Eagle and Woodpecker shot in harbor at Knudson’s Cove after day of fishing in the channels south of Ketchikan, Alaska

Plains Milky Way from Randy Halverson on Vimeo.

(Tip: Click on the arrows between HD and Vimeo in the video frame and watch it in full-screen)

Far from starscape-dulling city lights, farmer and photographer Randy Halverson spent three weeks creating a new video of the spinning night sky.

Shot from his central South Dakota farm, the video (above) features the Milky Way, which appears to our eyes as a fuzzy band but is actually an an edge-on view of dust lit by billions of stars. Summer is the prime season for North Americans to catch the Milky Way.

“Now is the first good time of the year to go out and see it, and maybe the best,” said Halverson. “There’s not as many mosquitoes, it isn’t too muggy and the rattlesnakes aren’t around. Those can be trouble.”

Battling strong winds and clouds, Halverson used a robotic camera rig to snap hundreds of still photos in about 20 three- to four-hour shoots. Back at his computer, he stitched together images from the best shoots. Each second of the video spans about 14 minutes of actual time.

As the Earth spins, the stars appear to spin with it. Longer exposures make them appear as streaks. Zooming airplanes, sunlight reflecting off satellites, and a ruddy orange glow from the town of Winner, South Dakota some 40 miles away are visible in the footage.

The “Thank You All” Vibe: March 17, 2011.

Click to view slideshow.

Witnessing this was one of 2010′s best gifts to me — a double rainbow somewhere between Minneapolis and Osage Minnesota. I saw it after visiting one of Earth’s finest citizen’s and one of my best friends, Kevin Featherly. I stood there for ten minutes as the Sun poked in and out of the clouds causing the rainbow and fast wind-driven clouds to shift colors and move like ballerinas across the sky…………..

(Note from The Vinman: This is a long-read piece. It is a complex question on a specific incident and event that requires a deep read. But I asked for topics )

From New York, my beloved sister Co sent this:

I would love to read about your perspective of time as it relates to the internet. I was intrigued by the notion of needing to educate “at a break neck pace,” and it struck me because this morning in the NY Times they reported that they’d made a mistake in their coverage of Senator Gifford’s shooting and declared her dead erroneously, again because of this need to get the info out on the internet immediately. Do we all really need to be this sped up – and/or does the internet need to be cognizant of speed for some good reason? Or, could a news agency or website be known for being thoughtful, accurate, creative, not necessarily fast?

(VjK) I need to begin by saying the Arizona tragedy (like many similar) – and the question posed – makes me process a response quite carefully. Frankly, it gives me pause because in the fall of 1993 a crazed lunatic – much like the trigger man in this case – walked into a Family Fitness Center in El Cajon, CA less than a mile away from me and killed four innocent people there before turning the gun on himself. Having just put El Cajon’s The Californian newspaper to bed, it was my job to stop the presses (yes, I yelled, “STOP THE PRESSES!”) and collaborate by phone with our reporter on scene and write a front-page article to be delivered only hours later.

Unfortunately, that was not similar to Gifford’s shooting in one way: Police and medical staff on the scene confirmed quickly that those who had lost their lives were dead instantly. Chaotic as the scene was, in a similar shopping center, it was cleared and roped off quickly. And there was no instant ongoing reporting other than radio and local television, neither of which were in a 24/7 news cycle then. The national news picked it up within hours, and I will never forget the relief in my sister Co’s voice when I answered her call to the newsroom from the East Coast to make sure I (and my future wife Sheila) were okay. She had been worried the killer had hit our gym not knowing which it was.

It was also my job, and others, to continue our coverage commandeered by a lunatic publisher whose antics and ethics were as far away from the high integrity my colleagues and I held as professional journalists. And so, we went to the crime scene and worked with police while an army of satellite up-link dishes rolled into the shopping center parking lot on trucks, lined up and unloaded glossy journos who laughed and joked about the scene while local folks were in agony. We had follow up work to do, but no edition to close until the next day. Shocked, stunned, but professionally prepared, the newsroom went about its business.

My colleagues had already experienced tragedy and grief a few years before when one of The Californian’s own reporters was murdered defending his wife when he interrupted a rape in their apartment on a routine home-for-lunch date. I arrived just before the trial.

They’d been there. They’d been national news themselves. How does a newsroom cover the murder of one of their own? They endured and covered a death-penalty trial in which the killer was spared his life. They, simply, are the toughest, most professional group of people there could ever be.

But, I digress. There’s a whole other part about a woman handing me a story the killer wrote in class foreshadowing the event and (once again) a lunatic killer slipped through the cracks and our unethical publisher demanding we print it word for word in the paper but you can read about that by clicking here.

