing this about a decade ago, but backed out. This is why development is so centralized around big silos. I've been an independent developer on the web for over 30 years, and before that 15 years on desktop computers before that. I understand how this works.
Last night while I was on the phone, ChatGPT started talking to me in a British woman's voice. It's something that my Android phone does every so often, when I haven't said the magic word that activates it, even if I'm not in the same room as the device. It's a tiny bit funny, but a reminder that the microphone is always on, so I watch what I say when walking around the house, knowing that whatever I say is likely to end up in a database, to be used against me in a court of law.
I wonder if MAGAs like Archie Bunker too? It would be funny if Rob Reiner in the afterlife could bring us together. Speaking as a kid from a liberal NYC family, we had a bit of Archie Bunker in our own family. We all felt an affection for Archie, and he was actually right about some things, and he was funny and underneath his highly opinionated exterior you could see he had a heart. Is it too much to hope that Meathead and Archie Bunker could be the cultural bridge we need to get Americans to pull together? Neither were perfect, but we can all agree they were both American.
For some reason, I'm hit especially hard by the death of Rob Reiner. And it's coming at a time when I understand a lot more about how movie directors work, having watched the fantastic Mr Scorsese 5-part documentary series on Apple TV. The movie director can be as involved in the story as much as the writers or actors. There was a story about Reiner, I heard today in eulogy: he was dating his future wife at the same time he was directing the fantastic When Harry Met Sally. He changed the ending because he was in love, and thus created the most heart-pulling end to a story, when the two friends realize they should be together, and Billy Crystal's character gives the great closing speech that contains this line, that pretty well sums up the urgency of love: "When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible." The Scorsese doc opens up the art of making movies for me in the same way the Peter Jackson documentary on the Beatles showed us how super creative music creators do their work. And the timing is great, because it says so much about Reiner's accomplishments and gifts.
The NYT should have started their own Twitter, with exclusive access by people who are quoted in the NYT, so there would have been a connection between the pub, its rep, more inclusive than the masthead, but still fairly exclusive, in the way of the NYT. I'm not being funny or sarcastic, I mean it. They already had a mechanism for deciding who matters. And the software they used could have been employed by all the other pubs, and anyone else. What I'm describing is the alternate reality where the Twitter founders followed the WordPress model. They might not be worth billions, but they certainly would have far more money than one person can use. And I don't think they could be happier with the way it actually turned out.
In the world of WordLand and FeedLand I can create my own API for my own client. No more living with all the things the Twitter and Bluesky API designers left out or made fragile, or straight out broke. If there's a missing endpoint, I have a talk with the service devs (ie me), they listen and understand, and in an hour or so there's a new freaking endpoint. This is how we did it in the early days, I had all three components needed to move publishing forward: