Interview: Jason Coleman

Engineer, writer, and father to be Jason Coleman take a moment to pose for the camera.

In what I hope to make a semi-regular feature here at my column, I bring you the next in my series of community interviews. This week, I metaphorically sat down with newsvine science star Jason Coleman to discuss science, professionalism and his status as father-to-be.

One thing that I've really enjoyed about doing these interviews is the depth of the responses I've gotten. It's always great to (metaphorically) sit down with a member of the community that has a more professional attitude towards their contributions and ask them personal questions. I hope you enjoy this week's result.

How did you get started on newsvine? What made you interested in the first place, how did you find out about it, etc. What do you still like about it? I ask everyone this, but newsvine can be really frustrating at times - why do you stick around? What do you see as your role in the community? How do you see newsvine developing and growing over the course of the next six months? The next year? The next five years?

I first received an invite from a web-designer friend of mine who knew I had been using Digg and some other social link/news sharing sites. Interested? To tell the truth I signed up for Newsvine and when I first logged in, it seemed like there was very little activity there. I actually lost most interest and pretty much forgot about it for a while. A few weeks later though, I heard the "Into the Net" podcast interviewing Mike D. about the site (like so many other Beta users). I figured I'd log back in to see if it had picked up steam and sure enough it had. Further, I was really sick of Digg at that point, as it had become no different that most discourse on the internet: flames, rumors, and non-sense. The sense on Newsvine that this would be my column, somewhere between a MySpace/Live Journal account and Digg (but with more class than any of the above) appealed a great deal to me.

Take on look at most any comment thread on /. or Digg and tell me that this site isn't a more mature and intelligent conversation. Further, Newsvine is a great community and I enjoy the personalities here (yes, even those personalities). I've got nearly 100 friends on my list that I've never formally met and could actually tell you a little something about each of them, or at least their online persona. In areas where some of my friends and family aren't as interested in having an in-depth conversation about various current affair issues, I can come here and see what others are saying. It's great for broadening my perspective to points of view I might not have otherwise considered. But this is hardly my only social life (and I doubt it's anyone else's). Newsvine can be a source of some frustration from time to time but two things keep it in perspective for me: the rest of the internet and the rest of my life. This site is just one extension of who I am as a whole. I'm sure that some try and be someone else online or use their online life to replace another (yes, that's a vast simplification and not the only reason for being vague about identity). However, this 'extension' notion goes to my choice of "user name" and "avatar" here. I'm not trying to do or say anything here that I don't or wouldn't elsewhere (although my tone is different here, generally). It's just me. I think it also tends to help me keep cool, knowing that any stupid comments are going to be digitally etched in stone forever right next to my name, only easier to find as time goes on and search engines get more sophisticated.

I'll get more to my role in a moment, as I think that's what my "strongly fleshed-out user bio" gets at. Online social link/news sites, for better or worse, are going to be compared to Digg for some time. It's growth was explosive and it truly was a new idea. Newsvine shares that idea, in part, but is a much better mix of traditional and social news. It offers a lot, regardless of whether users want a link-log of news, a place for discussion, or just the AP wire. Now, I doubt I have to sell Newsvine to you or anyone else reading this, but I do want to explain why I think Newsvine will be around for some time. What's it going to look like? I have no idea what any of the web will look like in five years, but I can only imagine more media such as video here. I hate to describe it as just 'the YouTube for news,' but I do think that will be something we'll see sooner rather than later. I kind of miss the "Vinecast," but it was related in theory only and I expect Newsvine to have more audio/video submissions in the future. This interview would probably seem a lot more lively in recorded format, wouldn't it? I have no doubt that citizen journalism is taking place on Flickr, YouTube, and so on, but Newsvine really has the potential to be integrated hub for citizen journal that those others could . I have really good hunch that I'm not the first person to think such a thing, though…

I hope to feed the greater system with information to make it something better than it was yesterday. That's the only reasonable goal I can have given the rather unlikely chances I have of making much money or earning much fame here. However, I do get to leave a substantial body of links to information and data, in addition to the information I provide in my own voice, that hopefully is what builds a great social database. Newsvine has the potential to become an open version of Lexis-Nexis; more-so than Digg or even Wikinews, in my opinion. That may not be the model that it's creators had in mind, but it's the use I gain from this site and the area where I can best (so far) contribute my time.

I think one of the critical points of Newsvine's success will be when the community can move past mostly talking about the community here. The spat between user X and user Y isn't "news" really worth anyone else's time and can only serve to turn people away who are just now coming to the site. Just think how Flickr (my favorite Web 2.0 darling) would have likely failed miserably if when you first signed up you saw photos about Flickr and comments only dissing someone else's photographs. I admit it's not a perfect analogy (although we've had a number of discussions here on the bias and politics of news photos, haven't we?), but I think users here have to see the need to move on beyond just discussing one another. So what if user Z always posts crap that you can't stand? Ignore them and move on (both literally and also by clicking that little "Ignore" button)! Let the fancy algorithms that the staff spent all that time developing do their jobs. And please stop leaving comments that the article isn't worth your time or is poor journalism; they only serve the opposite of the intended effect (note these are all mistakes I've been guilty of, too). If we'd all just give the site's mechanics a chance to work rather than complaining about them, we might be pleasantly surprised. At worst, it'll be no different.

You've got a pretty strongly fleshed-out user bio where you outline your mission on newsvine - this is pretty great. I like your manifesto, it states clearly and concisely your interpretation of proper newsvine behavior. How does it work for you? Do you find it challenging to work within the confines you've set for yourself (ie, a specific seeding method, never vote for yourself, etc) or do you find that it helps to have some structure? Do you see these rules as highly subjective - ie they're what works for you - or would you be happier to see them spread across the vine into general use?

I think my User Bio goes a long way to explaining how I view my role on this site in addition to how I try and conduct myself here. In short, I see myself as a someone who can bring a relatively unbiased and rational voice and want to make that goal clear for all. I certainly do have biases, and I don't mean to pretend otherwise. But I'm very sincere and I hope that comes across in what I bring to the site and by being as transparent as possible.

I actually think that having those guidelines (and they are just guidelines, I can't promise that everything I write or seed will always fit into them perfectly) really has helped me. The act of writing down my intentions has always helped me stick to them when a gray area arises. Perhaps that's part of my nature as an engineer. I tried to set up a method where I could clearly delineate fact from opinion, source from personal bias, etc. I wanted to make clear what was someone else's voice and what was my own. It's important that everyone understand that these (generally) work for me. They'll not work for everyone and I have no intentions or desires that everyone use the site like I do. That being said, I wish people would often put more effort into writing articles and not blog posts. Whether it's short attention spans, sticky-note length e-mails, text messaging, or "today I had cereal for breakfast" blogging, I think there's been a shift in what passes for a complete news article. I can remember when USA Today was known for it's overly short articles and those would now seem lengthy by current standards. Two short paragraphs do not make a journalistic effort. If that's all you've got to say, then please just leave a comment on a related post/seed elsewhere. And if you must have a poll then please provide some background on why it's worth my time or how it's relative right now. There are plenty of other sites on the internet solely dedicated to cutesy polls and such. I really think that that sort of "article" is only going to weaken the site's potential for longevity.

Of the highly active members on Newsvine, I tend to fall into the "high seeds, low articles, low comments" set; or at least that's my current aim. I have actually taken quite a bit of joy in watching my name fall off of the Newsvine Leaderboard in most every category. I'm here to share information and news I find interesting and not win, whatever winning means. I have no ambition to be the widest read of authors here nor make a lot of money (I've made $36 to date, about what I made when I sold my old PSOne on eBay and that took far less time and energy). So, I suppose anyone who wants to "game the system" would do well to not follow my lead. However, I hope that people will see some value in what I can contribute here.

That being said, I've been known for have very lengthy and involved comments around the site (and a large quantity of comments, though I'm no Yar). However, I realized that this is probably not the best way to use my time as they cut into my writing my own articles (here and on my own site). I'm hoping in the future to leave comments which are indeed just comments. I'll leave writing rebuttals, further research, inspired tangents, etc. to articles on my column, instead. And to tell the truth, reading my Bio indicates this as what I intended to do all along and just got sidetracked somehow. I think that my recent comment-come-article on Neil Boortz' skeptical piece on global warming is a perfect example of what I should have done first, but didn't. That rebuttal had no business in the comments section, regardless of how well it was received. Further, using the article format allowed me to post-edit to add additional links for reference, which was much better from my point of view. I think the term 'discussion' can have a broader sense and extend well beyond a single article. Currently, many of the multi-article threads on Newsvine are more personal and community in nature (read: euphemism for attacks and rants against the site) and as I've said, that's probably not a good thing.

I truly love writing. I love that English language is like a Swiss Army knife made of words and punctuation. I try and hold a very high standard for what I've published here as original articles. Unfortunately, this has held me back in the amount I've ever actually hit the publish button on (there are still almost as many unpublished articles in various stages of draft that I've given up on). I write quite a lot elsewhere, for my personal site as well as on Flickr, and those are in a very different voice than I use here. Here, I try to maintain a very clinical and dry voice as that helps me to distinguish my opinion from facts for the reader (a more technical writing style versus a editorial style). This has probably led a few people to think I don't have much of a sense of humor (or am just really mean), but I promise I'm actually quite different when I'm discussing just about anything else. This has been especially true in my commenting here. This different voice is mainly due to just how difficult it is to express tone in one or two paragraphs of written text. Is he being sarcastic or serious? Was that a joke or is he really trying to be cruel? It can be very hard to tell so I just try and avoid it here. This is mainly for people who don't know me outside of some written discussion posts and could very easily (and often do) mis-read my intentions. I still fall flat on my face a lot, but I do feel it's worth the effort (I routinely re-read some of my own comments and think "God, what an @!$%#."). Anyone who actually met me in the flesh might be surprised by large doses dry sarcasm, though; and I don't mean that in some sort of 'sense-of-humor-is-very-important-to-me' kind of way. No, I'm @!$%#ing hilarious. Honest.

You obviously come from a pretty scientific background. Can you tell us a little bit about your educational history? What can you tell us about the state of the public scientific discourse in America? What about on newsvine - do you see it as analogous to the larger public discourse? Better? Worse? What characterizes, in your mind, a healthy public scientific discourse? How can we as a community improve the quality of the scientific iscourse here on newsvine?

Well, I was raised with a fascination for all things science and engineering. I cannot remember a time when I wasn't amazed by the natural world. I'm formally trained as an engineer (something my "hard science" friends give me much grief over). I hold both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Civil Engineering and serve professionally as a licensed structural engineer. My interests in science and technology go well beyond just my professional field and into a lot of different areas. Then again, I have a lot interests outside of the sciences as well… just not the time to pursue all of them.

On the surface, it would seem that the discourse on science in the U.S. is extremely poor right now (though I also don't think it's exclusive to the U.S.). I think some of that is just popular misconception but there are certainly squeaky wheels that do get a lot of attention. My main concern is that scientists and technical professionals are often held in disdain in favor of 'folk wisdom' and 'plain speak;' instead of being trusted proxies of knowledge and expertise. It's not fair to expect every citizen to be a trained expert in all fields. However, if we're not going to become experts ourselves, we need to be willing to trust those who are. Also, scientists (as well as engineers, medical professionals, etc.) also have to be willing to help educate the public and behave in a manner that is transparent to review. The public must be willing to trust the expertise of those who have gained it and those experts need to dissolve the so-called "Ivory Tower" and speak to the public. Now, I use the word "trust" intentionally, as I could in theory gain expertise evolutionary biology, review data sets and provide my own experimentation to verify someone else's work. That is very different in having "faith" in something that is, by nature, not verifiable. That's the difference between trusting a proxy and holding a belief. Those who claim that science is a replacement for religion (cough Ann Coulter cough) are simply mis-representing this very important distinction and woe be unto them when they say such things around me. That's one lie that really pegs my bull@!$%# meter.

I actually think that Newsvine could benefit from more expertise, but I can also appreciate people's willingness to not jump into the fray. For example, as a structural engineer, I see a great deal of mis-information swirling around, often with regards to the Twin Towers collapse (and related structures) on 9/11/2001. However, I feel a great deal of anxiety about discussing it here (or with anyone I don't know in general) out of concern for my profession and my livelihood. I do my best to point people to the information I trust the most in addition to providing my own opinion. However, in the desire to clearly differentiate my opinion and what is elsewhere, what I have to say becomes very watered down. This is only compounded by the overwhelming practice of applying lay definitions to technical language, either unintentionally or out of malice. It can be very dangerous and scary territory; dealing with the general public. To be blunt, trying to hold a civilized discussion online isn't worth someone causing me trouble with my license because they didn't like what I said. All that being said, I really enjoy reading our resident scientists' input when they provide it. They are great points of data which have benefited Newsvine enormously. However, we shouldn't kid ourselves: this isn't some world-renowned science review body we're all members of here.

A healthy scientific discourse is one where there a lot of questions. We often see questions that are simply meant to instill doubt in the source, and those aren't really fair. However, general inquiry is the heart of science as well as science discussion. I wouldn't expect anyone to just accept a seemingly non-intuitive scientific result without asking some good questions. However, assuming that common intuition is better than actual discovery is extremely dangerous; "what I expect to see" is not as convincing as "here's what I did see." Everyone should note that it's not a new problem to science and it will never go away, but it's about as bad now as it's ever been. In it's most dishonest form, it is a straw man argument (i.e. - everyone knows that a chicken can't turn into a monkey, so evolution must be false) but is also commonly just assuming that 'folk wisdom' is smarter than true discovery (i.e. - someone who rationalizes that because a human being is so small compared to the planet we couldn't possibly be responsible for global warming). It takes a willingness to listen on the part of the public. Science is so amazing and rarely more-so that what you learn is completely different that what you expected.

Briefly, summarize global warming and why it's a problem. How do you know you're right? There have been many calls for hearing "the other side" - is there "another side" or is that a false dichotomy? You've got all of the world leaders sitting down and listening to you, and you have one shot to convinc them to take action - what action do you recommend and how do you convince them? What counter-arguments do you anticipate (not from a "there's no such thing as global warming" perspective but from a more pragmatic "Yes, but there are economic considerations..." perspective) and how do you address them?

Now, oddly enough, I have no idea why I've become a voice for climatology here on Newsvine. Just a open space to fill, I guess. I suppose that I've read more than the average non-climatologist on the subject and as a result have had a lot to share here. In doing so, have only come to the conclusion that upon reading the science (i.e., not the editorial pages), it's really remarkable stuff. It's a very mature and amazing field of science with an remarkably large data set. That's good news, because it affects all of us in a way that few other sciences do. ("Briefly" is a relative term and few would consider I have the ability to do anything briefly. ;) However, here goes…)

Global warming, as the popular name goes, is the observed phenomena that the planet's yearly average temperature has increased by a significant amount. It's a remarkably well documented observation and one that's simply not in question by any informed individuals. Now, this has happened over the past few decades; something that has never happened before; usually climate change happens over tens of thousands of years. We're warming at at least ten times faster than anything previously known so, no, it doesn't just happen all the time as some have argued. Not like this. The problem lies in the fact that a warmer planet really changes the planet as we are used to it and in many less-than-desirable ways. From more water in liquid form (sea level rise) to a change in the ecology of flora and fauna (plants dying off and animal migratory patterns shifting) to a change in regional climate (coastal regions see increase in precipitation and flooding where-as inland areas will be subject to more drought), just as some examples. Now, we should all stop and breathe for a moment. It's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to result in the planet becoming a flaming ball of fire. We need to be aware of what can happen and also why it is happening. There are so many things that can and do affect the Earth's climate that experts have to determine which one's make the biggest differences and what combination results in what we see out the window, so to speak.

