Government bureaucracy isn't noticably better. Everyone was writing over their tape archives back then, including the BBC (see: Doctor Who lost episodes) and, uh, NASA (the moon landings).
Governments might not be perfect, but they have a far, far better track record than for-profit corporations. The Library of Congress is one prominent example of archiving excellence. Many other public libraries and archives offer other examples.
Sure- if you choose to fund an archive! It's when you don't that you get things like the BBC taping over old episodes to save money. Without an actual dedicated archive (and $$$ to fund it) both corporations and governments will let stuff fall into the memory hole.
Even if you get funding for new media (why the BBC recording over things), someone has to be believe that material is important because reusing media is still cheaper and they'll use that budget elsewhere.
I used to work on the Digital Archives at the Library of Congress.
It's not that they're exceptionally better at it. In fact, the Library has warehouses of materials that they still haven't cataloged, let alone organized or (better) digitized. Their primary focus has been the "sexy" projects like spool recordings, wax cylinders, etc that make for cool stories and mitigate decay (aka destruction) over modern material.
The big problem is that of collection. While in theory, anything that is a registered copyright in the US should be on file, most people don't take the time to register, let alone send off a copy.
The Library & National Archives aren't "better" at it.. it's that it's their primary purpose so the fact that they do it puts it above most other groups.
What I find telling of the US National Archives is that the unit of measurment for the collections (particularly the uncatalogued backlog) is millions of cubic feet.
Sure, cost had a lot to do with it. For profit it not, archiving footage back then was expensive. And even those that did Dave forage ran the risk of having it burn up or simply degrade. There are lota of cases were someone tried to save records, only to have them rot, get eaten, get lost, etc.
What sparked Ms Stokes interest in recording the news happens to coincide with my news awakening. The hostage crisis and Love Canal (which started when I was around seven or eight) jump started my new obsession.
I really like how this website implemented their companion audio player. It was a smart touch to have play/pause on any play-button on the page animate some sort of ghost effect to bring your attention to the player in the corner.
It's a clean, well-done, fast site in general. Not something I expect from a radio station.
WBUR is more than just a radio station. They're an NPR affiliate--which is to say they're a web news organization as well--and they do a lot of pretty in-depth reporting.
I don't listen to the radio in the car too often anymore, but it's never left 90.9 FM since I bought the car.
We should be very protective of this archive, those that produce the news want it to be extremely compelling and convincing for the narrative they're writing, but instantly forgotten in time for the next crisis. The patterns that will emerge from this will be damning, and I suspect that efforts will be taken to ensure those patterns remain forgotten.
If by "efforts to ensure those patterns remain forgotten" you mean "do literally nothing because the public has the attention span of a goldfish" then yes.
The people buying and consuming the news are as guilty as the people making and selling it. The modern state of affairs exists by ambivalent forces present in any large population. It did not need to be engineered by any elite cabal, and it does not perpetuate merely because people are ignorant of what's in the archives.
I imagine this would be a treasure trove for an artist like Kenneth Goldsmith [0]. He has a moving book consisting of verbatim transcriptions of broadcast shows that were aired during several tragic events in US history [1]. Or another book (800 pages; yep, I read it through) capturing every word he spoke during a week [2].
When served well, verbatim transcriptions can make a fascinating or very emotional form of art. It's like this stuff, with all the stutterings, illogical sentences etc, is occasionally more directly "wired to my head", and thus closer to sensing the other person's "thinking", than a regular, careful literary composition. Then again, it is probably also easier to "overuse", I guess.
It would be great if the audio could be transcribed and the text ran through some ML models that could analyze attributes over time, like:
sentiment,
new use of words (ideas & technologies),
the varying viewpoints for the same story,
correlations between when something was first announced to later outcomes,
etc.
From this it would be possible to show in a compelling way how the hearts and minds of the masses are shaped by the media they consume.
> From this it would be possible to show in a compelling way how the hearts and minds of the masses are shaped by the media they consume.
This is already well understood, and has been a conscious science since at least the turn of the century. See Edward Bernays, and Manufacturing Consent
It’s been validated countless times, basically the media, being large corporations themselves, favour power and are against certain ideas, which are never mentioned. It’s evident all over. For example if you read FAIR you will see many examples of this.
Chomsky actually did measure things by looking at how many times certain stories were reported across all major news agencies. But yes you can’t “measure” it.
It would be a very valuable trove, I look forward to seeing the documentary about it.
Recording to tape was the subject of a Supreme Court case, the result of which was to make it explicitly legal for consumers to use VCRs to record broadcast TV.
Something of a side point, but I'm curious about how expensive this was for her to do.
