So thanks to a link from the Showtime page on The Tudors, this blog got over 100 unique hits today, and the day is not even over yet. I think the previous record was around 30, and that was a day when I e-mailed all my friends and some of them e-mailed all of their friends.

And it occurs to me that I’ve been kind of hard on the media lately. Now that my readership has widened somewhat, I am concerned that some may have been disturbed by last week’s Question of the Week which involved my putting legitimate news sources alongside more questionable ones and asking my readers to rank them in order of reliability.

Please know that I meant no disrespect to Fox News. Or to CNN. Or to network television. Or to the New York Times editorial page. I’m simply raising questions.

The sources we have always been told we can trust may not be as reliable as we’d like them to be. But does this mark a decline in mainstream news reporting, or have these sources always been somewhat unreliable and it’s only through the more democratic medium of the Internet that we’re able to stay on top of it?

The reason I bring it up is that this study suggests that the shifts in the last twenty years have not resulted in a more informed electorate.

That surprised me, but maybe it shouldn’t have. Howard Dean turned himself from being a dead-end candidate into the front runner for the Democratic nomination in 2004 by raising money through a grassroots movement over the Internet. It was a groundbreaking use of the new medium. But then it was the traditional media who ruined him by playing that one clip, taken out of context, over and over. And it seems that the winners are the ones who know how to play the system. So the democratic process is still controlled by slick marketing experts. Perhaps nothing has changed since the days of Parson Weems.

Parson Weems, a supporter of Thomas Jefferson, wanted to emphasize strong values in young America. So he wrote a fictional story about the late George Washington to illustrate his point. Perhaps you’ve heard it – it involves a hatchet and a cherry tree.

Today’s version of the mythmaker, Karl Rove, has access to 24-hour information networks, both on cable and over the Internet. But so do we. Lies spread faster than they used to, but corrections are immediate. It’s harder to get away with things now, at least with those of us who are paying attention. In the days of Parson Weems, you couldn’t just go to Snopes.com to see if that cherry tree thing was true. And you certainly couldn’t just stumble upon some guy’s blog through a link from the Showtime website and get a rambling media literacy diatribe.

But it’s today, and you just did. Welcome! This blog is often about Shakespeare, but as you can tell, it’s about other things too. I hope you enjoy yourself while you’re here, and please feel free to leave a comment behind on any of the posts, either current or in the archives.

I haven’t blogged much about my father because, well, it’s not really that kind of blog. But we lost him to cancer about a year and a half ago. He was 60 years old.

I think he would have enjoyed this blog. He was the type of person who was interested in engaging in many different topics, whether they were in his area or not. I guess I inherited that from him. He’d have loved this blog. And even if he didn’t, he’d have read it anyway, because it was my blog and he was proud of me.

He would have left comments, too, I’m sure, and they would have made us see things in ways we hadn’t before. He could do that. He would have signed his comments Larry instead of Dad because he wouldn’t have wanted to embarrass me. But then I’d respond and call him Dad so everyone would see what a clever father I had.

Happy Birthday, Dad. We still miss you terribly.

First of all, I want to thank everyone who answered last week’s question about the reliability of Wikipedia. The discussion there was one of the most vibrant of the blog so far. Between that and the subsequent post about Fox News, it made me realize that there is a larger question we need to address here: What does it mean for a source to be reliable?

The answer may be changing with the culture, and some quick background reading may help support that potentially controversial claim. Cynthia points us to the article in the The Chronicle for Higher Education The Intellectual in the Infosphere, which hits a lot of key issues in a short space and is definitely worth checking out. I also have an earlier post about the changing nature of information in the digital age. And then there’s the Karl Fisch video.

So with all that in mind, it’s as important as it’s ever been to ask what it actually means for a source to be reliable. Does it simply mean that we can count on it for accurate facts? Or do we require more from our sources than just fact checking?

