Continuing on an idea from yesterday.

Google's new news service might give us a better idea of the limits that our own sources will impose on us to differentiate questions. It will be interesting, this promises to give us all the reports on the same story at the same time. To me, this will be interesting because this will probably be the first time we get a fat pipe of source options, many interpretations and phrasings of the same information, at the same time. For a book, this would be the equivalent of having a single site search of Benet's, Oxford Dictionaries, Penguin Dictionaries, Cliffs Notes, and a set of web sites. It's a big step forward for quiz bowl writing, the closest thing I've seen previously is xrefer. Of course the other side of the sword is that we are the second tier of interpreters. There aren't really (taking an example from when I write this) 56 separate reports on the firing of this guy from Lucent for data falsification. A few reporters are on scene, but a majority of the articles are taking the wire and running with it, and some are buffing and polishing the feed. What does that mean for us? It means someone will have likely found the perfect words before we get there. So even if you find the right words, someone may claim you're just ripping off report X.

I'm not a big fan of the concept of rewriting by Roget because, often, the word that's there is the right one. Effective journalism, and effective question writing are highly similar disciplines. Both demand a rapid, concise delivery of the facts, using effective vocabulary in a place where nuanced rhetorical flourishes will fail.

So there's your new tool. Try not to break it. And try not to break others with it.

Day 8.
8A. Encyclopedia of British History
8B. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries
8C. Rotten Tomatoes
8D. Project Gutenberg
8E. Encyclopedia Mythica