Links 12/30/08 (Wrapping Up the Year)
This is a great piece about the way marketing is changing the music industry. The writer is obviously displeased with this, but he does a nice job looking at the objective inevitability of the current trend.
Some choice quotes:
The question is: What happens to the music itself when the way to build a career shifts from recording songs that ordinary listeners want to buy to making music that marketers can use? That creates pressure, subtle but genuine, for music to recede: to embrace the element of vacancy that makes a good soundtrack so unobtrusive, to edit a lyric to be less specific or private, to leave blanks for the image or message the music now serves.
Musicians who don't expect immediate mass-market radio play -- maybe they're too old, maybe they're too eccentric -- have gotten their music on the air by selling it to advertisers. That can rev up careers, as Apple ads have done for Feist and for this year's big beneficiary, Yael Naim, whose "New Soul" introduced the MacBook Air. (Sites like findthatsong.net help listeners identify commercial soundtracks.)
Perhaps it's too 20th century to hope that music could stay exempt from multitasking, or that the constant insinuation of marketing into every moment of consciousness would stop when a song begins. But for the moment I'd suggest individual resistance. Put on a song with no commercial attachments. Turn it up. Close your eyes. And listen.
I have to admit to being torn on this subject myself. I think when done thoughtfully, marketed music can be a good thing. Playing games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band has broadened my musical horizons, and I am listening to and supporting artists I might have never discovered without these games. The same is true of the music in some commercials. However, when the songwriter goes into the process trying to write something marketers will grab and exploit, then the music and artistry suffer.
To an extent, selling-out may be a necessary component to success. Even performers like Bob Dylan and Michael Stipe have paid homage to the industry, but they have both done so while retaining those qualities in their music that makes them unique. Other artists merely become carbon copies following a cookie cutter song template. As with most things, balance is key. Music for the sake of music is a great ideal, but it may limit your exposure. On the other hand, sacrificing quality for marketability cheats the artist and the listeners.
How Barack Obama Could Become Al Gore 2.0
The Presidential Campaign of Al Gore 1.0
In 2000, the Democratic Party was all but assured another term in the White House. Al Gore swept the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Though widely criticized for his dishonesty regarding an affair with Monica Lewinsky, departing President Bill Clinton was leaving with an approval rating of 68% – a higher departing percentage than any president since polling was established seventy years earlier (unless you count presidents who died in office i.e. FDR and JFK). Al Gore's running mate would be the then-popular Joseph Lieberman, a man who could reach across party lines and attract conservative and value-based voters who might otherwise have shied form voting for Gore.
Al Gore image by Breuwi. Geroge W. Bush image by Shawn Clark
On the Republican side, numerous potential candidates were jockeying for power. There was Steve Forbes, John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, and Pat Buchanan among others. Thrown into the mix was Texas governor George W. Bush, son of a former president. The primaries ensued with Bush trailing McCain by 19% at one point, but Bush pulled out ahead to take the nomination. He was considered by many to be intellectually inferior to Gore, and McCain's campaign accused him of mudslinging his way to victory.
In one of the most controversial elections in this nation's history, Bush narrowly defeated Gore by five electoral votes. He lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 and 0.5%. The outcome ultimately came down to a Supreme Court decision ruling Florida's recounting of votes as unconstitutional. Suspicion also fell upon Florida's governor – George W. Bush's younger brother.
Regardless of the political nuances regarding counting the votes, the election was a huge upset because Gore was such a certain candidate. He wasn't expected to defeat Bush. He was expected to overwhelm Bush, but he didn't.
Al Gore and the Liberal Media
How could Gore have lost this election? One of my family members has suggested that the nation seeks refuge in conservatism after being subjected to liberal politics for too long. I tend to disagree based on the numbers. Again, Bush did win the electoral vote, but he lost the popular vote. The general population did not exactly flock to the Republicans after Clinton, and remember that Clinton – despite scandal – remained a popular president throughout his two terms. Certainly, Al Gore did himself few favors by keeping his emotions so close in check and playing to the middle, a strategy that Ariana Huffington thinks hurt his chances.In October 2007, Evgenia Peretz published an article in Vanity Fair called Going After Gore. It was the first truly in-depth interview with Mr. Gore since his 2000 defeat, and the author takes a very critical look at the role of the media in that election. The article opens with this blurb:
Al Gore couldn't believe his eyes: as the 2000 election heated up, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other top news outlets kept going after him, with misquotes ("I invented the Internet"), distortions (that he lied about being the inspiration for Love Story), and strangely off-the-mark needling, while pundits such as Maureen Dowd appeared to be charmed by his rival, George W. Bush.
Several eye-opening quotes fill the piece, paining a picture of a media that turns against the candidate it's assumed to be biased for. These are just some samples. Ms. Peretz goes much deeper in her article and examines the election coverage (or mis-coverage) in great detail.
Eight years ago, in the bastions of the "liberal media" that were supposed to love Gore—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, CNN—he was variously described as "repellent," "delusional," a vote-rigger, a man who "lies like a rug," "Pinocchio." Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.… Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."
"Particularly in presidential elections … we in the press tend to deal in caricatures," says Dan Rather, who was then anchoring for CBS. "Someone draws a caricature, and it's funny and at least whimsical. And at first you sort of say, 'Aw shucks, that's too simple.' In the course of the campaign, that becomes accepted wisdom." He notes, "I do not except myself from this criticism."
In 2000, the media seemed to focus on a personality contest between Bush, the folksy Texas rogue, and, as The New York Times referred to Gore, "Eddie Haskell," the insincere brownnoser from Leave It to Beaver. ABC anchor Claire Shipman, who covered the 2000 campaign for NBC, says, "It was almost a drama that was cast before anyone even took a good look at who the candidates were."
As with all campaigns, the coverage of the 2000 election would be driven by a small number of beat reporters. In this case, two women at the most influential newspapers in the country: Seelye from The New York Times and Ceci Connolly from The Washington Post … "They just wanted to tear Gore apart," says a major network correspondent on the trail.
The article paints a picture of a media that created a far more favorable characterization of Bush than it did of Gore, a media that glossed over Bush's misstatements while overanalyzing Gore. The author describes the media's treatment of Mr. Gore as toxic, and the Democratic candidate had to spend as much time fighting fraudulent information from news outlets as he did attacks from his opponent.
While Gore's presentation of himself was far from the dynamic and engaging speaker and activist he is today, his campaign was severely damaged by a media that was all to willing to deal in caricatures and silliness rather than focus on issues and objective reporting.
How 2008 Could Be 2000 Version 2.0
image by the Center for American Progress Action Fund
Again, we have a clear contrast between the Republican and Democratic candidates. In fact, basically the same intellectual and personality contrasts can be drawn between Obama and McCain as could be between Gore and Bush. Again, the Democratic nominee seems to be a sure win. One advantage Obama has over Gore is a somewhat undefinable presence that demands rapt attention, but, like Gore, Obama has been moving to a more centrist platform as his campaign evolves. Likewise, McCain's positions on several issues have been drifting to the right.
How is the media faring? Recently, McCain and conservative pundits have been complaining that Obama has received more than twice as much airtime after the primaries. However, according to the Los Angeles Times, that coverage has not been kind.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Writing for the New York Times, Frank Rich reinforces the idea that Obama is succeeding despite the media rather than because of it:
The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”
Again, the media has begun to deal in characters rather than people, and they are tailoring their coverage of the candidates and events to fit those roles they have cast – McCain the grandfatherly war hero and Obama the socialist (potentially) Muslim elitist.
Think of the sheer number of media blitzes that have surrounded Obama's campaign: the Jeremiah Wright soundbite, "guns and religion," flag pins, "terrorist fist-jabs," madrasah, etc. Every move this man makes, every word he utters, every association he has comes under the most sensational scrutiny. In contrast, McCain receives free pass after free pass from the media.
Here are some examples from Media Matters. Please note, all of these examples focus on only one network, and it's not Fox.
- Media outlets reported McCain's
criticism of Obama's "political speech" in
Germany, didn't note McCain's own recent speech
in Canada
- CBS News omitted a second McCain
falsehood: his characterization of Iraq war as
"the first major conflict since 9/11"
- Despite warning that any "gaffe" by
Obama on his trip could be disastrous, nets'
evening news broadcasts ignored McCain
misstatements in same period
- Couric did not challenge McCain's
suggestion that "five Nobel laureates and 300
economists" agree he can balance the budget
- CBS' Schieffer left out part of Obama
speech that undermined Schieffer's suggestion of
a "different take" on Iraq policy
- Numerous media outlets reported
McCain's attack on Obama over public financing
without noting McCain's loan
- Today, Early Show covered Wright
interview, but didn't ask McCain about Hagee
- CBS report on candidates' tendency to "exaggerate ... his or her record" ignored several McCain distortions of his record
This is just a sampling and doesn't cover numerous flip-flops by McCain that the media has largely ignored as well as various offensive jokes he has made or claims to not know how he voted on some issues. On Crooks and Liars, Jon Amato, commenting the media glossing over one of McCain's misstatements once rhetorically asked, "What if Obama had said this?"
"What if?" indeed.
Avoiding a Repeat of History
While I think my political leanings are somewhat evident, I'm not writing this to tell you for whom to vote. I am, however, writing this to tell you how to vote – not as a Republican or as a Democrat, but as an informed individual.Vote informed, not educated by the mainstream media which doesn't inform so much as it entertains through information. Do your own research on the candidates. Fact-check everything. Read the candidates positions from their own websites (Obama, McCain). Read independent commentary. Go look at their voting records yourself (Obama, McCain). Go to a rally and ask them your questions in person, but don't trust what you see on TV or hear on the radio at face value.
And never, ever use the term liberal media again. Two main contributors hurt the Al Gore campaign of 2000: a political move to the center and a media that was more interested in drama and caricatures than facts. WIth both candidates in this election, political drifting is potentially damaging to their campaigns, but you can eliminate the other variable. Don't vote for some two-dimension cardboard cutout as portrayed by the mainstream media. Look beyond the hype. Don't become acquainted with characters on TV. Acquaint yourselves with the people, and make a decision based on information rather than infotainment.
Update: Media Matters Action Network is creating on online pledge regarding monitoring media bias – especially in regards to Republican candidates and talking points. Check it out if this interests you.
Savaging Autism and Asthma
…A fraud, a racket. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is.
I have to admit that I didn't write about this the moment I read about it. I had to cool down first. Mr. Savage should be congratulated. He's now one of only four figures in the media who have managed to get under my skin. (In case you are wondering, the other three are Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh.)
Let's start with the assertion that 99% of autism cases are fraudulent. This figure is based on what, exactly? Does Mr. Savage have any scientific studies or educational experience to back this up? Has he personally conducted observation and surveys of autism-diagnosed children to verify the veracity of said diagnosis? No, he does what too many other talking-heads do. He makes up a statistic on the spot – a lie that his loyal listeners will begin repeating as fact.
He supports his hypothesis by citing minority asthma diagnoses.
For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden -- why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I'll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket.
Of course, he fails to notice that concentrated minority populations are often centered most heavily around urban developments where air quality is generally poorer and temperatures are generally higher – compounding factors in the development of lung conditions such as asthma. He fails to note that the still-present racial economic divide gives many minority families less access to locations or products providing cleaner air. No, in his mind, minorities are thieves and doctors are supremely gullible.
He also fails to draw a parallel between asthma and autism that should be obvious. If autism, like asthma, is a minority-driven racket, why are the diagnosis rates among racially diverse populations not significantly higher than among Caucasians. Again, he is presenting his information so that his audience infers conclusions that are simply untrue.
Of the parents I come in contact with on a daily basis, those of my autistic children have some of the highest expectations. They are the most consistent, the most structured. They go above and beyond to ensure their children can function properly in a social world. In fact, if money was the issue, as Mr. Savage suggests, these parents picked the wrong disorder. Getting insurance to help with autism treatment can be a difficult task.
Are there misdiagnoses? Of course, especially since the academic and medical communities' understanding of autism is still evolving. However, it's much harder to misdiagnose autism and much easier to later catch a misdiagnosis than with some other learning disabilities such as ADHD. An autism label is not an excuse, nor is it a cop-out. It is a flag that this child does need help in specific areas, and the goal is that of independence – not reliance.
Mr. Savage wraps up with this jewel.
If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, "Don't behave like a fool." The worst thing he said -- "Don't behave like a fool. Don't be anybody's dummy. Don't sound like an idiot.
You know, that's actually good advice. I just wish Mr. Savage and the uncounted other pundits with a venue to vent would take it. The world would be a quieter, less angry place, and the autistic population would enjoy that immensely.
Update: Gedblog provides some more commentary, and the author wonders what kind of backlash these remarks could gather from parents of autistic children.
via Media Matters
Lara Long On the Daily Show
Jon's interview with Lara Long is amazing, and it serves as a humbling reminder as to why it's important we keep hearing reports from the front lines. Regardless of your opinion or my opinion of the administration and the rationalizations that led to this conflict, our troops do deserve more attention and respect than they have been getting, especially in the mainstream media.
How Is This Not Slander?
image from Salon.com
From Wikipedia:
A baby mama (also baby-mama and baby-mother) is a mother who is not married to her child's father. The Oxford English Dictionary defines baby mama as "the mother of a man's child, who is not his wife or (in most cases) his current or exclusive partner".
Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson were married in 1992. Their daughters were born in 1998 and 2001. Either Malkin is ignorant or vindictive in her use of this term, and with Fox News' history of hateful, racist, and sometimes even misogynistic coverage of politics, the latter would not surprise me.
Soundbite Judgment
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
In this context, the authors implicitly ask (though it is not the thrust of the article) about what standards we use to judge character and how we assess the quality of a person from the information we have on that individual.
I would wager that most of us know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright because of his ties to presidential candidate Barack Obama. I would also wager that most of what you've heard about him centers around a specific ~30-second video clip where he proclaims condemnation against America (or, specifically, our current administration and its policies). We've seen the video looped dozens of times, but does this audio bite give us a clear picture of who Jeremiah Wright is?
I would venture to say it does not.
How many of us could have our reputations harmed if we were judged by a random thirty-second bite of our lives? How many of us have never said or done something others might find questionable, objectionable, or downright offensive – especially if taken out of context. This hypothetical edit of our lives is all someone else has by which to judge us. Do we really want that?
The Reverend Wright is an example of this soundbite judgment. How many of us knew anything at all about him prior to this brouhaha? Conversely, how many of us tried to find anything meaningful out about him afterwards? Here are some bullet points you might not have known about Rev. Wright:
- He has a wife and five children.
- He gave up a student deferment to serve in the Marines at the age of 20.
- He graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.
- He later graduated as salutatorian from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
- He served as part of President Lydon B. Johnson's medical team.
- The White House awarded him with three letters of commendation by 1967.
- He has been a professor for and served on the board of Chicago Theological Seminary.
- He has been honored by Ebony magazine as one of their top fifteen preachers.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
He also outlines much of the good Rev. Wright has been responsible for:
The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
This took about fifteen seconds of casual Internet research, and, already, here is a far more complete picture of a man the media wants to portray as a two-dimensional, anti-American radical.
A Brief Tangent on the Media and Its Portrayal of Public Figures
In an October 2007 article of Vanity Fair looking back at the 2000 election, Dan Rather had some interesting things to say regarding the media's role in public perception of political figures:"Particularly in presidential elections … we in the press tend to deal in caricatures," says Dan Rather, who was then anchoring for CBS. "Someone draws a caricature, and it's funny and at least whimsical. And at first you sort of say, 'Aw shucks, that's too simple.' In the course of the campaign, that becomes accepted wisdom." He notes, "I do not except myself from this criticism."
The article goes on to point out exactly how Gore and Bush were characterized in that election:
In 2000, the media seemed to focus on a personality contest between Bush, the folksy Texas rogue, and, as The New York Times referred to Gore, "Eddie Haskell," the insincere brownnoser from Leave It to Beaver. ABC anchor Claire Shipman, who covered the 2000 campaign for NBC, says, "It was almost a drama that was cast before anyone even took a good look at who the candidates were."
The basic problem here is a simple one: news programs do not exist to inform you so much as they exist to entertain you with information. Therefore, a media outlet such as NBC Nightly News, CNN, Fox News, and even many blogs will present facts about individuals in as sensational a way as possible to support a nearly fictional drama of events – especially when it comes to politics.
The reasons behind this are simple. News outlets are ad-driven revenue resources. Television programs sell commercial space. Print sources sell ad space, and websites secure advertisement revenue based on page hits. What will attract more attention to drive up advertisement revenue then – a story that rationally looks at some ill-informed remarks in context and discusses the influences that might have led to such statements or a story that vilifies said individual by focusing in the most negative aspect possible?
The media focuses on two-dimensional portrayals of politically hot figures because it makes money – not because it makes you a more informed voter.
Back to the Point
This brings us back to Rev. Wright. Does all of this make his remarks okay? I don't think so. Again quoting Barack Obama:As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems...
However, if we take a minute to turn away from the hype and look at the person, such remarks are easier to understand. It is more difficult to vilify the man because now he is more real. He is tangible. He is no longer a stereotyped character who exists on a 30-second YouTube video merely as fodder for controversy. He is a human like you and me, and we should therefore judge him as we would want to be judged ourselves.
Matthew 7:1-2 is one of the most misused passages of the Bible, but I think it is particularly relevant at this point.
Judge not, that you be not judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured unto you.
I would encourage all of us, as we continue into this election season, to be careful of soundbite judgments, to be careful of jumping to conclusions about an individual based on a snippet of information a media outlet deems sensational enough for its purposes. I imagine no one reading this blog would want their lives, beliefs, and values judged in such a way, so let's show enough reason and kindness to extend that same courtesy to public figures as well.
Links 12/30/07 (End of the Year Edition)
Stand for Change: Full video of Barack's speech in Des Moines
Honestly, this is one of the best speeches given by a political figure in years. Regardless of your political party affiliation, this is inspiring stuff.
You can find an entire transcript right here.
AFP: 2007 stem cell breakthrough is like turning lead into gold
Stem cell research is getting more and more interesting, especially as scientists are finding ways to procure said cells without damaging embryos in the process. It's amazing this research is progressing so quickly despite political obstacles.
From the article:
"This is truly the Holy Grail: To be able to take a few cells from a patient -- say a cheek swab or few skin cells -- and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Robert Lanza, a stem cell pioneer at Advanced Cell Technology.
George Orwell: The Freedom of the Press
This preface to Animal Farm was omitted at the time of the book's publication, and it's an interesting read for anyone who is a fan of Orwell's works. Additionally, like many of his writings, this preface is eerily prophetic in many aspects.
Links 12/21/07
NYT: Apple Rumor Site to Shut Down in Settlement
What exactly did Apple gain in pursuing this to begin with? It sure isn't good PR...
Ars Technica: Exclusive: Retail chain scalping Wii allotment on eBay
Ars breaks a story on a chain of gaming stores that are not selling Wiis in their storefronts. Rather, they are putting them straight onto eBay at a nearly 100% markup. While not outright illegal, this is certainly no way to gain consumer trust.
Currently, the accused retailer has an official response on its website's front page. Check it out.
Ars Technica: RIAA writes its own "news" for local TV stations
My love for the RIAA never wanes, so I have to pass this piece along about a somewhat factually-sketchy informercial the organization wants aired in news broadcasts.
I think this quote sums it up well:
For an industry already the target of so much consumer suspicion, feeding misleading claims and self-serving footage to ostensibly objective "news" outlets just doesn't seem like a great idea.
Links 09/04/07
Vanity Fair Columnist Evgenia Peretz pens a fascinating piece about the role of the media in Al Gore's 2000 presidential defeat. This is an important lesson as we enter another season of political reporting – the reporters are not infallible, and an informed voter should double-check the facts before passing judgment.
From the article:
As Jonathan Alter points out, "Overall, the press was harder on Gore than it was on Bush.… The consequences of [that] in such a close election were terrifying."
The article also clarifies former U.S. Representative Dick Armey's (R) misstatement that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. He only claimed to have strongly supported making it available to the civilian public.
Vinton Cerf, often called the father of the Internet, has claimed that the Internet would not be where it was without Gore's leadership on the issue. Even former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich has said that "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
Coulter and Market Validation
"...and I'm a little sick of being browbeaten..."
I find this terribly ironic since so much of the criticism laid out against her focuses on her demeaning and browbeating others. Coulter claims to be a Christian, so this should be a simple lesson: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If she doesn't want people to level personal attacks against her, she should first clean up her own act.
"...I have written five New York Times bestsellers. People like the way I write..."
In other words, she is taking the very conservative approach of validation through market success. The market has decided she is a good author, so that must mean everything she says or writes is justified and above criticism. If we follow this logic, here are some other authors and books that have been market approved:
- God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens
- The Assault on Reason by Al Gore
- Outrage by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
- It Takes a Village by Hillary Rodham Clinton
- The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
- The Truth (With Jokes) by Al Franken
- America (The Book) by Jon Stewart
- Dude, Where's My Country by Michael Moore
- My Life by Bill Clinton
I could go on and on here. The point is that she would have no problem criticizing these New York Times bestsellers, so why should she think that status somehow exempts her from the same? Furthermore, games like the Grand Theft Auto series, God of War, Gears of War, and Manhunt have been market successes, but I doubt Coulter would endorse any of them. (I'm not very informed about movies and TV shows, so I'll let you come up with your own examples.)
Some media personalities have defended Coulter saying she brings up real issues that need discussing, and I can see where they are coming from. However, as long as those issues are bing wrapped in senselessly insensitive remarks, insults, and derogatory comments, I don't want to listen. Regardless of your values, political agenda, or religious background, petty attacks demean and hinder the political dialogue in this country – and they encourage more knee-jerk responses than they do honest examination and discussion.
I'm going to stop talking about this now. I promise.
I Am So Going to Get Branded for This
In this light, I find it completely understandable that radio host Don Imus was dismissed after his most recent foray into racist comments. He did have a long history of doing so, and enough was enough. However, I'm also a big fan of consistency. I know, it's an idealistic flaw, but I can't fathom why some other media pundits get away with what they say time and time again. Take Ann Coulter for example. (Disclosure: Please note that these YouTube videos are posted by political bloggers, so some bias is noticeable.)
Why Coulter? Two recent examples:
What was that again?
"If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
This isn't the first time she's wished death on others in public either. In 2002, she said:
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Uh-huh. Also, let's not forget this gem:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Okay, that's just sick. Does this mean she doesn't really mind that so many people died in Oklahoma City so much as the fact that no one in the NYT building has been brutally and inhumanely murdered? The mind reels. Absolutely reels.
Example number two:
Regardless of how you feel about Obama's speech (and there is a lot in it that could be debated healthily and respectfully), pay attention to one of the first things out of Coulter's mouth:
"I do think someone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using hijack and religion in the same sentence."
Oh no she didn't! Last I checked, Obama goes by "Barack Obama" 100% of the time. She purposefully manipulates his name to create a terrorist correlation among her viewers! This is interesting coming from someone who claims she believes in "the dignity of all humans."
This respecter of human dignity has also publicly called both Al Gore and John Edwards "faggots." She has called other members of the media "retarded" and worthy of execution.
As a bonus quote that disrespects no one but the world we live on, here is Coulter's take on the environment:
"God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
DId she just use "rape" so flippantly in that sentence? I think she did.
I'm sorry about the rant-like nature of this post, but the hate speech and character smearing needs to stop on all sides – especially from those who claim to be spiritual people. In full disclosure, I would fall closer to what is described as the Religious Right than anywhere else, but I'm sick and tired of how people who might be lumped into that same category behave. Ideally, we have freedom to say and publish what we want to – what may even be necessary – without the fear of political retribution. However, that is a right that must be used responsibly in the example we set for others and the tone we foster among our fellow citizens.
Imus is off the air for his remarks. How is Ann Coulter any better?
The Ice Cream of Liberty
x
With a face like that, how can you not love his ice cream?
The ice cream container (whom I feel to be fair and unbiased in my heart) claims Americone Dream is "sweeter than the Bill of Rights, colder than Valley Forge, and with twice as much caramel as the Louisiana Purchase." But I say it tastes like a spoonful of freedom swirled with the succulent nectar of liberty. I advise you to stay the course to your favorite ice cream vendor (that sells Ben & Jerry's) and liberate a pint from the oppressive clutches of the grocer's freezer.
If the goal is tastiness, this ice cream can claim, "Mission Accomplished."
(Wow, between this link and my Links tonight, I am absolutely on fire!)
Links 05/08/07
Wow. This should have been the case years ago. It's amazing how "intellectual property" squandering can lead to derailments in common sense.
Again with Blaming Games
It also makes me frustrated how individuals come out of the woodwork at times like these to further their own agendas through uninformed tactics that morbidly entice the public into either higher ratings or political support. Again, a violent act is being used to propagate the hypothetical video game-rampage link. I really wasn't going to write about this at first, but I strongly dislike these kind of blame-games being played that divert the concepts of personal accountibility and responsibility from our minds.
First up is Dr. Phil:
And the problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me - common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society.
I have a grudging respect for Dr. Phil (despite his former association with Oprah), but here he's taking a tried-and-true approach: "video games train our children to be murderers." However, playing Grand Theft Auto, for example, trains me in the art of killing no more than Gran Turismo makes me a better race car driver, Mario Golf makes me a better golfer, or Trauma Center makes me a better surgeon.
I agree that desensitization to violence can only be a Bad Thing™, but desensitization does not equate actions. Again, playing Mario Golf does not make me more likely to step onto a golf course at any point in my life. Likewise, having played a game like Halo does not compel me to perform acts of violence toward anyone.
Of course, Jack Thompson has a thing or two to say:
Several Korean youths who knew Cho Seung Hui from his high school days said he was a fan of violent video games, particularly Counterstrike, a hugely popular online game published by Microsoft, in which players join terrorism or counter-terrorism groups and try to shoot each other using all types of guns.
A game depicting counter-terrorism and warfare? You mean like this one published by the United States government? Why aren't you blaming republicans for the violence? Oh yeah, blaming Bill Gates will get more attention.
Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill ... Mr. Gates, pull the plug on Counterstrike today, or do we need more dead to convince you? “Virginia Tech” was the 9-11 of school shootings, and it appears Microsoft is in the middle of it, in more ways than one.
I feel bad for Microsoft. It was bad enough when everyone wanted to vilify them as the Evil Software Empire. Now they are a bunch of murderers too. By the way, poll a bunch of random high school-aged males. I bet more than a few of them play or have played violent video games. Two individuals out of millions does not a trend make.
Now, on a more technical note, shouldn't this rant have been addressed to Steve Ballmer, as in the man who actually runs Microsoft and has for the past seven years. I know – I'm picking nits. Calling out Bill Gates (who people have actually heard of) will get more attention, and that is all Mr. Thompson is really after.
Finally, we have a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show:
I’ll bet my last dollar in my pocket, that this shooter will be found to have been a compulsive video gamer, and when people are living that kind of lifestyle - and college students do this a lot.
I totally expected Mr. Limbaugh to take this and run with it, but he did not.
Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus though. There’s more to this than that… it may desensitize people, but it doesn’t turn everybody into mass murderers.
Here, I think, is a key issue. There are 103 million PS2s in homes, 21 million GameCubes, 24 million XBoxes, almost 3 million PS3s, 6 million Wiis, 10 million XBox 360s, 17 million PSPs, 79 million GameBoy Advances, and 35 million DS units in the hands of consumers worldwide. This is only counting currently supported systems, but that equals almost 300 million current gaming products. Also, this does not count people who game on their PCs. (As a note, at 11:43 p.m. EDT, there are 177,930 PC users logged into GameSpy Live.)
You would think, with those incredible numbers, that juvenile homicide rates would be skyrocketing. However, the opposite is true:
Sternheimer notes an obvious but underemphasized figure: despite the proliferation of violent, first-person shooters in the wake of Doom, juvenile homicide rates have fallen in the decade since its release. Random school shootings remain incredibly rare; for all forms of homicide, students face a seven in 10 million chance of being a victim.
Additionally, two separate reports have recently failed to find a causal link between video games and violent behavior. One report was conducted by the British Board of Film Classification where it was noted:
... Even the "interactivity" of video games can keep gamers from getting immersed in the same way, since players are continuously reminded that they are controlling the action on-screen. The report also notes that gamers are less involved emotionally in games, in part because games often stress action over character and story development.
Also:
... Gamers almost never feel that the onscreen violence is making them more open to using violence. "I no more feel that I have actually scored a goal than I do that I have actually killed someone," said one participant. "I know it’s not real. The emphasis is on achievement."
The other is a study from the journal Psychology, Crime, & Law, noting that stable populations remain largely unaffected by video game violence:
The authors propose that gamers fall into two groups: stable personalities, and those with emotional states that are susceptible to being influenced by game play. Within the latter group, the response to violent games largely depends on the emotional states of the gamers when they begin play. Angry gamers will cool off, calm gamers will get agitated. They also note that only two of the cases of rising anger reached levels that would be considered cause for concern, suggesting that dangerous levels of anger were rarely triggered by gaming.
Unfortunately, video gaming is the most recent media scapegoat to cause such atrocities, joining the illustrious ranks of world religions, TV, movies, rock music, and banned books. This speaks to a deeper problem, though, in which we, as a collective consciousness, have grown overly comfortable with "passing the buck." We have our folk devils that can carry the blame, so we don't have to look in the mirror and face responsibilities we would rather avoid. Until we can wean ourselves away from the folk devils and start facing our own sense of accountability as a group entity and as individuals, tragic events such as this will not go away – no matter who or what we blame.
Links 03/05/07
"DMCA scholars often spar over whether or not the blanket prohibition against circumventing access controls truly applies to fair use, but I think it's quite clear what the RIAA and the content industry thinks: the DMCA makes circumvention illegal, period. Does this all-or-nothing principle sound familiar? If you're thinking of Prohibition in the United States, you're right on the money."
Opposable Thumbs: Reviewing reviews: a rebuttal
I didn't even know this was an issue, and I don't know why anyone at Sony would care ... unless they are just bitter about the negative press the PS3 and some of its launch titles have been receiving.
Let's see, instead of focusing on games I've avoided due to reviews, here are some games I never would have bought had it not been for the reviews I read: Burnout 3, Katamari Damacy, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Pikmin 2, Dark Cloud, Beyond Good & Evil, Lego Star Wars, SSX Tricky, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Silent Hill 2, and Animal Crossing.
For the most part, if I want a game enough, I'll at least rent it despite the reviews. On the other hand, good reviews have turned me on to properties that I might have otherwise dismissed, and many of these have sequels I've picked up. In my opinion, reviews are good as long as some other consumers are like me.
Nobel Intent: An ancient solar observatory
"Dating suggested that the towers were constructed around the 4th century B.C., making them over 2,300 years old. According to Ghezzi, "Chankillo reflects well-developed astronomical principles, which suggests the original forms of astronomy must be quite older," than previously believed."
Macworld UK: Mac Users were Microsoft's "Guinea Pigs"
You know what? Ignore this article. Read the real memo instead. It tells the story of someone working hard to keep an important Mac application alive despite upper management. The "guinea pig" quote in the memo really comes off as Waldman trying to appeal to Gate's judgment. Mac sites are making this more sensational than it is, and they are making the good guy in the story sound like a villain...
I post this because I am getting tired of the Mac web going out of its way to vilify any individual even remotely associated with Microsoft.
As Opposed To ... What?
Fox: ever appealing to some kind of common denominator.
Links 02/26/07
Now just give me Majora's Mask, and you may see me trying to hunt a Wii down in the wild.
image from Wikipedia
Apple – iPhone – Hello
If you missed the iPhone ad during the Oscars, here it is available in four sizes.
Breitbart: Scholars Criticize New Jesus Documentary
In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.
"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.
Destructoid: Ode to the Extra Life
Where would we be today without extra lives? Follow the above link to a truly moving tribute to one of gaming's most taken-for-granted features.
Goodbye OPM
Various OPM employees have blogged about the demise of the magazine and what it means to them. (Joe, Dana, Scooter) As it turns out, it seems some of them, even the biggest contributors, are just flat out-of-work now. The OPM Message Boards have had numerous posts of frustration, encouragement, and memories, and one last RadiOPM is being broadcast as a final sendoff. Also, the final magazine itself features farewells from the staff and well-wishes from readers.
OPM was nothing earth-shattering. It was a well-done magazine about games. Admittedly, that is a rarity, but it's not like the publication solved problems like cancer, world hunger, global warming, or HIV. What it did do, though, was bring some joy to the gamers that were old enough to appreciate it for what it was.
OPM has been the only magazine I've regularly purchased for the last five or six years. They still packaged PS1 demo discs on alternating months when I first began reading. In fact, I saved those monthly demo discs for a while because we didn't even have a PS2 back then (and we've never owned a PS1)! How strange is that? Even in this age of websites and downloadable content, a part of me likes the feel of holding a magazine, enjoys the immediacy of a demo disc over waiting for a download. To me, those tangibles were worth the $10 per issue.
I hope everyone at OPM lands on their feet all right. Thanks for the great magazine!