Is it important for a source to give us balance between different points of view? Or can a source be reliable and just give us one point of view? And if the source only provides one point of view, how important is it for the source to share our values? Could different sources be reliable for different people, or is reliable meant to be an objective term?

Is a source that provides a more depth of coverage always more reliable than a superficial one? Does quality of writing affect reliability? Does a proven track record count for anything? Or do these factors co-exist with reliability without affecting it? Is a primary source always more reliable than a secondary source? Or can secondary sources bring qualities to the table that can increase reliability?

And does reliability cover just facts? Or can sources also provide opinions? Are you more likely to be persuaded to share an opinion that’s expressed by a source you already trust? Is that a part of reliability? Is it even possible for a source to be value neutral? Or does a source always have an inherent value system by the choices it makes in what information to present? If a source presents information in a way that doesn’t fit your worldview, which sources can affect your willingness to reevaluate that worldview, and which sources would simply make you doubt the source?

Does the element of time affect reliability? The book you purchase in the book store may have been written months ago, while a website might be updated while you’re reading it. Does this affect reliability, and if so, in which direction?

Once you’ve answered these questions for yourself, I’d like you to consider the relative reliability of the following twenty sources when it comes to information, perspectives, and opinions about, say, the Bush administration:

A. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
B. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
C. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
D. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
E. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
F. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
G. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
H. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
I. Brit Hume on Fox News
J. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
K. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
L. Michael Moore in a new documentary
M. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
N. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
O. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
P. The White House website
Q. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
R. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
S. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
T. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos

I lettered them instead of numbering them because you may wish, as part of your answer to the question below, to rank some or all of these twenty sources in order from most reliable to least reliable. If two of these sources gave conflicting information, which would you be more open to, and why? What if their information didn’t conflict, but they selcted facts that promoted different biases? What if their facts were the same, but they presented conflicting opinions?

What does it mean to you for a source to be reliable?

Okay, I’m playing around with a new look for the site (finally!) and I wanted to get some reader input before committing to anything. I have a few specific questions for readers of this site:

1. Do you like the way the site looks now, compared to the old look?
2. Is it easier or harder to read than the old style?
3. Is there anything you were able to do in the old style that you can no longer do?
4. Is anything about this style distracting or confusing?
5. Should I keep it how it is, or put it back how it used to be?

It’s the age-old debate of form vs. function, but I have to say that the site looks a lot more like a ShakespeareTeacher.com than the old style, which looked more like SomeGuysWebsiteIDontCareAbout.org.* Also, I like that there’s a calendar, which I haven’t had before.

Anyway, let’s try this out for a while and see how it goes.

*SomeGuysWebsiteIDontCareAbout.com was taken.

While I was away, the Shakespeare Geek has been blogging up a storm. He always manages to find such great nuggets of Shakespearia in the digital forest. A few notable items that either I got from him, or he beat me to:

• There’s a new Showtime series on The Tudors with the first two episodes posted online. If this looks like it’s going to be any good, perhaps we will discuss it here, replacing the soon-to-be-retired Slings & Arrows thread each Sunday. What do you think?
• A map of almost all the places quoted in Shakespeare available in both Google Maps and Google Earth versions. This has some nice classroom applications, particularly in teaching history. Compare, for example, the relative locations of Pericles and Antony and Cleopatra around the eastern Mediterranean. Pericles takes place in the Hellenistic period, which came to an end with the events of Antony and Cleopatra, so comparing their relative locations can be useful. You know, for those times when you’re studying Pericles and Antony and Cleopatra. It was just an example.
• A somewhat new Shakespeare wiki. This looks like it’s going to be able to go much more in depth into Shakespeare than Wikipedia allows. I have to use the future tense, because right now it looks like the giant hole in the ground that is dug before a majestic building is erected. Can’t wait to see the view.
• Hamlet on trial for the murder of Polonius, presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, as part of the six month Shakespeare in Washington festival. I was in DC on Thursday, but missed the trial in favor of Richard III at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. But it caught my eye because my grad students have been talking about using the trial as a classroom activity. We’ve discussed the activity in connection with Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Othello, The Merchant of Venice, King Lear, and Measure for Measure.

There’s more stuff over there if you want to check it out. I like to link to him every now and then because I know there are some who come to this site looking for lots of cool Shakespeare stuff, and instead find postings about Venn diagrams, killer robots, and Charlie the Unicorn. His is the site you were looking for. But do come back tomorrow for the Thursday Morning Riddle.

Well, I’m off to the Shakespeare Teacher conference. I’m very excited about attending, but it means that I may have to step away from the blog for a few days. I’ll post when I can, but I’ll probably be more interested in blogging about the conference than in keeping up with my regular features.

But what if I could leave behind just one post that combines all of my regular features for the week? Why, we’d just have to call that a Shakespeare Teacher Special Feature! Here’s how it breaks down:

• I. Please find below eight brand-new riddles. This should more than satisfy fans of the Thursday Morning Riddle. Each answer will be one word. Please tell us which number you’re solving and your one-word answer.
• II. Once the riddles have been solved, place the eight one-word answers in the Venn Diagram below, using the numbers as guides. This will be your Conundrum. Can you guess the rules? Venn diagram explanation and sample here.
• III. The answer to Circle A (Riddles 1,3,5,7) will be a place. To stand in for the fact vs. fiction Headline Game, can you name three fictional television shows (of at least four seasons each) that are set in this real-life place?
• IV. The answer to Circle B (Riddles 2,3,6,7) will be a question. This is the Question of the Week. Once the games are done, feel free to discuss this question in the comments below. I have already registered my opinion elsewhere on the blog.
• V. The answer to Circle C (Riddles 7,4,6,5) will be a historical person. I was able to link this person to Sir Francis Bacon in four degrees, though that shouldn’t stop you from posting a longer response, or looking for a shorter one. Entries will be accepted until midnight on Thursday, March 22.

Use the comments section below to register any and all answers, discussion, and comments. I won’t be around much the next couple of days to moderate this, so please work together. If someone posts an answer you think is right, go ahead and say so and offer some words of encouragement. Also, feel free to pass this along to anyone you think may be interested. Here is the direct link.

If this is all too overwhelming or confusing, then just enjoy these eight riddles, and I’ll be back soon to talk about something simple, like Shakespeare.

The Riddles:

1. I act Maynard G. Krebs, and I Gilligan feign;
I’m the Mile High hub; leaving on a jet plane;
With the dinosaurs gone, I’m the last to remain;
And peppers, ham, onions, and eggs I contain.

2. I’m a weave, or the shirt type for which it is known;
I’m the college of Thatcher and William Gladstone;
I’m an unabridged lexicon, standing alone;
And I’m also the clay that preserves a fish bone.

3. I was first worn by Chaplin before his divorce;
I’m a race to be run by a three-year-old horse;
When in cars, I’m a wreck; when on skates, I use force;
And the kids on their soap boxes follow my course.

4. I’m the former first lady of all New York State;
A Nobel-winning chemist who won for a date;
A survivor on Lost with too sudden a fate;
And an ex-Cheney aide who is now an inmate.

5. A brigade made of Wolverines served my command,
When the Sioux and Cheyenne boldy tried to expand.
But the Little Big Horn didn’t go quite as planned,
When I stood up to Sitting Bull – that’s my last stand.

6. If you’re bringing me home, it can be quite a slog;
You can link me to Hoffman or to Skip the Dog;
I’m a fried strip of meat from the gut of a hog;
And a regular feature right here on the blog.

7. I am not Robert Browning, but captured his soul;
I am Stanton, and Hurley, and Taylor, and Dole;
Though I lost that which Shakespeare in Love from me stole;
It was won back by Helen for playing my role.

8. Both the lion and lamb are my two weather guides;
I’m the music of Sousa; the steps it provides;
When in basketball, madness; in history, strides;
In the middle, a novel; Beware of the Ides!

Who are we? 

UPDATE: Riddles 1-6 and 8 solved by Andrew.  Riddle 7 solved by DeLisa.  Circles B and C solved by Annalisa.  See comments for all answers. 

I know I’ve been quiet lately, relying mostly on regular features to keep the site active. I’m going to try to post some actual content over the next couple of days, including some theatre reviews of local (NYC) Shakespeare events. In the meantime, allow me to share with you my favorite Shakespeare-related websites. Hey, Charlie, we’re going to Candy Mountain! Candy Mountain, Charlie!

Internet Shakespeare Editions: The site looks simple and elegant, but runs deep. You can actually view screen shots of the different editions of Shakespeare. You can also search a database of performance histories. Lots more here as well.

Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet: Primarily a portal to other Shakespeare sites, but the original content will make you want to stay for a while, particularly the interactive timeline of important events in Shakespeare’s life.

SCETI: Furness Collection: View a wide range of primary sources of Shakespeare and related subjects. Want to see a facsimile of Pope’s edition of Lear? Erasmus’s Praise of Folly? Or history’s most famous actors’ copies of the Shakespeare plays they performed in? It’s all here.

Shakespeare Resource Center: A site that lives up to its name. Rich with external links and organized by category, this site has enough original content that it will probably have what you’re looking for. But if it doesn’t, it will point you in the right direction.

Please enjoy these sites. And feel free to post some of your own favorites!

Today is the two month anniversary of this blog. Break out the champagne!

I want to thank everyone who has visited. I want to thank everyone who has left a comment, took a crack at a puzzle, or played one of the games. I want to thank everyone who has linked here, or has helped to spread the word. I have every confidence that, with your help, we can do another two months.

By the way, yesterday was a record-setting day for Shakespeare Teacher, so I really do appreciate everyone who has helped to get the word out. And these things matter less to me now, but I did want to note that this blog has now cracked the top million blogs in Technorati. It’s like a childhood dream come true.

(In my childhood, I always dreamed that there would one day be a global information network, and that I would moderate one of the top million non-commercial forums within it. I used to scribble Thursday Morning Riddles in my notebooks, and try to get my friends to play Six Degrees of Sir Francis Bacon at recess. That was before the Kevin Bacon game was popular. It’s funny how life works out sometimes.)

Okay, enough of that. I have stuff to do, and time is running out on this week’s Six Degrees. So we’d both better get moving. But I did want to say a word of thanks for joining me in my journey these past two months.

When you think about it, this is really a revolutionary technology.

Before the Internet, all of the mass media of the 20th century required a great deal of wealth to buy into. Whether it was the national newspaper, the radio, the moving picture, broadcast television, or cable television, only those who were in control of vast sums of wealth could afford to get their message out, which, not surprisingly, favored the interests of wealth. So for a long time, that was the only message that most people were getting.

But with the Internet, anybody can freely post their opinions. Now we truly can move toward an open and democratic exchange of political ideas without the corporate filter defining the terms of acceptable discourse. Even I can have my little piece of real estate and post anything I choose.

I choose to post a video of some guys reenacting the Death Star trench scene from Star Wars with their hands.

Well, yesterday was Blog for Choice Day, and I missed it. That in itself wouldn’t be so bad, but I just happened to write a flattering post about a pro-life Republican that day, so it hurts all the more.

I guess the millions of other pro-choice blogs out there covered the issue pretty well without me, and as always, The Onion makes the point as well as anyone. So I don’t really have much more to add to the conversation.

But one thing I’ve never understood is people who call themselves “pro-life” who support the death penalty. I mean, if we respect human life, doesn’t that mean all human lives, regardless of whether or not they share our respect for it? Isn’t respect for life more about how we act than it is about what they deserve?

Feel free to disagree, but then let’s knock off the “culture of life” rhetoric.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice maintains a website of all of their executed offenders, including name, crime, and last statement. It’s a chilling collection, and is almost certain to reinforce whatever beliefs you already have about the death penalty.