Back to the question at hand. The answer – for the most part – has been covered by the best in journalism themselves, including the several major organizations who made the error. First, let’s review a couple of things:

• The original error in reporting Gifford’s death was made by NPR, which said
  (click here to read):

  This was a serious and grave error. Thankfully, Rep. Giffords is alive today, though sadly other victims of the shootings are not. Corrections and properly updated reports were issued within minutes……..The information we reported came from two different governmental sources, including a source in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. Nonetheless, in a situation so chaotic and changing so swiftly, we should have been more cautious. There were, obviously, conflicting reports from authorities and other sources. The error we made was unintentional, an error of judgment in a fast-breaking situation. It was corrected immediately. But we deeply regret the error.

• And from the NY Times Public Editor in yesterday’s Opinion Section (click here) :
  

  Here’s how the error was made. It was hectic in the newsroom with many news reports flowing in as Kathleen McElroy, the day Web news editor, was trying to decide whether The Times was ready to report Giffords’s death. She decided against it and was telling Web producers to hold off reporting it in a news alert when J. David Goodman, who was writing the story, told her he had a few changes he wanted to make. Ms. McElroy said, “I should have looked at every change,” but she thought Mr. Goodman was referring to small stuff. Mr. Goodman told me he then erred by reporting Representative Giffords’s death in the lead as though The Times itself were standing behind the information.
  

• And the best discussion about all this came immediately on Twitter from those involved. The Poynter article summarizing their comments up is a must read in the equation.

I would say that NPR, having two “governmental sources” saying Giffords was killed believed it had adequate confirmation by professional standards it was so. In its apology, NPR acknowledges there were conflicting stories but there always are and governmental sources are typically solid. As one of the tweets in Poynter’s story points out:

News orgs should be aggressive in reporting; conservative in printing/broadcasting/posting; transparent about how they get what they get.

But to say sources – even seemingly authoritative sources – can’t themselves get things wrong in the heat of moment ignores reality.

One key obviously to separate speculation from fact – and minimize the former as much as possible.

And the New York Times? Admittedly, the web editor on duty made a mistake by not reading the reporter’s “minor revisions.” This is where the transparency issue comes in. Instead of publishing the story saying “NPR and CNN are reporting that Giffords has been killed,” the changes made it appear as if the paper itself was saying so. There’s a huge difference there. But does it matter that they report others are reporting something? Should they wait? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. It really depends on judgement and the scope of the story.

And in another tweet from the Poynter story:

It’s ahistorical to think initial reports in earlier incidents were uniformly accurate, tho journos should be accountable @gregmitch

@carr2n@GregMitch I’m saying it’s regrettable & damaging, but also regrettably predictable. I’m not being apologist; I’m describing how it works.

As Greg Mitchell notes, this has happened before. Walter Cronkite, for instance, became extremely frustrated (and said so) on air while reporting the conflicting reports of the Kennedy assassination. And here is where time in relation to the internet comes into play.

Time is not a factor (in fact, it is merely a measuring tool for our lives which all have a different news consumption metronomes), it’s the technology that instantly communicates information to an unlimited audience. Which is to say that in the grand scheme of things the amount of thoughtful, accurate, fact-checking, creative and deliberate fact checking that exists along that pipeline of information is incredibly correct. The professional standards of journalists are well-adhered to over the need to get it out there first. And they are already talking about ways to recall or “unpublish” erroneous reports so that all who received them (say via Twitter) would know there is a correction.

Could that cause even more lax reporting? I doubt it, because too many “recalls” would kill credibility.

As a colleague of mine said at a conference this year posed with the same question, “You’re not first if you’re wrong.” And any journalist or news organization worth a dime knows it. Those who erred in this case are well-respected and would not (nor did they) err to get it out first. They simply erred.

So what then, is my perspective on all of this? I believe the internet, social media and other tools used correctly can have immediate benefits to how people work and live. During the recent New York snowstorm, a man (and eventually teams of people) wandered through the city asking via Twitter if there were any people who needed immediate help getting shoveled out or taken for emergency care since services were so delayed. Lives saved.

In regards to the 1440/7 news cycle — 1,440 minutes every day, seven days a week — it’s a far cry from having time to scour copy with dozens of fact checkers than the daily newspaper days of old. But it’s here to stay. And the best thing is that journalists have new tools not only to source report and tell the stories better, but they can dissect issues like that in real-time and find ways to do it even better the next time.

I’m all in.

Two skaters in their own Winter Classic on Rush Lake Sunday. (c) Vince Kern 2011

The Universe smiled on me today even though the snow-less landscape outside my window belied how cold it was in my part of Earth.

You see, like you, I’ve spent a good amount of time lately recharging, pondering 2010 and thinking about spending more time doing things that are helpful and meaningful for me and others. And the fortuitous Friday celebration of both Christmas and New Year’s Day provided The Vinman with two solid long weekends to recharge, ponder 2010, plan and prepare for 2011.

On the way home from filling SheRock’s Explorer with gas, an old vibe provided the perfect moment for the new. It was at the same time unexpected, transitory, infinite, expected and perfectly symmetrical to my life and thoughts lately. And it all came merely because I was looking for a picture with an open mind.

An open mind that had passed up on two pictures I’ve planned to take for sometime because I only had my iPhone for a camera. The two shots I can get anytime deserve better. But open enough to see if the lake down the street from my house could give anything up.

The walk to the shore only made me wonder if one of my goals to take a picture a day (inspired by some creative colleagues) would only lead to contrived shots and glad I had been smart enough to wear my new flannel-lined jeans out of the house. The lighting was poor and my hands pained from the cold as I looked though the lens.

“Nothing, what can I do with this?” I thought as I panned to the southwestern vista of the surprisingly frozen lake after a few days of 50-degree temps. Should I sacrifice quality for a pic a day? Heck, anyone can do that. Maybe my muse was getting his ass kicked by a joy-shitting adversary?

And then I heard it. The sharp pitch of a steel edge cutting into a turn with a deepening bass tone as the blade digs deep. And “thwack!” a “clap” of the puck back on the ice and I turned to see the unmistakable silhouettes of, of, no I don’t know them…….Of me and my brother?

Yes. An open mind. And for more than a few seconds Kevin and I were there together out there. Every sound, every smell, every chilly and freezing moment of the joy of being out alone in the world playing hockey on a frozen sheet into the evening for as long as we could hold out.

Wasn’t it only last night that I watched NHL play an outdoor game where men who grew up loving the same experience endured a rainy outdoor rink with pucks sticking to the ice and poor conditions still with passion and love for their experience? And now, here I was, encoded into and watching two nameless figures performing the very thing the Winter Classic seeks to embrace.

I snapped four pictures wishing I had not left my video bag with my better camera at work but knowing the picture was only an impetus. The confirmation that my plan to write more had some merit, at least for this brief afternoon on a cold, grey Sunday on a lake where only us three stood.

The players must have seen me. I could tell they were cold and yet, they skated and passed the puck along the ice like dancers who could move forever in grace. And my heart warmed.

And now I’m off. Off to begin working on some of my goals for VINMAN’s VIBe and a revised social media plan which, at its heart, includes more writing and sharing in ways I think will be more creative — if only for me.

So, that’s it. That’s the VIBe for a bit of  today. It will hold through the night and for some time beyond. But for now, I’m seeking the next one however it may come.

From his website, http://recoveryrabbi.tumblr.com here’s the Recovery Rabbi’s “about me:”

Rabbi Yisrael Pinson, is the Director of the Daniel B. Sobel Friendship House – a rabbi and spiritual mentor to the Jewish recovery community of Metropolitan Detroit. Since joining the Friendship Circle in May 2002 he has galvanized the outreach efforts of the Friendship House by becoming the spiritual mentor of the more than 500 addicts and their families who seek spirituality and support from the organization.

Rabbi Pinson received his high school and college-level education at several intensive private schools the world over, including the distinguished Machon LeSmicha Center for Ordination in Melbourne, Australia. Rabbi Pinson has served communities and individuals from the Caribbean to Canada and is fluent in four languages.

Rabbi Yisrael Pinson has helped create a Jewish Recovery Community in Metro-Detroit where recovering addicts and their families are helped through support, guidance, friendship & community. Rabbi Yisrael facilitates Jewish Recovery meetings, where recovering addicts from all 12-step programs meet and share regularly. He also teaches classes on Judaism & Recovery.

Anissa Mahew is the most recent example of someone over whom the muse-thief has zero power. He doesn’t even spend a lot of time chasing her because she’s proves so much stronger. So I’d like to share her with you.

It was my honor to attend an event put on by Jeff Pulver with the help of many wonderful people spreading the “now” of the real-time internet composed of tools like the internet, Twitter, Facebook and many others. It what we do with them that count or as someone there said,  “Twitter isn’t cool. Doing interesting things using Twitter is.”

Check out her blog at:  http://www.freeanissa.com

and on Twitter @anissamahew

Please spend 10 minutes with Anissa. You won’t regret it. — The Vinman