Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism

I just read about an interesting development by Google.  Based on people’s Google searches for terms like “flu” and “flu symptoms,” google.org/flutrends has interactive maps and charts that detect where flu outbreaks are occurring, practically in real time.

In a New York Times article published today:

Tests of the new Web tool from Google.org, the company’s philanthropic unit, suggest that it may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Last February, Google recorded a spike in flu cases days before the CDC had information.  According to today’s Google Flu Trends, New York state is currently experiencing low flu activity.

I’m curious about the accuracy of the Google statistics.  How can computer software detect whether a person searching “flu symptoms” is in fact ill, or just a curious school kid writing a report about the flu.  Or, if the person is indeed ill, how can a computer system know that the person actually has the flu, not a common cold?

CDC maps of flu trends take more time to report because they rely on data from health care providers and hospitals who have seen and diagnosed patients with the flu.

Even though I’m skeptical, Google seems to have been accurate so far.

The premise behind Google Flu Trends — what appears to be a fruitful marriage of mob behavior and medicine — has been validated by an unrelated study indicating that the data collected by Yahoo, Google’s main rival in Internet search, can also help with early detection of the flu.

“In theory, we could use this stream of information to learn about other disease trends as well,” said Dr. Philip M. Polgreen, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at theUniversity of Iowa and an author of the study based on Yahoo’s data.

I’d be interested to see if Google’s accuracy can handle the increased cases that will come with the height of flu season.

Google explains its methodology on its website, but it seems rather quaint and unscientific to me.  Still, their information could reach more people and prove more beneficial.  The CDC’s weekly flu reports are packed with numbers, charts and medical terms that are difficult to parse.  Google presents its information in plain language and in an easy-to-navigate format.

Perhaps this is just where popular medicine is headed.  After all, I know I can’t be the only one who self-diagnoses based on WebMD.

I didn’t think so.  But after my ride home to Brooklyn last night, I’m wondering if the social norms on the subway have changed in the past five years.

Most mornings I pass my 50-minute ride on the F train sipping my can’t-live-without-it morning cup of coffee and eating a piece of fruit.  And I’m not alone.  All around me I see travel mugs- in hands, strapped on bags, resting on a knee.   Fellow travelers munch on bagels or donuts while reading the morning news.

And no one seems bothered.

Last night, desperate for sustenance after a long day without lunch, I stopped at a vendor on 40th Street and grabbed a lamb gyro for the ride home.  But as soon as I stepped on train, I realized this trip would be an uncomfortable one.  People stared, not even trying to be discreet, and sat far away from me and my dinner.  My stomach began to ache, not from a lack a food, but from the distinct feeling that I wasn’t wanted on the train.

When did this happen???  Five years ago when I moved to the city, it was a rare evening ride that didn’t present someone eating chicken wings, pizza or a McDonalds meal.  I came to love the subway for all the things you could do while riding it.  Hadn’t finished grading those exams?  Do it on the train.  Dying to read the last chapter of a great book?  Read it on the train.  Missed breakfast?  Eat it on the train, right??

A few years back the MTA considered banning food and drinks on the trains, but the measure didn’t pass.  Still, it seems that attitudes about food on the train are changing.

I’m curious, do you eat on the subway?  If so, how do people around you react?

I love this video.

It speaks for itself.  Enjoy.

Here are a few retailers running get-out-the-vote-themed promotions. Speak up if you hear of any others…

** All day tomorrow, Starbucks will give a cup of coffee to anyone who comes in and says they voted.
** Babeland’s three NYC locations will be handing out vibrators and gadgets called ‘penis sleeves’ (this was a new concept for me) under the same honor-system criteria, while supplies last.
** You’ll have to be wearing an ‘I voted’ sticker to get a special star-shaped Krispy Kreme. They’re not really doughnuts, anyway.
** The hippies at Ben and Jerry’s are giving away ice cream to everyone, but only between 5 and 8 p.m.

1. I will treat this blog as an outlet and not an assignment.

2. I will read my classmates’ posts.

3. I will follow the golden rule when it comes to posting comments (I will comment unto their blog posts as I would have them comment unto mine.)

4.  I will eat fewer bagels when trying to muster enthusiasm for this blog.

a super quick and easy way to embed slideshows of photos stored on flickr? The service looks very new, but we’ll see.

Joe the Plumber is cliche at this point.  

But I found a clip from an episode of NOW that aired last week that has brought a different kind of fame to an average American.

(I don’t approve that this YouTube poster labels her as “Crazy Tracy.”  She’s not crazy; but her perspective is incredibly extreme.)

I don’t know how to react to this video.  Yell at the television?  Throw popcorn at the screen?  Throw the damn thing out the window?

Even though I just figuratively threw the TV out the window, this video overall leaves me very depressed.  It may be idealistic to think that anyone of any background can have a discussion together.  But I can’t imagine discussing my opinions or values with Tracy, ever.  

Politicians say that despite our differences or political affiliations, we’re all Americans.  But after watching this clip again, it shows how strongly divided we can be in this country.  It doesn’t seem to me that some of our differences can be bridged.

I’m also kind of scared for her husband if he votes for Obama.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry:Fundamental
Function:noun
Date:1637
1: something fundamental ; especially : one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is
2 a: the principal musical tone produced by vibration (as of a string or column of air) on which a series of higher harmonics is based b: the root of a chord
3: the harmonic component of a complex wave that has the lowest frequency and commonly the greatest amplitude

Yes, this is what I have been reduced to. And yes, that is the definition of the word “fundamental”–I felt it only right to include the definition of the word used so frequently by our candidates for President and Vice President (on both tickets) just in case you, like I, are confused and bewildered that they’ve yet to find another word to convey their meaning.

I am taking a stand for this poor word–being tossed around, used and abused by politicians, pundits and drinking games across America! (I won’t even touch on “Maverick” or “Change”)

Some examples of the abuse of this word in recent weeks follow:

“The fundamentals of the economy are strong”–John McCain
Perhaps the most recognizable of the “fundamental” flubs in this election season.
Besides being entirely incorrect (Oh wait! I’m sorry! He was talking about the “WORKERS”), this statement has become a key talking point in the Obama camp’s arsenal against the Republicans.

“Fundamental differences”–all candidates
Enough is enough I say! I think I understand that the candidates have different views–otherwise why in the world would they be running against each other for president? In that case, McCain and Obama should have grasped hands and skipped into the last debate together–maybe they could share the presidency?

Republicans will naturally have a different way of approaching government than Democrats (hence the two parties). Whether each parties views are “right” or “wrong” is the voters call, but isn’t the “fundamental difference” between the parties the fact that they will have “fundamental differences”? We get it–you guys don’t agree, let’s move on and get to the actual plans, ideas and proposals you have that set you apart–I think that’s what most of us care about.

Perhaps I am ranting, perhaps I’m jealous that I can’t stand in front of 60 million viewers, breakdown my opponents plans and experience, (not to mention having the chance to watch John McCain wander around like a lost puppy-dog, shuffling his feet every step of the way in frustration and desperation) or perhaps I am just fundamentally tired of the word “fundamental”. You be the judge.

The obvious logic that arises from the recent spike in housing foreclosures is that if you cannot afford a house, then you should not buy one, regardless of what any bank tells you.  There is a patronizing element in this message that has been emanating throughout media outlets, espoused by experts, politicians, and pundits.  If you are poor you are just going to have to accept that not everyone can be a homeowner, some people will just have to be renters.

But what the foreclosure surge in part represents is the continuing dissolution of the middle class.  After WWII, as society recovered from the Great Depression, homeownership levels soared and the middle class became more robust.  Over the past six decades, levels have hovered within the sixty- something percentage range. While the issues of predatory lending and variable interest rates have played a role, the increasing financial insecurity of people that are considered middle-class is of vital importance.

Market deregulation has contributed to an economy that increasingly values a versatile workforce that eschews the long-term contract in favor of the short, contributing to job insecurity.  The crisis in health insurance poses the possibility of financial ruin for families who are uninsured, underinsured, and insured.   Utility, food and gas prices are on the rise, and the cost of a college education is grossly out of proportion to average American salaries.

Half of all households earn $48,000 or less, 34% earn less than $30,000 per year.   While politicians wrangle about what constitutes a middle class salary, it is clear that an increasing majority of Americans are struggling to maintain the outward indicators of a middle-class lifestyle.

Homeownership in the United States has historically been linked to positive social values.  Homeowners are supposedly more stable, involved in their neighborhoods and communities, and more likely to be upstanding citizens.  Americans aspire to this social status.   Now we are deriding average Americans for their aspiration to be homeowners and the middle-class for thinking they are so entitled.