Here's where I point out the obvious: it's not me who's rightness or wrongness matters. In fact, if you asked me just a few years ago, I'd tell you that global warming due to man's activities is probably very slim and nothing to be concerned over as we'll be out of carbon-based fuels long before it will affect anyone. Well, that isn't the case as we know now. Climatology is a pretty large field and as with any large scientific field, showing a new hypothesis to be right is one of the big "gets" in science. So if someone could show that the observed warming indeed wasn't mostly man-made, then that person(s) would be in line for some big awards, much more than $10k from Exxon. Here's the thing, out of essentially every research that could be verified in peer review, the research kept coming back to the same source: man-made greenhouse gases is the the only variable that can explain the observations. At the risk of applying my own brand of 'folk wisdom,' this makes good sense: if this was just some natural cycle, we'd likely see it in the paleoclimate records and we'd have seen this rate of change before. We don't and we haven't. A handful of people have tried to argue that some paleo-climate records are wrong (the so-called "hockey stick", which incidentally was vindicated last summer) but then in turn use some "cherry picked" version of climate data from the past themselves. So it comes down to this: trusting an expert proxy, or rather, trusting all the expert proxies. You see, while there are a few hold-outs in the climatology community and even they don't have a valid counter-theory. The overwhelming number of them now agree that the evidence clearly supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change. That is, the theory that most of the sudden spike in global temperatures we see are due to man-made greenhouse gases. Thus: it's simply not a balanced "argument." There is an understandable need in the mainstream press to fairly present both sides of an argument. Unfortunately, not all sides are on equal footing as such a presentation might suggest, and certainly not when it comes to what is causing climate change.

I'm sure that this is not a sufficient answer for those who simply wish to ignore or discount the science, but I'll ask them this: was anything I said going to be adequate for you? Further who did you listen to before you made up your mind and what evidence they give you? Essentially every argument I've ever seen against this theory has come in the form of simply hoping to cast doubt on it and not in real evidence against it. However, I'd like to go on the record stating that I would find it fantastic if there was suddenly new evidence that it wasn't, in fact, a result of man's activity that was warming the planet. I would, literally, be shouting in the streets with joy. It would be like I suddenly learned I didn't really have cancer from smoking cigarettes. Of course, the planet is still getting warmer (and all those problems that come with it) and I'd still have cancer. I could just go on smoking and I could get that Land Rover Defender 110 I've always dreamed about. But that's all just wishful thinking. We know that greenhouse gases warm the planet and we've known that for much longer than we've known that smoking causes lung cancer (ref. Fourier, 1827). Further, we "know" this in-so-much as we know anything in science. That is, the alternate theories have not shown to be as accurate as the theory in question and the theory in question predicts the observations to a high degree of accuracy.

As for policy on global warming, I'm not one for panic. I'm an advocate for emissions credit trading because it's worked very well in other areas previously (the cap-and-trade model). I think that perhaps global warming is just the kick in the ass that we need to stop using energy from countries that really aren't our friends. We just happen to live on a continent with some of the most varied natural resources on the planet and I'm confident we can meet our own energy needs by combining our own resources with improved efficiencies. It annoys me to no end to see various alternate energy industries undermine one-another instead of acting as compliments in the chain. While our physical infrastructure proves a challenge, I don't see it as being as big a road-block as the political and subsidy hurdles in the energy industry. However, none of these are insurmountable. Also, I do understand the economic concern and it's one that I share. But the notion that we could possibly overnight destroy this country due to some shifts in economic and energy policy strike me as completely absurd. We've been around since before the widespread use of fossil fuels for transportation and we discovered electricity, not to mention all the various economic policy and tax changes that have occurred in the meantime. None of those changes were, as far as I can tell, any less drastic in terms of changing our daily lives than the ones we need now and we've only become a stronger nation after each one. For everyone who claims that talk of "global warming" is hysterics, I see the real hysterics over fears of damage to the economy. Sure global warming is a huge deal but even it's relatively fast time-scale is slow enough for something as dynamic as the U.S. economy to not only survive but thrive.

I understand you are soon to be a father - congratulations!! Does this change the way you look at the world? Has the presence of this new visceral connection to future generations helped you to recontextualize any of your views? Or, on a less stuffy note, when is the baby due? Is it a boy or a girl? Decided on a name yet? Aunt/Uncle Newsvine wants to see the baby pictures as soon as you got 'em!

Thank you! It's hard to describe just how huge this is for my wife and I. It's on my mind even more than global warming! At the risk of sounding like every other parent before their child arrives, nope. I'm still me. I certainly feel that we need to be aware of what we leave for future generations, both personally and as a people. But I've really always believed that so I can't say that it's much of a change. Of course, I'm scare @!$%#less about all the horrible things in the world and how they can harm my child but I'm re-assured by the amazing family and friends I have and that people do this everyday around me. The world's a scary place and it's always been that way; I'm not going to make it un-scary. However, if I have one purpose in this world it's to help improve the human condition, even if just one increment. That helps my child just as it helps everyone else's. Although we are going to have to get child-proof cabinet locks for the kitchen.

The baby is due on my birthday, late next August. By far and away it will be the best birthday gift I'll ever get, even if it's the only one that ever throws up on me! We are coming to the end of the first trimester as of this e-mail interview and that means we're out of a lot of the iffy parts of pregnancy. Of course, that also means it's too early to tell the sex of the baby, thus "it." My wife and I discuss names daily and have yet to choose any winners, other than a last name. She wants the child to have my last name (as opposed to hers or a hyphenated name, etc.) where-as I'll just settle for a healthy baby with any last name. We won't get too wild with given names, as we're pretty conservative in that regard. As for pictures, anyone who wants that sort of thing should just click on my website and visit my Flickr account. Just look for anything tagged "baby." This is a huge thing for both my wife and me and there's lots there and loads more coming.

Finally, is there anything else you wish I'd asked? Anything in particular you'd like to say? If you were me, how would you wrap up this interview?

You couldn't have possibly realized how much you'd have already gotten when you wrote that. If I were you, I'd ask me to hire an editor! It's been a lot of fun to answer these questions. I guess I didn't think you'd ask me about global warming, but I also wasn't shocked as it's kind of become something of a niche for me here on Newsvine.

However, in spite of all I've typed so far (and the fact that a lot of people's eyes have long-since glazed over), a fit of jealous rage ensued in reading some of the great questions you've asked others so far. I'll provide some questions in brief with very short (for me) answer:

Religion? I'm a Christian (I know: white guy in the South is a Christian! Stop the presses!), Presbyterian to exact. I've been quoted as saying agnostic Presbyterian and as I don't claim to have all the answers, I'd say that's probably about right. I know religion gets some often well-deserved criticism (I'm looking at you Myk), but in the end I feel that any good in this world I can do more than offsets any 'enabling' my belief gives others who would do harm. I don't feel that religion is some absence of logic and reason, just the philosophy of a faith in something supernatural. I'm okay that I can't prove in the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus, as it wouldn't require faith if I could. On the other hand, it's absurd to me that somehow this is considered to be in contradiction to my support of the sciences (or even my politics) as they all go hand in hand: help make life better for my neighbors, all 6+ billion of them.

Lone Liberal? Well, non unlike Indecent, my personal politics tend to go against the grain of where I grew up, where I went to college, and where I live now. However, that has never stopped me from loving those places and the people there (okay, maybe growing up a bit…). I have a great number of friends and family who are far more conservative than I am (and some even more liberal) and as an engineer, it probably goes without saying I'm one of the few progressives I know in my profession. Still, I've found that being sincere and honest gains me respect. It has also given me a great deal of insight into those who think differently than I do. When we all can realize that we all essentially want the same thing: a better world, then the rest is just how we get there. That's politics and realizing that there really is no such thing as an enemy, only someone who believes a different path is best, makes you see only potential in the future. We're all in this together and we all want (and need) the same thing, and none of us are alone. Let's just start talking.

Traveled much? I love traveling! I've been all over the U.S., except for the Northeast, the UK, France, and most recently, the Caribbean. Pretty much everywhere on the planet is on the to-do list, as well. I'm very fortunate that I have a wife who loves travel and exploring as much as I do.

I actually wasn't all that jealous of any of the questions posed to GoReporter. Those were tough. I'd be hard pressed to defend why anyone should read my column. Hopefully it's because I provide links to new information on trusted sources in addition to facts and fact-based opinions in my articles. Those are some of my goals here, anyway. Hopefully others find that to be the case and it makes Newsvine a better place. Then again, I think GoReporter no doubt feels the same way, even though I think our columns are polar opposites.

As much as I've written here, I think that this is nothing compared to what any of us could learn about another if we just spent ten minutes over a cup of coffee or a beer. That's tough to do with people from all over the country and the world using this site but if we'd all just keep that idea in mind, we'll end up treating one another with respect and making a better site for us all. We've all got a great deal in common, much more than what we think makes us different. I hope that you've enjoyed reading this half as much as I enjoyed writing it, which is to say, a lot. Thanks so much for the opportunity.

Back To Top

Full remarks by President Bush regarding the "Money Trumps Peace" hoopla

Guardian Unlimited

Fri Feb 16

0