In the 80s / 90s wouldn't a blank 3hr video be something like $5 or so (I'm guessing, as I recollect it was about £5 or so, and am expecting they'd be cheaper in the US as most things seemed to be then)
Given that 70k hrs would be around 23k 3hr cassettes, that would work out at maybe $115k. Seems a lot for an ex-Communist organiser to have ready to spend on a project like this (much as it has plenty of merit).
Check your math. It was 70,000 tapes over 30 years. At $5/tape that would be $11,666/year or just under $1000/month.
The movie trailer mentioned the multiple homes she owned, so she definitely had money. Being a Communist organizer shouldn't imply that someone lacks resources.
This reminds me of the (I believe) NYT article on the woman whose husband recorded tens of thousands of wrestling matches on VHS tapes. The archive was sought after by fans of the sport, but since the man's passing - the wife has struggled to maintain the collection and was contemplating tossing it.
> wouldn't you want to just hang on to everything indefinitely?
Maintaining archives isn't free and has very little expected future value in many cases, so, no, in a for-profit business you probably wouldn't want to.
59 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadThank you Internet Archive!
"At the time Stokes began recording, television stations had been deleting archives for decades"
For-profit corporations can not be trusted to archive history.
Some companies do choose to keep archives:
https://americanarchivist.org/doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.45.3.l25...
* Former Library of Congress contractor here
It's not that they're exceptionally better at it. In fact, the Library has warehouses of materials that they still haven't cataloged, let alone organized or (better) digitized. Their primary focus has been the "sexy" projects like spool recordings, wax cylinders, etc that make for cool stories and mitigate decay (aka destruction) over modern material.
The big problem is that of collection. While in theory, anything that is a registered copyright in the US should be on file, most people don't take the time to register, let alone send off a copy.
The Library & National Archives aren't "better" at it.. it's that it's their primary purpose so the fact that they do it puts it above most other groups.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2008/summer/b...
Archiving used to be hoarding. It was phenominally expensive and in the end, nobody would make use the stuff.
But now we're entering the era of cheap inexhaustible storage, so the economics have changed.
And ironically, now corporations DO delete data due to pressure from lawyers (except for consumer data, which is valuable)
NASA lost a lot of their material on the Apollo missions.
In the end, he only digitized 100 of the tapes and says those 700 hours are “a tiny scratch into the surface of what's there.”"
Wow, what a treasure trove!
I think what Stokes did in recording those tapes was outstanding, by the way.
It's a clean, well-done, fast site in general. Not something I expect from a radio station.
I don't listen to the radio in the car too often anymore, but it's never left 90.9 FM since I bought the car.
NPR has a serious in-house technology team.
The people buying and consuming the news are as guilty as the people making and selling it. The modern state of affairs exists by ambivalent forces present in any large population. It did not need to be engineered by any elite cabal, and it does not perpetuate merely because people are ignorant of what's in the archives.
When served well, verbatim transcriptions can make a fascinating or very emotional form of art. It's like this stuff, with all the stutterings, illogical sentences etc, is occasionally more directly "wired to my head", and thus closer to sensing the other person's "thinking", than a regular, careful literary composition. Then again, it is probably also easier to "overuse", I guess.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Goldsmith
1: "Seven American Deaths and Disasters" -- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16071842-seven-american-...
2: "Soliloquy" -- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/764257.Soliloquy?ac=1&fr...
It's like WW2 movies made in the 1950s. Actual GIs didn't talk like that.
https://blog.archive.org/2019/05/24/71716-video-
sentiment, new use of words (ideas & technologies), the varying viewpoints for the same story, correlations between when something was first announced to later outcomes, etc.
From this it would be possible to show in a compelling way how the hearts and minds of the masses are shaped by the media they consume.
This is already well understood, and has been a conscious science since at least the turn of the century. See Edward Bernays, and Manufacturing Consent
I wonder what the outcome would be of such analysis, I bet it would be interesting!
An archive like this could offer incredible insight into the development of modern culture.
It would be a very valuable trove, I look forward to seeing the documentary about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Uni....
In the 80s / 90s wouldn't a blank 3hr video be something like $5 or so (I'm guessing, as I recollect it was about £5 or so, and am expecting they'd be cheaper in the US as most things seemed to be then)
Given that 70k hrs would be around 23k 3hr cassettes, that would work out at maybe $115k. Seems a lot for an ex-Communist organiser to have ready to spend on a project like this (much as it has plenty of merit).
The movie trailer mentioned the multiple homes she owned, so she definitely had money. Being a Communist organizer shouldn't imply that someone lacks resources.
Technically, doesn't the data exist as radiowaves traveling at lightspeed away from their broadcast source on earth?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/nyregion/boxing-vhs-archi...
wtf.. stations delete their own footage? wouldn't you want to just hang on to everything indefinitely?
Maintaining archives isn't free and has very little expected future value in many cases, so, no, in a for-profit business you probably wouldn't want to.
https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu