NW: I think they just filter for their audience. One is rural, politically conservative, and 90 miles from a major city. The other is a major coastal liberal city. I think that this observation is in part what led to my making this work. I listen to the radio in these two areas and became aware of how different they are. And they are both 'public radio.' Then I started to peruse several community newspapers. The news from the newspaper was both similar and very different to the radio news. I started to see corporate packaging of information in the local press; it is sometimes not so local after all. So, I was working over in my mind what this was about. The result was "The Daily Planet Interactive."

EJ: With your ideas of how media culture is today (also in the past, and possibly in the future), why do you find it important to critique mainstream (American) media culture? Do you specifically question small community politics? American response to censorship? and/or other?

NW: My work is in part the process I go through to understand the world I live in. So, the work is a critique, but I made it because I find the 'news' and media culture confusing and wanted to gain some understanding regarding what it is really about or rather what I think it is really about. I question all politics because I am learning that 'political' does not mean 'right action', but rather 'special interest'. Regarding censorship-- I don't know what you perceive as the "American response to censorship". I guess when I think of censorship here I think of Puritan values, which basically are not open to difference. Dissidence is not widely accepted until someone is dead and has become a celebrity. I am observing that American media is big on fear and spectacle and small on 'real' communication. The 'mindmap' image best describes the ideas and issues behind "The Daily Planet Interactive". I made it in part because it was difficult to write about succinctly. So many elements seem disparate, but are deeply interrelated.

EJ: Are there more main issues you hope to address in regards to information delivery systems and American media culture/cultural identity?

NW: I am interested in the transience of celebrity and spectacle, and the repetition (through time) of 'newsworthy' events. Many of the headlines could be from a hundred years ago, it's just that the specifics are different. (This is why I have removed identifying names from headlines). I am curious about what this says in regards to the human condition. I am interested in the power and (often unquestioned) sanctity of news reports. Power=access to and control of information. I think that part of the reason that the U.S. is what it is, is because the larger mainstream population accepts/is comfortable with the larger mainstream media reports. Therefore, there is a sense of complacency/an absence of questioning the validity of the source/an absence of critical thinking in regards to 'reported' facts, events and effects. I am interested in the relationships that I am observing between: political correctness; citizen engagement/grassroots activism, i.e. democracy; societal dysfunction; and 'belief' on the part of individuals that their voice and their opinions are not only meaningful, but 'correct'.

EJ: I really enjoyed the interactive aspect of The Global Voice/Opinions. Do you think that this interactive aspect is an attribute in your site that primarily fosters viewer interest?

NW: I have been investigating audience interactivity in art environments for almost ten years. I am interested in creating experiential works that have the potential to instigate a slippage of thought in the participant. The type of interactivity employed by "The Daily Planet Interactive" is inherent to the medium, and thus had to be there, but it also comments/plays with current trends in media culture--the voice on the street, reality TV, opinion polls. Yet, it also has the potential to empower the individual, and that initially was my main interest. I enjoy the incongruity this creates in the work.